Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	david_n	king_n	samuel_n	1,895	5	9.9973	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A64083	Bibliotheca politica: or An enquiry into the ancient constitution of the English government both in respect to the just extent of regal power, and the rights and liberties of the subject. Wherein all the chief arguments, as well against, as for the late revolution, are impartially represented, and considered, in thirteen dialogues. Collected out of the best authors, as well antient as modern. To which is added an alphabetical index to the whole work.; Bibliotheca politica.	Tyrrell, James, 1642-1718.	1694 (1694)	Wing T3582; ESTC P6200	1,210,521	1,073

a farther end than this to bless and reward a virtuous Nation or to punish a loose and degenerate Age and there cannot be a greater Blessing than a Wise and Virtuous Prince nor a greater Plague than a merciless Tyrant And therefore the Providence of God is as much concerned in setting a good or a bad Prince over any People as in rewarding or punishing them Upon this account God calls the King of Assyria the Rod of his Anger whom he raised up for the punishment of an hypocritical Nation Secondly I have already proved that by the Powers in this Text the Apostle means the Persons of Soveraign Princes and therefore according to his Doctrine those Princes who were then in Being that is the Roman Emperours were advanced by God the Powers that be that is the Princes and Emperours who now govern the World are ordained and appointed by God and that thus it is God himself tells us I have made the Earth and given it to whom it seemed meet unto me and now I have given all these Lands into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon my Servant This was also the Belief of the Primitive Christians under Heathen and persecuting Emperours Tertullian who wrote his Apology under Severu● asserts that Caesar was chosen by God and therefore that the Christians had a Peculiar Propriety in Caesar as being made Emperour by their God So likewise St. Augustine de Civitate Dei speaks to this purpose as I remember God giveth Happiness in the Kingdom of Heaven to the Godly alone But this Earthly Kingdom both to the Godly and Ungodly as it pleases him He that gave the Government to Marius gave it also to Caesar He who gave it to Augustus gave it also to Nero●● He who gave it to the Vespasians Father and Son most beloved Emperours gave it also to the most cruel Domitian and not to recount the rest of them He who gave it to Constantine the Christian gave it also to the Apostate Iulian. These things without doubt the only True God governed as he pleased by Causes tho' hidden yet not unjust So likewise almost all the rest of the Fathers do own that Wicked and Tyrannical Princes are given as Punishments to the People for their Sins and so upon this account are to be endured and not resisted since it is God's Will to have it so But as for Usurpers I think I can give you a very satisfactory Answer for the most prosperous Rebel is not the higher Power while our natural Prince to whom we owe Obedience and Subjection is in being And therefore tho' such men may get the Power into their hands by God's Permission yet not by God's Ordinance and he who Resisteth them doth not Resist the Ordinance of God but the Usurpations of Men. Whereas in Hereditary Kingdoms the King never dies but the same Minute that the Natural Person of a King dies the Crown descends upon the next of Blood And therefore he who Rebelleth against the Father and murders him continues a Rebel in the Reign of the Son which commences with his Fathers Death It is otherwise indeed where none can pretend a greater Right to the Crown than the Usurper for there the Possession of Power seems to give a Right Thus many of the Roman Emperours came to the Crown by very ill means but when they were possest of it they were then the higher Powers For the Empire did not descend by Inheritance but sometimes by the Election of the Senate sometimes of the Army and sometimes by Force and Power which always draws a Consent and Submission after it And therefore the Apostle doth not direct the Christians to inquire by what Title the Emperours held their Crowns but commands them to submit to those who had the Power in their hands For the Possession of the Supream and Soveraign Power is Title enough when there is no better Title to oppose against it for then we must presume that God gives him the Irresistible Authority of a King to whom he gives an Irresistible Power which is the only means whereby Monarchies and Empires are transferred from one Nation to another There are two Examples in Scripture which manifestly confirm what I have now said The first is in the Kingdom of Israel after the Ten Tribes had divided from the Tribe of Iudah and the Family of David where God had not entailed the Kingdom upon any certain Family For after Ieroboam the first King it is plain by the Story in the Books of Kings and Chronicles that for some Successions there was nothing but Rebellion and the Murder of one King by another so that the Kingdom rarely descended from the Father to the Son and in the whole Succession of these Kings it only remained in the House of Ie●u for four Generations and then it returned to its former uncertainty as you may see in the 15 th Chap. of the 2 d. of Kings All which plainly shews that where there is no regular Succession to a Kingdom there Possession of Power makes a King who yet cannot afterwards be resisted and opposed without the Guilt of Treason And this was the Case of the Roman Empire at the Writing of this Epistle And therefore the Apostle might then very well say that the Powers that be are ordained of God and that whoever had the Supream Power in his hands was the Supream Power that might not be resisted But it was otherwise in the Kingdom of Iudah which God himself had entailed on David's Family as appears from the Examples of Ioash and Athaliah which we discoursed of at our last meeting but one which Examples plainly shew that no Usurpations can extinguish the Right and Title of a Natural or Hereditary Prince such Usurpers tho' they have the Possession of the Supream Power yet they have no Right to it and tho' God for wise Reasons may sometimes permit such Usurpations yet whilst his Providence secures the Persons of such deposed and banished Princes from Violence he secures their Title too But to prove more plainly that no Resistance is to be made against the Persons or Authorities of the Supream Powers let them be never so Cruel and Tyrannical as it is evident not only from what St. Paul hath here written but I shall crave leave to insist farther on that Text of St. Peter before cited in his 1 st Epistle 2 d. Chap. Submit your selves to every Ordinance of Man for the Lords sake whether it be to the King as Supream or unto Governours as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of Evil Doers and for the Praise of them that do well where by Ordinance of Man whether we understand as some do every Human Law or with others more justly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every human Creature as it is in the Original that is every man endued with Supream Power it comes all to the same sense and the King as the

without their Consent and therefore Samuel appeals to them how little he had opprest them whose Ox or whose Ass have I taken whom have I defrauded whom have I opprest Neither could they nor the Judges their Successors make any new Laws for the People God himself being their King and Legislator and therefore what you urge as to the Regal Power of Moses and Ioshua after the Sanhedrin had been constituted amounts to no more but that both of them were Heads or Captains of the People to lead them out to War and bring them back again which is exprest by going in and out before them and their Obedience to their Military Orders as also to such things which God hath expresly commanded is understood by these words All that thou commandest us we will do and whithersoever thou sendest us we will go Yet still this was with respect to their obtaining the Land of Canaan for otherwise if either Moses or Ioshua should have gone about of their own Heads to have Led them again into Egypt I suppose you will not say the Israelites were bound either to have followed them or submitted to them but rather might have resisted them in such cases And therefore Iosephus his Speech which he makes Moses to deliver is not so ridiculous as you are pleased to make it for the Laws here mentioned by him and here set in opposition to Monarchy were not such Laws as were made by the Greek Common-Wealth as you suppose but the Law given from God by his hand and these he might well think were sufficient with such Power as he and Ioshua enjoyed without having any recourse to a Human Monarchical Government since God himself was their King and as for the Judges that succeeded them they had much less Power than either Moses or Ioshua Since it is apparent by the Story of Deborah and Barak Iudges the 4th who were the Princes or Generals of the Tribes of Zebulun and Naphtali that they had no power to force the People to go out to fight against the Canaanites whether they would or no. And therefore you will find in the next Chapter in the Song of Victory which they sung that many of the Tribes came not in to their Assistance therefore it is there said That for the Divisions of Reuben there were great thoughts of heart therefore they ask Why abidest thou among the Sheepfolds c. And presently after it is said Gilead abode beyond Jordan and why did Dan remain in the Ships Asher continued on the Seashore and abode in his breaches And so they conclude with Curse ye Meroz curse ye bitterly the Inhabitants thereof because they came not to the help of the Lord against the Mighty So that I am perswaded it was the want of this Power in the Judges of making Laws of imposing Tributes or Taxes and of forcing Men to serve in the Wars against their Enemies which they did before only as Volunteers that made the Israelites the more desirous to have a King over them like those of other Nations who were endued with these Prerogatives And therefore the best Commentators do interpret the Prediction of Samuel concerning the manner of the King that should Reign over them and would take their Sons for his Chariots and his Horse men and to be Captains over thousands c. to relate to his Royal Power of enrolling and making them serve in his Army either as Officers or Souldiers and the taking of their Fields and their Vineyards and the Tenth of their Seeds c. to give his Officers and Servants to signifie no more than his Power of imposing Publick Tribute and Impositions on the People to maintain his Royal Splendor the Necessities of the State as other Neighbouring-Kings were wont to do all which they not being used to before they should cry unto the Lord by reason of them as a great oppression And that Saul when he came to be King used this Prerogative of forcing the People to come and serve in the War in a higher manner than Samuel or the Judges had done before appears by the 11th Chapter of this Book when Nahash the Ammonite came to make War against Iabesh Saul took a Yoke of Oxen and hewed them in pieces and sent them throughout all the Coasts of Israel by the hands of Messengers saying Whosoever cometh not forth after Saul and after Samuel so shall it be done unto his Oxen and the fear of the Lord fell on the People and they came out with one Consent And it seems evident to me that the Power which Samuel had before the Children of Israel desired a King was not Monarchical but mixt of Aristocracy and Monarchy together in which Samuel as Judge had a Judicial Authority and likewise a Supream Military Power of leading them out to War against the Philistines and other Enemies and yet notwithstanding the Supreme Power in all other things remained wholly in the Principal Heads or Fathers of the Tribes which whether they were chosen by the People or enjoyed it by Right of Inheritance I confess the Scripture is silent and therefore I am not at all satisfied with your Notion that the Government of these People when they had no Judges consisted of Twelve petty Monarchies under the Heads or Princes of the Tribes for there is no Authority in Scripture to countenance any such opinion the place you bring for it out of the 1st and 7th of Numbers not at all proving it For tho' I grant there were twelve Princes of the Tribes whose names are there set down and who are called Heads of the Houses of their Fathers yet is it no where said that these were endued with Civil Power or were Chief Rulers over the Tribes for it is apparent all Civil Power remained then in Moses and the Sanhedrim who under him decided all controversies So that it is most natural to suppose that these Heads of the Tribes were not Civil Magistrates but the Military Leaders or Captains of each Tribe when they went out to War and are the same who in this Chapter are called the renowned of the Congregation c. and Heads of the Thousands of Israel Nor doth it follow that because there were such Officers in Moses his time that they must continue the same after under the Judges so many Slaveries and oppressions that this People had undergone or that if they did still continue that their Power was Monarchical or that they could do any thing without the consent of the Heads or Fathers of Families of each Tribe in whom I suppose the Supream Authority was in the Intervals of the Judges and therefore we find in the ninth of Iudges that the men of Shechem and all the House of Millo made Abimelech King that is not over all the Tribes of Israel but over Ephraim and half Manasses only which is to be understood by Israel in this Chapter where it is said v. 18. by Iotham the Son of

to maintain their own State and Grandeur and Magnificence of their Kingdoms But I cannot think that these words contain the Original Grant and Charter of Regal Power but only the Translation that was formerly in their High-Priests or Iudges to Kings Kings had no more Power than their other Governours had for there can be no Power greater than that which is irresistible but this Power in the hands of Kings was likely to be more burdensome and oppressive to them than it was in the hands of their Priests and Iudges by reason of their different way of living which is the only Argument Samuel makes use of to dissuade them from transferring the Supream and Soveraign Power to a King And therefore I rather Chuse to translate Mishpat as our Translators do by the manner of the King than with some learned Men by the Right of the King thereby understanding the Original Charter of Kingly Power for it is not the Regal Power which Samuel here blames which was much like that which he himself ●ad exercised while he was Supream Iudge of Israel but their Pompous way of living which would prove very oppressive and burdensome to them and be apt to make them complain who had not been used to such Exactions F. You have I must confess made a much fairer exposition of this out of Samuel than divers of our Hot and Giddy Divines who would render this Mishpat as it is in the Hebrew i. e. the manner of the King by Right of the King whereby they would entitle all Kings whatsoever to an absolute Right to all their Subjects Estates when ever they would take them away not taking notice that this word Mishpat is sometimes used not only in a good but a bad sense not for Right or Power but for an evil Custom or Abuse and therefore you may find in the second Chapter of this Book of Samuel that speaking of the Sons of Eli who were Sons of Belial they knew not the Lord that the Priests viz. their Custom with the People was that when any man offered Sacrifice the Priests servant came whilst the Flesh was in seething with a Flesh-Hook of three teeth in his hand and he strook it into the Pan or Kettle or Caldron or Pot all that the Fl●sh book brought up the Priest took for himself so they did in Shiloh unto all the Israelites that came thither Where I desire you to observe that that which is rendred in our Translation the Priests Custom is in the Hebrew Mishpat which you render Right so that if this word would do it these wicked Priests had also a Right to take away as much of every Man's Sacrifice as they pleased for themselves nay to take it before God himself was served and the Fat burnt according to the rites of Sacrificing and by the same Rule Kings also by this word Mishpat should have a Right to take what they pleas'd of the Subjects Estates I do like wise also so far agree with you that Samuel does not here describe a a Tyrant but one of those absolute Eastern Princes who made use of a great part of their Subjects Estates as they do at this day to maintain their standing Armies and Royal Pomp and Magnificence so that I grant in short Samuel meant no more when he thus spake to them but since you will have a King he must be maintained like a King and very great Taxes will be laid upon you for this End of which Burden if you shall hereafter be weary or would cast it off agai● you shall by no means do it for since this King shall obtain the Crown not only by Gods appointment but by your own Choice or Election it shall not be in your Power again to depose him since it is your own Act and therefore Samuel tells them That when they should cry unto the Lord in that day because of the King which they had chosen the Lord would not hear them and as long as this King kept himself within these bounds I grant he was not to be resisted Yet nevertheless this place you have now cited as it is very far from Patronising Tyranny or all the abuses of Regal Power so neither do I think it was Samuel's meaning to make the Kings of Israel so absolute or irresistible as that upon no account whatsoever the People might disobey or resist them let them use this Power never so wickedly nay contrary to Gods express commands and the Ends of all Civil Government and therefore pray tell me Suppose instead of these necessary burdens which they should be Subject to when they had a King Samuel had spoke thus to them This King whom you desire shall prove an Idolater and as cruel a Tyrant as Pharaoh or any of the Kings of the Philistines Canaanites or any other Nations who so long Tyrannized over you and shall take away all your Estates and Lives too at his Good Pleasure without any Crime or Legal Trial and in short will not only Himself use you for Slaves but sell you and your Children for Bondmen to the Egyptians and other Nations and shall lay such Grievous Tributes and Burthens upon you that you shall be scarce able to live under them Now can any Man think if the Israelites had been really persuaded that their King must have such an Absolute and Arbitrary Power as a necessary and Inseparable Prerogative of his Crown they would ever have been so fond of such a Government as to have cried out with one Consent Nay but we will have a King over us that we may be like other Nations But sure not to Tyrannize over and enslave us but that he may Iudge us and go out before us and fight our Battels Or do you think if they had had such a King as this they would ever have long endured him for that the Children of Israel did not conceive that their Kings had such an Absolute and Arbitrary Power over them as to oppress them with Taxes and to make their Yoke more grievous to them than they were able to bear or to Tyrannize over them at his good Pleasure appears plainly by the Story in the first of Kings concerning the Children of Israels assembling together at Sichem to make Rehoboam King and you 'll find the Preliminary Conditions of his Government were these All the Congregation of Israel came and spake unto Rehoboam saying Thy Father made our Yoke grievous Now therefore make thou the grievous Service of thy Father and his heavy Yoke which he put upon us Lighter and we will serve thee But see the Answer that Rehoboam made them according to the Wisdom of his Young Counsellours My little Finger Shall be Thicker than my Fathers Loyns And whereas my Father did lade you with a heavy Yoke I will add to your Yoke My Father has chastised you with Whips but I will chastize you with Scorpions And mark what follows upon this Answer So when