became Prophets and Kings and Priests unto their God Every true beleever hath his conscience so illuminated that he is a Prophet to himself and is so sanctified that he hath victorie and dominion over his lusts and offereth up himself a living sacrifice to God See 1 Iohn 4.6 Heb. 8.10 11. 1. Pet. 2.9 Rev. 5.10 Rom. 12.1 3. All those three Worthies before-named were Prophets as some of our Hebrew Doctors have observed Abrahâ—m is expresly called a Prophet Gen. 20.7 Isaac prophesied in the benedictions which he gave to his Sons Gen. 27. And Iacob prophesied Gen. 49. This Exposition is very well acquainted with that Text of the Psalmist The end of the Verse commenteth upon the beginning and telleth us in what sense they were called the Lords Anointed See Ger. 20.7 Aben-Ezra upon Psal 105.15 construeth the word Anointed into a double sense viz. Princes and Prophets but the same Scholiast upon Gen. 23.6 saith that Abraham was called a Prince of God because he was a Prophet As he was a Prophet he was lifted up into a degree of dignity above those who were not Prophets as the word which is translated a Prince importeth And so I conceive with Onkelos that he is there signified to be a Prince before the Lord rather then a great Prince although he was truly great because he was so highly honoured of God In the same notion the Priests are called Princes of God 1 Chron. 24.5 And Rachels prayers for Children the wrestlings of God Gen. 30.8 But by the mountains of God Psal 36.7 are meant great mountains and by the Cedars of God Psal 80.11 tall Cedars The flame of God Cantic 8 6. is a most vehement flame In this Scripture the Hebrew for God is Iah in those two places in the Psalms El in the other three places quoted Elohim Gods Strength or greatnes is an essential attribute of God but the Prophets and Priests were dignified by and in the presence of the three sacred persons and Rachel powred out her prayers before the blessed Trinity It is competently clear from what I have said upon Psal 105.15 that by Gods Anointed there are meant such as were not Kings but over their own Families and that those who were commanded not to hurt them neither to doe them harm were not in subjection to them and the matter of the Commandement is that they should offer them no wrrong The strength of this precept doth not so tie the hands of Princes but that they have liberty upon some occasions to make War against other Princes who are without the circumference of their dominion and endeavour to subdue them nor yet so confine Subjects that they may not lawfully defend their right against their Princes I acknowledge that men are by the impetuousnes of a native distemper till such time as it be restrained and bridled by grace carried on to envie such as God hath placed in authority over them Moses and Aaron because they were highly in favour with God were envied and hated by a great party of the Israelites Farre be it from me to countenance this Anarchicall humor We sin if we withdraw from any whilst they have lawfull authority over us and rule well our due subjection yet I see not that they are so baracadoed by the Law of God against all opposition that it should be unlawfull upon any occasion whatsoever to resist or to question them CHAP. 14. An Argument which is wont to be drawn from 1. Sam. 24.6 and c. 26.9 10 11. is propounded THe main pillar by which Tyranny is supported remaineth still unshaken viz. Davids Authority or testimony for the unlawfullness of killing Saul when God had delivered him up into his hands which is expressed 1 Sam. 24.6 c. 26.9 10 11. And he said unto his Men in the former of these Scriptures the Lord forbid that I should do this thing unto my Master the Lords anointed to stretch forth my hand against him seeing he is the Anointed of the Lord. And David said to Abishai in the other place quoted destroy him not for who can stretch forth his hand against the Lords Anointed and be guiltless David said further more as the Lord liveth the Lord shall smite him or his day shall come to dye or he shall descend into Battail and perish The Lord forbid that I should stretch forth mine hand against the Lords Anointed Many now a days in their familiar discourses allege for Tyrants immunity from censures especially from deposition and capitall punishment the example of Saul and his successors in the Kingdom This their argument should scarce have any shew of a foundation in Saul should have in regard of him no firmer basis then a Castle in the air were they not beholden to the text that I have now quoted Whereas God requireth that those who have committed murther * Gen. 9.6 Compare also the 6 Commandement with the scope of it be put to death * Rom. 13. by the Magistrate and hath made it * Compare the 6. Commandement with the scope of it a mans duty to kill another if he can rather than to suffer himself to be murthered David seemeth to except all violence which is offered by tyrants even that which amounteth to the endangering of other mens lives from such rough and austere replies and to leave unto their subjects or rather their vassals no weapons but prayers and tears flight and lurking holes wherewith to defend themselves This Argument though nothing should be added to its stature would prove the Goliah of those who love to dispute themselves into slavery or else to share with Tyrants in their authority but is somewhat heightned and strengthned by some circumstances in Which David stood viz. his frequent dangers in regard of Saul by whom he was restlesly pursued and the dignity of his own person David lest Abishai should have conceived that although it was unlawfull for a private man to stretch forth his hand against the Lords anointed yet one anointed might stretch forth his hand against another after he had said * 1 Sam. 26.9 Who can stretch forth his hand against the Lords Anointed and be gniltless addeth The Lord forbid that I should stretch forth my hand against the Lords Anointed saith Abarbinel upon the place He intimateth that it was obvious to think that although it was a fault in some one to stretch forth his hand against the Lords Anointed yet not in David who was himself also the anointed of the Lord. That David should cause the Amalekite to be put to death who witnessed against himself that he had slain Saul contributeth no more to the preserving of the lives of Kings then of other men in that the party who accused himself could not pretend to any authority by which he might adjudge Saul to death nor yet plead that he slew him in his own defence CHAP. 15. One of the premises from which some conclude that all Kings are by divine right
us rather trust God for the backing of his vice-gerents here upon earth so long as they approve themselves to him than make a lye our refuge And though God may sometimes seem to sleep and not appear in his own cause to wit when due authority is opposed upon empty pretences Talera veritatem licit amara sit pick not quarrels with truth because it is bitter being wrested by mis application to countenance selfish designes and unjust proceedings What I have hitherto spoken touching the lawfulness of resisting Princes upon the occasion now mentioned is plentifully confirmed by some examples in Scripture and by the demenours of the Iews towards those who reigned over them without Gods immediate appointment and likewise by the practices of Christians I shall premise that if it be lawfull foâ— one subject or for one inconsiderable number to resist a Prince then much more for a whole state David should have troubled God with a needless and impertinent question asking whether the men of Keilah would deliver him up into Sauls hand unless he intended there to secure himself from Sauls mischievous practices and to offend him rather than not to defend himself Saul and his men might easily have sealled the walls of Keilah should David have used no resistance and in case he had resisted Sauls force an arrow or a stone would have made no distinction between Saul and his men Did not Azariah the Priest think it lawfull to resist King Uzziah in the defence of the Ceremoniall Law * 2 Chron. 26.17 when he followed him into the Temple attended with no fewer then 80 Priests and those valiant men Were not the 80 Priests which accompanied Uzziah of the same sense and judgement The Iewes themselves by their demeanors towards Alexander Iannaeus who together with his Predecessor and those who succeeded him are in the Talmud called Kings of Israel because they were not of the Family of David declare that they thought it lawfull for them not only to depose but also to inflict capitall punishment upon those who reigned over them without Gods immediate appointment Alexander Iannaeus was King over the Iewes Ioseph Antiq. Indaic l. 13. c. 20. Gem. Sanhed c. 2. He was convented by the Sanhedrim Gem. Sanhed c. 2. The Iewes raised warre against him neither would be satisfied with any terms without his death Ioseph Antiq. Iudaic. l. 13. c. 21 22. Schammai rebuked the rest of the Sanhedrin and King Hireanus shewing favour to Herod Ioseph Antiq. Iudaic. lib. 14. cap. 17. I shall now briefly explain how Gods people in the younger times of Christian Religion by their practices testified that they thought it lawfull to resist those who were in authority over them when they went about to destroy or to deprave Religion or to impedite the advancement thereof Whereas the Christians in Constantinople who beleeved that the Son was con-substantiall to the Father after the death of Eusebius their Bishop made choice of one to succeed him who had been his Predecessor but was ejected by a Council which the Emperour convocated to that purpose Paul by name but the Arians of Constantinople at the same time elected Macedonius into the Patriarkship * Socrat. Hist Eccles l. 2. c. 12. And Constantius sent Hermogenes with a military force to expell Paul from the Church of Constantinople some who adhered to Paul fired the house in which Hermogenes quartered and haling him out slew him Socrat. Hist Eccles l. 2. c. 13. Sozomen Hist. Eccles l. 3. c. 6. The Constantinopolitans endeavoured to defend Paul their Patriark aforenamed against Philip President of Constantinople when they suspected somthing to be decreed against him by their Emperor Constantius Socrat. Hist Eccles l. 2. c. 16. The Romans by violence ejecting Felix out of the See of Rome Constantius against his mind restoreth unto them Liberius whom he had banished Socrat. Hist Eccles l. 2. c. 37. The Inhabitants of Mantinium out of their fervent zeal for Religion resisted four troops of Soldiers which were sent against them according to the Emperors order and were victorious Socrat Hist Eccles l. 2. c. 38. The Samosateans would by force have attempted to preserve their Bishop Eusebius from banishment to which Valens their Emperour had destinated him had they not been diswaded by the same Eusebius Theodorit Hist Eccles l. 4. c. 13. The Christians of Alexandria resisted the Emperour Martian and his military force Evagrius Hist Eccles l. 2. c. 5. It is sufficiently known how Ambrose Bishop of Millain opposed the Emperor See Niceph. Calistius l. 12. c. 42. It is observable that the Christians whom I have now mentioned when omnia Caesar erat and whilst the profession of Christian Religion was confirmed by no humane lawes but the Edicts of Emperours in the behalf of Religion resisted those who had the Posse of the world in their hands That in the elder times of Christian Religion the Papists and likewise many Protestants of the Church of Scotland have approved these practices of the primitive Christans and other of higher opposition against Princes for default in Government whether respecting Religion or civill affairs is sufficiently discovered by Lysimachus Nicanor in his Epistle congratulatory to the Covenanters in Scotland See especially p. 12. 40. 41. 54. Ridentem dicere verum Quid vetat The sense of our English Senators touching the liableness of Kings to forcible resistance and deposition is so clear from that Vote in the beginning of our Civill dissentions to wit That the King if he raised Forces against his Parliament forfeited his Trust and by some other Votes and Actions that it needeth no Comment to explain it He that desireth to read more touching the Peoples Libertie in point of resistance to be made against those that invade their right may see Plutarch in the Lives of the Gracehi CHAP. 11. Kings may render themselves obnoxious to the penalty of death according to the Law of God in some cases to be inflicted by publick authority in other by private men THat Law Gen. 9.6 Whose sheddeth mans blood by man shall his blood be shed reacheth all the Sons of Noah Princes themselves though they be taller than their Brethren by the head and shoulders Whoso sheddeth mans blood voluntarily and of his own accord not out of an error nor as an executioner of a penaltie nor yet in his own defence his blood shall be shed * See Oakelos his Chaldee Paraphrase and the Mauritanian Jewes Arabick translation set out by Erpenius by a judiciary sentence This is the meaning of that Law The Hebrew Doctors have some glosses here which destroy the Text. According to some of them he who by himself shedded mans blood was to be punished with death but if he hired another or imployed his servants to shed blood or exposed one bound to a Lion or other savage beasts he was to be esteemed an homicide and deserved death to be inflicted of God but was not necessarily
to be adjudged to death by the sentence of the Magistrate They leave to the King and likewise to the Sanhedrin a liberty to punish such with death or to exempt them Certainly he who committeth murder by a proxie is more guilty than if he had shed blood immediately in that he hath propagated the sin Some of them determine that if an Israelite slew a stranger though he was proselytus domicilis he was not to be condemned to death for it because he was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his neighbour These considered not that strangers also bear the Image of God and that God was the Lord of all mankind The * Sanheds c. 9. Misna of the Talmud telleth us that when a homicide is mingled with others they are all free that is as I conceive when many men strike a man so that it cannot be known that what was done by any one of them killed him This exception hath no more warrant from the word of God than have the two former Who so sheddeth mans blood whether by himself immediately or by the ministery of some other whether a strangers or a neighbours whether alone or with the help of others is a son of death No Mortall is excused by his greatness Plato is very orthodox in this point * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And speaking of an homicide 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He urgeth afterwards the in flicting of this penalty especially upon such as shall kill any of their kindred An homicide as he determineth l. 9 de leg must be punished with death He passeth the same sentence upon a Sranger killing a Stranger and a Citizen killing a Stranger and a Stranger killing a Citizen as upon one Citizen killing another and upon a man killing another with his own hand or otherwise He excepteth not any so offending from capitall punishment That it is not left arbitrary to the Magistrate to punish or pardon Murther is cleared by the 33. Section of Num. 35. where it is written that The Land cannot be clear sed from the blood that is shed therin but by the blood of him that shed it Vpon which place saith * More Nevochim Part. 3. cap. 41. Maimonides as he is construed by Buxtorf agreeably to the sence of the Hebrew Proptereà licet interfectus per horas vel dies aliquot adhuc vixerit locutus fuerit sanumque intellectum retinuerit testatusque fuerit se ei condonare remittere non auditur sed necessariò anima pro animâ danda est aequaliter pro parvo magno servo * F lio ingenuorum seu filio nobilium libero sapiente stulto Take notice from this gloss that the murderer ought necessarily to be put to death though the person murdered live some days after he receive the wound which is contrary to the sense of some other Hebrew Doctors God in divers places of Scripture requireth that capitall punishment be inflicted as for murder so for some other crimes neither are Kings excepted from those Laws in any part of the written word which is now extant Princes in some other cases are liable to capitall punishment to be inflicted by private men When a Prince attempteth to murder another the person invaded may lawfully kill him in his own defence and is bound by the 6. Commandement to doe it rather than suffer himself to be murdered Davids great guard intimateth that he would rather have killed Saul than have suffered himself to be killed by him * Lib. 9 de leg Plato maketh it lawfull for a man to kill a Thief who by night entereth his house to steal * That is when he pursaeth a young woman betrothed to defile her saith R. Schem Tof The wifes nâ—kedness is the husbands nakedness but Maimonides his words are more comprehensive than that Interpreter maketh them That place in Plato's Lawes before quoted provideth for the chastity of both Sexes whether mariedor single Maimonides his words are capable of the same constiuction adam sometimes being of as large a Signification as bomo That testimony which have added out of the Misua prevaileth with me to think that Maimonid under adam comprehended both Sexes or one that attempteth at any time after what manner soever to spoil him of his goods or one who invadeth his chastitie or hath defiled some other related to him Maimonides saith It is unlawfull to kill a man who hath purposed to commit any wickedness before he hath done it unlesse in these 2 cases 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he pursueth a man to kill him and when he pursueth a mans nakedness to uncover it The Misna in Sanbedr c. 8. paragr 7. to the same purpose These are they whom they hinder from sinne by the loss of their life him that pursueth another with an intention to kill him and him that pursueth a maid and him that pusueth a young woman that is betrothed Should one pursue another to kill him all Israel according to the sense of our Hebrew Doctors was bound to rescue the person who was pursued if it could not be effected otherwise by the death of the pursuer Should any one deliver an Israelite or his goods into the power of the Heathen it was lawfull say * See Maimonid and Moses Mikotsi quoted by Mr. Selden De Jur. Natur. Gent. juxta Discipl Hebr. li. 4. c. 3. the same Writers for any one to kill the Traytor It is as great a fault to betray the goods and lives of Christians into the hands of Papists CHAP. 12. The injunction of subjection to the higher powers is but a brittle Argument for the impunity of Tyrants CHrysostome taketh notice that the Apostle Rom. 13.1 doth not say there is no ruler but of God but that he spake of the office saying there is no power but of God all the powers that be are ordained of God According to this Doctor the scope of the Apostle is not to inhibit men from resisting Tyrants but to bridle-in unruly spirits which are altogether impatient of any authority I may adde that this Scripture likewise opposeth those who could be contented to submit unto such Magistrates as will countenance their licentious courses but cannot endure such as goe about to restrain sin and to encourage religion If by powers be meant such as are invested in authority the trope used will chastise all such as resist Magistrates who are duely called to the exercise of authority neither abuse the authority wherewith they are betrusted and so discover themselves to be enemies to authority it self but the peoples hands are not tyed when authority is usurped or the ends thereof neglected What we read Rom. 13.1 2 3 4 5. according to Mr. Calvin and Buchanan bindeth us onely to submit our selves to the Edicts of Princes when they enjoyn us what is agreeable to the Law of God And indeed the reasons which inforce our subjection to the higher powers and the motives which incite us to our
dutie expressed in 3. and 4. verses of the Chapter before quoted byase us into that sense For rulers are not a terrour to good works but to the evill We must be subject to rulers because they are not a terror to good works and because they are a terror to the evill We have afterward a double motive to the subjection which is enjoyned us Doe that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the power But if thou doe that which is evill be afraid for the Magistrate beareth not the sword in vain for he is the minister of God a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evill That injunction Rom. 13.1 cannot pretend to bind us to the observance of the Magistrate when he is a terror to good works but not to evill when those who doe evill have praise of him and those who doe good are discountenanced and punished by him The reasons of a Law whether divine or humane are the measure of the latitude of it Civil Courts of Equity are appointed to exempt us from the literall severity of humane Lawes where it is not accompanied with the reasons thereof The Holie Ghost as we see in the Scripture exhibited requireth subjection to be given onely to those who are legitimately called to the exercise of government and to such onely so long as they rule well Tyrannie is not ordained of God nor supported by the other reasons for which subjection is enjoyned or by the motives thereunto before mentioned Beza understandeth by the higher powers both the supreme and inferiour Magistrates Buchanan conceiveth that we are no more tied to be subject to Kings then to inferiour Officers by vertue of that Scripture The Author of the Appostolicall Constitutions l. 7. c. 17. in the Latine interpreter's judgment expresseth the same sense His words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thou shalt fear the King knowing that the choice is of the Lord thou shalt honour his Magistrates as the Ministers of God for they are the revengers of all iniquity The Latine interpreter in the Margent directeth us to Rom. 13. and the word used by the Author of the Apostolicall Constitutions is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Rom. 13.3 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the 1. Pet. 2.14 I doubt not but in Rom. 13.3 the supreme and subordinate rulers are alike to be understood The reasons which back the authority of Rulers make alike for both Peter in his first Epistle c. 2.13 14. presseth upon us alike submission to the supreme Magistrate and to subordinate Rulers To this Scripture I think the Author of the Apostolicall Constitutions alludeth in the place before quoted Scarce any will deny but a man in some cases may resist and likewise kill an inferiour Magistrate without offence to God Who will doubt should a Constable rob upon the High-way but a traveller upon whom he maketh an onset may lawfully if it be necessary to the defence of his own life or of his goods make opposition to the utmost of his ability If any distinguish between such an one's person and his Office I answer that the same distinction may be applied to the King himself as well as to his ministers There is a vast distance between the opposing of authority and the resisting of the person invested therein who abuseth it or otherwise misdemeaneth himself Quest. Some will be ready here to aske whether the Christians were not bound in Conscience to be subject unto the Romans Emperours though they were Heathens and Tyrants ruling according to their own wills and not called to the exercise of Authority by Gods immediate choice nor yet by the Choice of the Major part of the people Ans I conceive but with submission to better judgments that those Christians who lived under the Heathenish Emperours but wanted strength to defend themselves were by that precept Rom. 13.1 Let every Soul be subject unto the higher powers obliged to sit still and to endeavour nothing against those who had the sword in their hands My reason is this but the cause dependeth not upon it The Holy Ghost there injoyneth not only a visible obedience but also such a temperament of spirit as is patient of lawfull Government and cheerfully ready to submit unto it of which those fall short who forcibly resist unlawfull Government when in all probability the opposition which they make will only exasperate and not dispell the evill which they groan under Those who in such circumstances use resistance discover themselves to be of unruly spirits which frame of mind is forbidden in that they proceed wholly according to passion and not according to the dictate of a sober and well-ordered judgment But the injunction according to the immediate sense of it requireth only subjection unto the powers which are ordained of God and I know not with what spectacles any one can discern tyranny to be of that number Children saith * Enchicidâ—e 37. Epictetus must yield to a Father in all things and when he revileth or striketh them must patiently bear it because by Nature they stand related to a Father as a Father not to a Father as good Subjects are not so rigorously tyed to submit to their Prince in that their engagement is not naturall but adventitious CHAP. 13. The 15 Section of Psalm 105. vindicated from mis-interpretation THat negative precept Touch not mine Anointed and doe my Prophets no harm if rightly understood will not contradict those Theses which I before propounded That Scripture conceiveth that we cannot without sin offer injurie to the Lords Anointed This is the mind of it It pointeth at Abraham Isaac and Jacob as we may gather from the context compared with the History of their lives God reproved Pharaoh for Abram's sake Gen. 12.17 And Abimelech for Abraham's sake Gen. 20.3 God restrained Abimelech from hurting Isaac Gen. 26. God reproved Laban for Jacobs sake Gen. 31.24 R. Alsheach upon that comma of the Psalmist before quoted telleth us that Laban was King of Mesopotamia and that he was Cushan-Rishathaim He with some other who affirm the same had no reason to conceive that Laban should be the Cushan-Rishathaim who is mentioned Iudg. 3. nor more ground to think that Laban had that name But those who were wealthy especially if they had great families had the name of Princes The children of Heth called Abraham a mighty Prince Gen. 23.6 It 's as easie a matter to make good that Abraham Isaac and Iacob were the Lords Anointed as that God reproved Kings for their sakes I cannot close with those Hebrew Doctors who tell us that the whole world set Abraham a King over them but shall shew that in severall respects he with Isaac and Iacob might fitly be called the Lords Anointed 1. There is an Anointing with the Spirit sealing to our hearts the promises of God 2 Cor. 1.21 in which they had a large portion 2. They were Anointed with the Spirit of Illumination and of Holinesse and so
exempted from legall censures and forcible resistance is convicted of falsitie IT is taken for granted in the argument which is founded upon those places in Samuel which were produced in the last Chapter that there is as good reason that all other Kings as that Saul should be exempted from humane censures and forcible resistance which supposition I shall acknowledge to be Truths legitimate off-spring and Aeagle-like to sore above the mists and clouds of ignorance and falshood if it can with an undazled and undaunted eye behold the Sun of reason But you shall clearly perceive it to blink when it is brought to the tryall There are many reasons sure for which Saul being compared with other Kings had a large advantage in the cases now mentioned 1 Because he reigned by Gods immediate appointment God made choice of Saul to be Captain over his people Israel 1 Sam. 9.16 17. Those Kings who were chosen and autorized immediately by God had a vast advantage being compared with such as should be chosen by men When God suspended the people from the act of Electing he suspended them also from the act of Deposing otherwise they might presently have pulled down him whom God had set up I acknowledge a difference between the prohibiting people from deposing a Prince enthroned immediately by God himself quam diu benè se gesserit so long as he demeaned himself as it became a prince and an absolute debarring of them from going about to alter their condition howsoever such a Prince should carry himself A King by his mandate giving one title to some place in a society that have Lawes by which they are enabled unless a supetiour power interpose to eject any member of their corporation for certain misdemeanours or because they retain not those qualifications which are required in a member of such a body though permitted otherwise both by the Laws of God and men is not wont to reserve the party whom he hath preferred to his immediate jurisdiction but leaveth him to stand or fall by the statutes of the society into which he is admitted But neither may I omit a difference between the supreme Magistrate and earthly Monarches in this particular So boundless are the knowledg and power of God that he sees all the Delinquencies of the great ones and can punish them immediately by himself without any interruption of his affairs That God whose breath like a stream of Brimstone kindleth Tophet standeth not in need of any instruments for the executing of his wrath upon Kings and sometimes himself immediately inflicteth vengeance sometimes is pleased to assign unto men that office out of the sovereignty of his will What we read Deut. 17.20 leaveth us doubtfull whether God upon any occasions autorised the Israclites to reject their Kings or their posterity He might out of a displeasure conceived against the King permit his subjects or strangers to offer such violence unto him as he did not approve of Himself likewise by a penall sentence might translate the Kingdom from one Family to another One of the reasons which moved David to swear As the Lord liveth the Lord shall smite him or his day shall come to dye or he shall descend into baettell and perish was unless Abarbinel misconstrue him because he knew that the Lord had Anonited him King Most certain it is that Saul could not without injustice be deposed by humane authority much less suffer capitall punishments by any humane censures so long as he demeaned himself so as it became him in which respect he had a large advantage being compared with other Kings who were mens creatures viz. not elected immediately by God himself much more above such whose sword is all the title by which they can pretend to the Scepter Those are as free as can be imagined to recover their liberty who are enslaved by conquest an unlawfull violence may lawfully be removed A people may set a King over them for some short time so that his autority must needs soon expire or with no firmer commission then durante beneplacito so that his Kingdom shall not be more stedfast than one of those houses whose foundations are said in the waves the inhabitants whereof may expect to be tossed to and fro without intermission unless they can congeale the billowes into a sleep The Authority which is perpetuated by the tenor of the Patent may in some cases be recalled both with more wisdom and Religion then it was granted as I before shewed CHAP. 16. That Presumption viz. That there is as good reason that all other Kings as well as Saul should be exempted from humane censures and violent resistance is by another reason refuted The Sin of the Israelites in asking a King is explained negatively and affirmatively The 14. and 15. Verses of Deuteron 17. are enlightened GOD though he granted unto the Israelites a King after the manner of other Nations and according to the Genius of their request might deservedly abridge them from that libertie of unthroning Tyrants which he granted unto other Nations in that they tendered to him such a Petition as was both in the substance and the circumstances thereof exceedingly unlawfull and sinfull God gave them a King in his anger Hos 13.11 God threatneth by Samuel 1 Sam. 8.18 that he would not hear the Israelites crying out to him for relief under the burden of their royall pressures This Scripture informeth us that God determined they should suffer in the things wherein they sinned Here is measure for measure That I may explain the sin of the Isra lites in its full dimensions I shall premise That a King is not a necessary ingredient of the Government of a People which Thesis I have already proved Moreover that the Israelites were not obliged by any divine precept to set over them a King And lastly that although a King had been necessary for other Nations in regard of Civill occasions yet could not he be necessary for the Israelites The Israelites were not necessitated by any divine precept to set over them a King of their own chusing nor yet to ask a King of God Three things saith R. Jehuda were injoyned the Israelites * Gâ—m Sanhedr c. 2. which they should doe after their entrance into the Holy Land to set a King over them to cut off the seed of Amaleck and to build a Temple Schickard also De Jure Regio Hebraeorum c. 1. Theor. 1. affirmeth that God commanded the Israelites to set a King over them Deut. 17.15 * Dei mandatum eâ—at eligere Regem The title of that Theoreme is yet more hardie affirming that God had commanded the Israelites to chuse them a King But if we accurately examine that comma in Deuteronomie quoted by Schickard we shall find that God did not at all permit much less command the Israelites to chuse a King but reserved that choice to himself Neither is there any expression in Deut. 17. which might countenance their asking of a
King but clearly what should have diverted them from that attempt It 's probable also that those words Thou shalt in any wise set him him King over thee whom the Lord thy God shall chuse consider well the scope of them contain onely one precept which is negative viz. That they should not set over them a King whom the Lord did not chuse and certain that if an affirmative precept be likewise intended in them the reason was not that God took complacency in their setting over them a King but that his choice might be regarded Their acquiescing in Gods choice should be the pith and kernel of the precept and the setting up of a King onely the husk and shell of it It was needless to injoyn them to sâ—t a King over them when they intemperately desired Kingly Government God did not antecedently nor simply injoyn them to set a King over them but if at all in reference to the choice that he should make And he chus'd a King for them not out of any complacencie which he took in their request but out of condescension to the hardness of their hearts Again * The Book which Samue wrote touching the manner of the Kingdom 1 Sam. 10.15 shewed what autority the K. should have over the people and what punishment he should inslict upon those who disobeyed his commands and was layed up before the Lord viz. in the Ark as R. Levi Bell Gersom commenteth upon the place though a King should have been necessary for other Nations yet not for the Israelites God had undertaken to rule over them in a more peculiar way then over the Nations had promised to goe before them and to fight their battles and had given them Judges and directed them by his Prophets The Israelites in the times of the Iudges before Samuel seemed to be of this opinion This last Thesis is cleared by 1 Sam. 10.19 And ye have this day rejected your God who himself saved you out of all your adversities and your tribulations The Israelites in desiring a King did not act in the virtue of any divine commandement nor out of any Civil necessity or Stateexigency but out of an unbridled humor out of a Caâ—exie and evill frame of spirit I cannot think with some of the Hebrew Doctors in Siphre that they desired a King who would bring in Idolatrous worship nor with R. Nissim that their offence was in asking a King not only to fight their battails but also to judge them seeing all judicature was not entailed upon their great Sanhedrin and their inferiour judges it was not necessary that their request should encroach upon those Courts of justice which were established by Divine right nor yet with some other that their sin consisted in desiring a King who should make laws and rule according to his pleasure not submitting himself unto the Law of God seeing that we have no hint that they were guilty of this crime They offended as I conceive with Maimonidas in that there was a spirit of murmuring in their asking of a King They were not contented with that Government which God had appointed them God permitted them not to aske a King but commanded them to set over them a King whom the Lord should chose Deut. 17.14 15. God foretelleth their repining against the present Government and here as in some other cases condescendeth to the hardness of their hearts in granting them a King but confineth them to one whom himself should chuse R. Nehorai in the Gemara of Sanhedrin c. 2. expresseth the same sense of that place in Deut. viz. That in regard of their murmuring which is intimated in those words And shalt say I will set a King over me like as all the Nations that are round about me the Lord said Thou shalt in any wise set him King over thee whom the Lord thy God shall chuse Those Doctors whose opinions I rejected mistook as conceiving that God absolutely commanded the Israelites to set over them a King and sinned not in the matter of their request but only in the circumstances thereof Had there been such a commandement their forefathers had sinned in omitting it throughout the time after they were possessed of Canaan till they asked a King * See Nathmanides upon Gen. 49.10 They sinned also in rejecting Samuel one who was endewed with the Spirit of prophecie and eminent in holinesse Besides that they expressed a desire that some other should rule over them 1 Sam. 8.5 Vnlesse they were supinely ignorant or understood by revelation that God would not settle the Kingdom at its beginning upon Iudah they could no expect a king who was not of that tribe They had an itching desire to be like unto other Natations in w th there was a spice tincture of Idolatry They chose rather to be governed after the manner of the heathen then in that way which God had prescribed them being taken with the pomp and lustre of a visible King As they had formerly adored the Gods of the Nations so now they idolize their government as they had often cast off Iehovah from being their God so now they cast him off from being their King R. Eliezer in the Gemara of Sanhedr c. 2. sayth the Elders sinned not in asking a King but the common people were perverse in affecting to be like other Nations The beginnning of this sentence is already refuted the remainder in part maketh for my purpose The same who desired a King affected also to be like other Nations 1 Sam. 8.5 20. and were therein perverse but sinned likewise in the matter of their request It was impossible for the Israelites to aske a King with such circumstances as not to sin in that the request it self implied a rejecting of God from bearing rule over them They had not the same liberty with other Nations in this particular in that God had vouchsafed to reign over them in a peculiar manner Forasmuch as the Israelites so haynously provoked God in asking a King it was just with him to abridge them or the Liberty of deposing Tyrannicall Kings which he left to other Nations that they might have enough of Kingly government which they had so much thirsted after CHAP. 17. A third reason is opposed against that proposition or presumption which was examined in the two last Chapters SHould we grant that Davids sparing of Saul when he was delivered into his hands was approved off by God yet the times in which he lived will suggest an exception of Tyrants now a dayes from Sauls Privilege and of subjects whose lives are unjustly sought after by their Princes from Davids Liberty No one will doubt but in the times in which the spirit of Prophecie flourished God dispenced oftner with the matter of his Laws then we have notice given us in the Scriptures God remitted unto Cain the sentence of death due to him for his Murder Gen. 4.15 That Law Gen. 9.6 Who so sheddeth mans blood By man
those who murdered Ishbosheth had an eye upon his own condition And * Upon 1 Sam. 24.6 Ralbag also determineth that it was lawfull for him to have slain Saul because he pursued him but spared him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of an Hyperbole of clemency and because the killing of Saul would have been of bad consequence to himself who as he knew should succeed in the Kingdom That David's interest should insensibly biase him into a tender care of Kings was not a thing impossible Mens affections often make their judgements partiall But whether Davids conscience dictating that he ought to spare Saul was erroneous and if it was erroneous by what means it was seduced are questions which I shall not adventure to determine But give me leave to conceive till I shall be otherwise informed that David either sinned in the sparing of Saul or else his clemency was warranted by some divine precept or permission which is not now extant in the Scriptures transmitted to us and which in all probability was peculiarly given to David his followers seem to have thought it lawfull for him to kill Saul I doubt not but David would rather have slain Saul than have suffered himself to be killed by him When he spared him in the Cave he might perhaps conceive that such his clemencie though he had no encouragement from Sauls former carriage to expect such an event would conciliate unto him Sauls affection but when he again pursued him with 3000. men 1 Sam. 26. could not have so much as a shadow of a reason to harbour any hopes of a reconciliation yet spared him being delivered the second time into his hands David himself after this repetition of his indulgence and clemency towards Saul said in his heart I shall now perish one day by the hand of Saul Who can doubt but David ought rather to have killed Saul pursuing him and being delivered into his hands when in regard of his power and implacableness he had no other so probable way left him to secure himself as by escaping to the Land of the Philistines whom he had provoked by slaying many of their Nation had not God by some precept which is not conteined in the Scriptures now extant injoyned him to preserve himself by flight onely and not by laying violent hands upon Saul when it was in his power to avoid him or at least promised to preserve him though he offered no violence to Saul David though he had a promise of divine protection might say in his heart All men are Liars CHAP. 19. Another Objection propounded and answered ANother arrow out of the same quiver is wont to be shot against the Abetters of the just liberty of the people Davids regrets of Conscience for his cutting off Sauls skirt 1 Sam. 24.5 seem at the first sight much to countenance the impunity of Tyrants Some will conclude from hence that royaltie by an essentiall privilege is exempted from all opposition sith scarce any is lesse then the cutting off the skirt of a garment This reason hath in it the more shew because it is not very probable that God by any private admonition which is neither expresly nor virtually contained in the Scripture should inhibite David from an act of no greater importance I answer Besides that there are many reasons which evince that Saul much rather then such as now a dayes exercise Kingly Government should have been excepted from all manner of opposition and he might perhaps have received from Samuel some generall instruction out of which he concluded that he ought not to have offered to Saul so much violence as the cutting off his skirt and his own interest might perhaps somewhat bend his judgement towards the dealing gently with Kings and his conscience would strike him as well for a seeming as for a reall iniquitie The Hebrew Doctors tell us that David in that action offended because he exposed Saul in his old age to danger of taking cold and without any due end spoyled him of part of his garment and was suitably punished in his old age according to what we read 1 Kings 1.1 And they covered him with cloaths but he gat no heat CHAP. 20. That Argument which in favour of Tyrants is forced out of Psalm 51.6 is refuted THat of David in the Psalter is wont to be alleged as if it sided with those who would place Kings above the reach of Civill Authority Against thee only have I sinned Psalm 51.6 This testimony if rightly understood will not seem to exempt the Kings of the Nations nor yet David and his successors from humane censure R. David Kimchi's Gloss upon the place is that the thing was done insecret none but God being privy to it Davids Messengers to Bathsheba knew not his intention in sending for her neither did Ioab comprehend the reasons for which he willed the death of Vriah men judged that he caused Vriah to be slain because he had transgressed his commandement Kimchi Sen. the Father of this Doctor who now spake thus commenteth upon the place Had Vriah been living my sin had been against thee and him But seeing he is dead against thee only have I sinned I confess to thee the sin because all my sin is left unto thee neither do I seek pardon of any but thee for the matter of Bathsheba and Vriah whose death I caused Another Author saith upon the place that David accounted his sins against men how great or grievous soever they were as nothing in comparison of his sin against God and therefore said Against thee thee only have I sinned According to this gloss to sin only against God is the same that to sin chiefly against him That wrong which David had done to men vanished and disappeared being compared with that wrong which he had done to God That which cut David to the heart was that he had sinned against God Vbi dolor ibi digitus David mainly bewaileth the offending of so good gracious and indulgent a Father When the same part saith Hippocrates is affected at the same time with severall paines the greater swalloweth up obscureth the other Again most certain it is that sin according to its formality is only against God being a breach of his Law Adultery and Murther had not been sins had not God forbidden them Any sinner as well as Kings may say unto God Against thee only have I sinned Sinne though according to its formality it be only against the Law of God yet may be punished by Earthly Magistrates as it is hurtfull to a Common wealth CHAP. 21. The impotency of that Argument which in favour of Tyrants is drawn from Eccles 8.2 THe second comma of Eccles 8. at the first sight may seem much to countenance Tyranny especiall in our English translation where the words are these I counsell thee to keep the Kings commandement and that in regard of the Oath of God The Later part of the section is translated by Coch summè
intentionem juramenti Dei and chiefly the intention of the oath of God An Oath here as this learned Author explaineth himself in his notes upon the place is whereby any one citeth God as his witness and judge that with a good Conscience because God hath so commanded he will obey the King and seek his good and the good of the Common-wealth I doubt not but some will be ready to conclude from hence that it is not lawfull upon any accompt to resist the edicts of Kings I acknowledge that the Hebrew is capable of our English translation and likewise of that construction which Coch assigneth it We may admit of our English translation without detriment to the cause with this provifoe that Kings be legitimately invested in their authority and be a terror to evill works and an incouragement to good and manage well the affairs of the Common-wealth That all these conditions are to be taken in is clear from Rom. 13. and the 6. and 8. Commandements Coch hath these words upon Eccles 8.2 Os Regis serva h. e. fac quodcunque ex Regis ore prodit quicquid jubet statuit pro eâ potestate quam habet divinâ ordinatione Regard the Kings mouth that is doe whatsoever he commandeth and appointeth out of that authority which he hath by divine ordination No one hath from God any authority to doe evill neither hath any one now a days a just title to royall authority but through the approbation of the people I find in Elisha Galico upon the place this gloss I am the mouth of the King of Kings of Jehovah wherefore observe the words which I speak and as our Doctors say because thou art sworn to the observance of the Law when thou comest into the world to wit as say our Doctors of blessed memorte they adjure a man in this form Hevi tsadik veal tehi rashaugh be thou righteous and be not wicked One interpretation in Rasi importeth this sense I say it is necessary and meet to observe the mouth of the King of the world because we sware unto him in Horeb to keep his Commandements Hierome varieth but little from that interpretation which I have now propounded out of Rasi his construction of the Text running thus Ego os Regis observo praecepta juramenti Dei I observe the mouth of the King and the commandements of the oath of God R. Levi in Midrasch hath the same interpretation of the beginning of the Verse Ani eschmor c. saith this Doctor I will observe the mouth of the King of Kings that holy blessed one that mouth which said I am the Lord thy God c. Another interpretation which I find in Rasi is this I say It is meet to observe the commandement of the Kings of the Nations so they cause us not to transgresse the oath which we sware to God Elisha Galico before quoted to the same sense I say observe the mouth of the King but chiefly the * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any note of an Apocope matter of the oath of God that is the Law which we sware to observe at Mount Sinay Learned Broughton and Tremellius and Junius expresse the same sense though they differ in some Grammaticall punctilio's I say regard the Kings mouth yet after the Oath of God Broughton The Latter part of the verse is rendred in Latin by the other interpreters now mentioned Sed pro ratione juramenti Dei Their note upon it is thus Moderatio obsequti quod homines debent potestatibus parendum est inquit sed non nisi bouâ side conseientiâ quia non est potestas nisi à Deo ac proinde jus non habet homines ab obsequio avocandi quod Deus à suis jure jurando exigit illi side datâ se exhibituros receperunt That which followeth in the fourth verse viz. Where the word of a King is there is power and who may say unto him What dost thou is by Elisha Galico applyed to Iehovah the King of Kings but is spoken I conceive of an earthly Prince yet implyeth not that he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such an one as may not be called to an accompt for his actions but that we ought when he commandeth what is backed by the law of God to obey him not only out of Religion which in such cases requireth our loyalty but likewise out of prudence because he hath power and beareth not the Sword in vain * See Elisha Galico upon Eccles 8.3 moreover according to some interpreters that it is wisdom in a private man when the Magistrate enjoyneth what is repugnant to Gods will to remove out of his dominions rather then contest with him which they conceive to be imported by the word Telec in the foregoing verse ' That it is dangerous to resist Kings because they have power is the sense of that Scripture according to Abarbinel That we ought to beware of resisting them because they do whatsoever pleaseth them is the mind of that Section according to Eben-Ezra The scope of the words is as I conceive comparing them with the foregoing verses of the same chapter and especially with the end of the 3d. verse that as we tender our own safety we ought not to withstand the Magistrate in his edicts which are consonant to the word of God CHAP. 22. The endeavours of the Israelites towards David and the Kings of his Family afford no solid Argument to prove that Princes may not lastfully be called to accompt nor forcible resisted when they have discovered themselves to be unworthy of their Authority ANother Argument by which some contend that Kings are exempted from humane censures and forcible opposition is drawn from the constant submission of all Israel to David and Solomon and of the Tribes of Judah and Benjamin to the Kings of Iudah though by many of them they were burdened with excessive taxes and by some of them with the yoak of Idolatrous worship * Deut. 1◠59 to which whosoever assayed to seduce them was to be punished with death according to their municipall Laws which were enacted immediately by the Senate-house of heaven What I have already delivered in the former Chapters is sufficient for the removall of this argument 1 These Kings had their call to government immediately from God himself The Lord commanded Samuel to Anoint David 1 Sam. 16.12 The Lord setled the Kingdom upon Davids posterity 2 Sam. 7.16 Psal 89.31 32 33. 1 Kings 11.36 If one of the Kings of the Family of David had many Sonnes the first-born succeeded in the Kingdom with analogy to that precept Dent. 21.17 That the eldest Sonne should enjoy a double portion * Maimon Hal. Malech c. 1. Sect. 1. The eldest Sonne had the advantage of his Brethren as well in the occupying of the Kingdom as in the inheritance of his Fathers goods The first born alone succeeded in the whole authority of the Kingdom that
the honour of the Family might be preserved entire and not be shattered into pieces and that the people should be subject to one Lord rather than to many The Israelites as * Hal. Mcl. c. Sect. 10. Marmamides witnesseth ought to have refused him that in regard to his birthright had the next title to the Crown unless he was pious and feared the Lord. Omnis potestas omne officium in Israel haereditarium est ad filies nepotes in aeternum modò filius impleat locum patris sui cum sapientiâ pietate Quòd si pietate tantum non sapientiâ ipsi par sit perficiunt nihilominùs officio paterno docent id quid deest At penes quem nulla est pietas quamvis saptentissimus esset non promovetur tamen ad ullum officierum in universo Israel Thus the Hebrew Doctor before-quoted as he is taught to speak Latine by a learned Writer whose translation I use because it cannot be bettered If this Doctor speak truth it will unavoidably follow that the wicked Kings of Judah used deep dissimulation before they were inaugurated or that the great Sanhedrin neglected their duty or that they wanted power to execute it This knot is somewhat morose and will not easily be untied The publick influence of Kingly authority might be a just ground of some exceptions from the usuall way of hereditary propagation The Eldest Sonne with the Israelites though he were grossely wicked inherited a double portion of his Fathers estate we cannot hence conclude that the Kingdom perpetually descended upon the Eldest Sonne howsoever he was qualified because it respected not so much one mans private benefit as the welfare of the people The case of Solomon who was preferred before Adonijah his Elder Brother will not extricate us in that the choice was made by God himself 1 Chron. 28.5 6 7. Gods dispencing with any of his positive Lawes conferreth not the like privilege upon his creatures Though we are left in the dark in that Quaere to wit whether the Sanhedrin had authority to reject the heir apparent of the Kingdom from reigning over them for his want of religion yet I shall make it clear that the Kings afore-mentioned were more established in their authority against humane opposition by their call to it then any can be by a violent invasion thereof or by the meer choice of men David and Solomon were expresly called to be Kings and the Kingdom was setled upon Solomons posterity be Gods immediate appointment 1 Chron. 28.7 When God gave unto Ieroboam ten Tribes he confirmed unto Solomons posterity the Kingdom of Iudah 1 Kings 11.36 If the Sandhedrin could lawfully hinder their Kings first-born Sonne from reigning over them when he was not an heir of his Fathers virtues that autority was given them by Gods Commandement or permission and it should remain that they were determined by God himself to preferre to the Kingdom him that had the next title by discent being duely qualified and one of Solomons posterity though all of them were egregiously wicked God secured the Kingdom for Solomons posterity against those iniquities wherewith they should provoke his divine Majestie 2 Sam. 7.14.15.16 That the grant of the Kingdom was not conditionall as to Saul is cleared by that Scripture and by 1 King 11.36 The History of the Kings of Judah informeth us that some of them provoked God as deeply as did Saul from whom he took away the Kingdom God did not preserve them from provoking him as did Saul but shewed them more visible favour by continuing the Kingdom in their posterity That condition which is expressed in 1 Chron. 28.7 in those words I will establish his Kingdom for ever if he be constant to doe my Commandements and my judgments as at this day had respect unto the Kingdom as it was entire over the 12 Tribes but not to every part of it as we may gather from what hath been spoken and by comparing it with 1 King 11. v. 12 13. That of the Psalmist Psal 132.12 If thy children will keep my Covenant and my testimony c. importeth that Davids posteritie unlesse they revolted from God as did Solomon should reigne over the 12 Tribes but moreover that their Line and Succession should not be interrupted as it was for the King of Manasseh and some other of their Kings by captivity untill the coming of Shiloh Here it may be inquired how the establishing of Davids Kingdom for ever which is promised 2 Sam. 7.16 can consist with those events which have befaln his posterity as the Babylonian captivity and the bereaving of them of all outward and visible Dominion That I may not confine the promise to Christs spirituall Kingdom the word Olam which is there used doth not alwayes denote eternity or a duration till the end of the World but in generall a duration hidden from man whether infinite or finite * See Munster de side Christinorum Part of the Ceremoniall Law is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an ordinance for ever Numb 10.8 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for ever Exod. 21.6 is till the next Jubilee according to Rasi Aben-Ezra Bechai and Abarbinel upon those words and the Talmud in Kidushin Abarbinel telleth us that because 50 yeers were counted one Age or Generation the fiftieth yeer which is the yeer of Jubilee is called Olam According to his construction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall supply the place of * See Psal 18.50 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and indeed it is wont to signifie ad which is thence derived But I should rather conceive that for ever there according to the gramaticall accompt is the same that for the present generation The Servant whose Ear was bored thorow when the generation was renewed as Aben-Ezra speaketh to wit in the year of Jubilee was to be set at liberty 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For ever in 2 Chron. 23.7 seemeth to signifie the time in which the Ceremoniall Law should continue in force 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For evermore is untill Shiloh come Psal 132.12 We cannot determine out of those Scriptures before-quoted to wit 2 Sam. 7.16 Psal 89.31 32 33 1 King 11.36 Whether David and Solomon and the Kings of Iudah were liable to deposition and capitall punishment by their Subjects for tyranny murder and other gross delinquencies without an expresse permission or injunction from God God might punish their persons in such sort yet not cause his mercy to depart from them as he took it away from Saul whose posterity he secluded from succeeding in the Kingdom But it is clear that those Kings had a large advantage as I shewed before concerning Saul being compared with such as came to a Kingdom meerly by Conquest or by humane choice in that they were not liable to deposition so long as their carriage was worthy of their office Abarbinel expresseth the same sense in his Preface to his Comment upon 2 Sam. 15. Absalom saith
he there intended not to slay David neither ascended it into his heart neither did Israel agree at all to rebell against their King and to kill him farre be it from them for who shall stretch forth his hand against the Lords anointed and be guiltless The other two Arguments which I used against such as denyed Saul to be privileged above the Kings of other Nations in the 16. and 17 Chapter make equually for David and Solomon and the Kings of Iudah If Saul and the Kings of the Family of David were exempted from deposition and capitall punishment and forcible resistance yet not by a common Crown-privilege but by a speciall grant from God directly expressed or at least implied by the manner of their call to the Kingdom and some other reasons which were peculiar to them This assertion hath already been sufficiently confirmed but is much countenanced also * See Chap. 6. by the demeanour of the Iews towards their Kings which were not of the Family of David in the times of the second Temple Another reason for which David with his successors of his linage seem to have been privileged above the Kings of other Nations is that they were types of christ whose Kingdom should endure It is very considerable likewise that the Sanhedrin and that such among the Israelites as desired a reformation in the Church or State or both might want strength to oppose their Kings and that through the just ordination of divine Providence in that they had preferred earthly Kings before the Monarch of heaven and earth Neither can I doubt but the major part of the people would the rather bear with wicked Kings in that themselves were addicted to the like wickedness I shall now examine what the Hebrew Doctors say in this point touching matter of right and what the Scripture witnesseth touching matter of fact The kings of the Family of David judge and are judged saith the Babylonian Talmud in the tractate of the Mischnah called Sanhedr Chapt. 2. Sect 2. That the Kings of the Family of David were not exempted from that Law Deut. 25.2 which required that a certain number of stripes should be inflicted upon those who deserved to be beaten but were for certain faults liable to it is affirmed by Mabimon Hal. Melach c. 3. Sect. 4. in the Talmud Sanhedr c. 19. and in other Tractates thereof and in severall other writings of the Hebrew Doctors That those who reigned over the Israelites were as obnoxious to censure for some other faults as for those three which were wont to be reckoned up by the Hebrew Doctors viz. the multiplying of Wives Gold and Silver and Horses is so clear to such as will not jurare in verba Magistrorum that it needeth no proof Neither could this Law be executed without the endangering of their lives in case they resisted If the Kings of the Iews for multiplying Wives Gold and Silver and horses were to be punished with stripes then by the rule of proportion for the greatest fault with death and they might be deposed when they were notoriously wicked as the next heir of the Kingdom might by his wickedness be debarred from reigning unless they were exempted for the reasons before mentioned which agrees not to any Princes now a dayes God foretelleth in 1 Sam. 8. how their Kings should demean themselves but doth not there or elsewhere authorise them to use such acts of violence Mischpat in 1 Sam. 8.11 signifieth the Manner or Custome as in 1 Sam. 2.13 not Right and Authority as in c. 10.25 That the Kings of Iudah were not liable to be censured by the Sanhedrin in such manner as the Hebrew Doctors affirm because we read not in the Scripture that they were so censured or because they never were so censured is an argument not so substantive but it will fall of it self without opposition We may conclude much rather that we ought to assent to that piece of history in those writers in that it is not contradicted in the word of God some of them I conjecture had been brought to their trialls and censures by the Sanhedrin nisi impunitatis Cupido retinuisset maginis semper conatibus adversa That I may now speak touching matter of fact we shall find in the practice of the Israelites in the times of David and Rehodoam and Iehoram might we lawfully make the examples of actions and omissions our rules enough to warrant the taking up of Arms against Kings when they neglect the executing of justice or squeese their Subjects by immoderate taxes or impose upon them too heavy servitude That method which Absolom used to steal away he peoples hearts from his Father 2 Sam. 15.2 3 4. being compared with his successe maketh us conjecture that those who joyned themselves to him in the conspiracy thought it lawfull for them to wrest authority out of Davids hands and to settle it upon Absolom by the sword that justice might be more freely dispenced David was old neither deputed any if we may believe Absolom to hear those who had controversies with other men Absolom promiseth that he were he made judge in the Land would do justice and meant as it is probable by himself immediately not by his ministers It appeareth that they intended not only to strip David of his Authority but also to take away his life from 2. 4. verses of the 2 Sam. 17. compared together Abarbinel conceiveth that neither Absolom nor the Elders of Israel nor the rest of the People who sided with him in the conspiracie had any thought to devest David of his Crown and Dignity but to substitute Absolom to him for the executing of the Royall Authority during his life and for his successor afterwards Absolom was induced saith this Doctour to that attempt because David had sworn unto Bathsheba that Solomon should reign after him and sit on his Throne in his stead as also because he suspected that David would cause Solomon to be placed in the Kingdom during his own life and after he was once King who should say unto him what doest thou The people consented to Absolom saith the same Author because he was Davids eldest Son after the death of Amnon and was of the fittest age both to judge them and to fight their Battles to with about * Rasi R. Kim fasten the epocha of the 40. years which are mentioned 2 Sam. 15.7 In the Iraelites asking a King of Samuel and Kimchi addeth that Saul reigned with Samuel 1 year and two years alone and that the other 37 years belonged to the reign of David Ralbag and R. Ieschaiah make mention of this opinion but seem to have thought that the 40 years began with Davids Kingdom Ralbag also conjectureth that it was prophesied of Davids Kingdom that it should stand only 40 years and Absolom concluded these years now expired that the Kingdom should depart from david and that he should bring to passe his Intention of killing him These 40