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
stature That civil government which God instituted in the beginning of the World standeth by divine right throughout all ages But God instituted absolute Monarchie in the beginning of the World Ergo. The Assumption seemeth to be warranted by that Scripture before produced God say my Antagonists gave to the eldest Sonne after his Fathers death Monarchicall authority over his brethren Into this sense they construe that sentence And unto thee shall be his desire and thou shalt rule over him Ans The proposition of the syllogism before exhibited is very impotent neither can I divine with what crutch my Antagonists can support it There is not the like reason for Monarchy in after-ages as in the infancy of the world unless it be as casie for one man to govern a Nation as to govern a Family There was truth though no sincerity in that speech of Tiberius se in partem curarum ab Augusto vocatum experiendo didicisse quà m arduum quà m subjectum fortunae cuncta regendi onus The Kings which God appointed the Israelites after they had cast off him from ruling over them were not absolute Monarchs I shall now explain whether those words before quoted in Gen. 4.7 warrant what was assumed to wit a divine institution of Monarchy The words in the Originall are capable of this construction The desire of it that is of sin is unto thee but thou shalt rule over it Compare Rom. 6.12 The affixes I confess differ in gender from the word for sin but so also doth robets the word for lieth Ainsworth well observeth other such differences in other texts of Scripture Amongst the Hebrew Scholiasts Raesi Bechai Nachmanides and Abarbinel as also the Author of Thargum Jerus are very full for that sense which I have propounded According to these Interpreters teschukatho which in our English translation is his desire meaneth the desire of sin to wit jetser haraugh an evil frame or temper of soul and * jeiser haraugh is not by the Hebrew Doctors confined to the minds though by many learned Authors it be rendered mala cogitatio Abarbinel upon that place in Gen. before quoted having before interpreted tejchukah to be jetsâ—â— haraugh saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because the body inciteth a man to sin bodie we call it concupiscence which fitly interpreteth the word teschukah which say they instigated and tempted Cain to sin and which he should vanquish would he repent Becanus is clearly of the same sense Dixit Dominus ad Cain Nonnè sibene egeris recipies sin autem malè statim in foribus peccatum tuum aderit sub te erit appetitus ejus peccati scilicet tu dominaberis illius appetitus scilicet quo ad peccatum propendes alliceris Thus the Author now quoted Theol. Scholast part 2. tract 1. cap. 2. p. 50. But let us suppose the affixes of the sentence quoted to be referred to Abel who is not mentioned in the 5.6 nor in the preceding part of the 7. verse yet cannot the word for desire in this verse import a subjection of Abel to his Brother Cain as an absolute Monarch or a King In Gen. 3.16 it is said of Eve thy desire shall be to thy husband and he shall rule over her * Polit. 1. Aristotle telleth us that a man ruleth his wife and his children but both as those who are free or not servile But not with the same manner of Government 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but his wife politically and his children after the manner of a King The word for desire saith Ainsworth implieth a desirous affection as appeareth by Cant. 7.10 The Apostle seemeth to allude to it in 1 Thes 2.8 Whereas Onkelos for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and ye shall be as Gods saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and ye shall be as Princes which is agreeable enough to the Originall the Serpent by Gods not meaning the S. Trinitie as Eve construed him but the faln Angels who whilst they stood had experimental knowledge of good and since their fall of evill and which are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * see also Rom. 8.38 Colos 2.15 and Eph. 2 2. where the Prince of the Air or of darkness for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will also without wresting admit of that construction may fitly enough signifiâ— the chief of the faln Angels or all the faln Angels according to our English translation principalities powers and rulers of the darkness of this world Eph. 6.12 Abarbinel * Vpon Gen. 3.5 conceiving him to speak of earthly Princes saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Onkelos here is not to be allowed because then there were no Princes in the world which words I conceive are not to be determined precisely to the time in which the Serpent tempted Eve but to be extended to the whole time of Adams life if not to all the time before the Flood But I shall seem to have spent needless labour in discovering the weaknesse of the Minor seeing there is not the like reason for Monarchy now as in the beginning of the World and especially which I desire all men to take notice of in that the authority which they attribute to Cain over Abel affordeth us as firm an Argument for an absolute Monarchy of the eldest Sonne over his brethren throughout all ages as for Monarchie to be continued in the World The authority of the eldest Sonne over his brethren which God instituted in the beginning of the World standeth by divine right throughout all ages But God in the beginning of the World appointed the eldest Sonne to be an absolute Monarch over his Brethren Ergo Every eldest Sonne in every age and so now a dayes is an absolute Monarch after his Fathers death over his Brethren Let none therefore henceforth who force that Scripture for the assertion of Monarchy dare to affirm That any one by divine right ought to have larger authority over others then every eldest Sonne after his Fathers death hath over his brethren CHAP. 3. Monarchy is so far from standing by divine right as that it falleth short of some other forms of Government MOnarchy is worse then some other governments 1 Because one cannot discern so much as many of equall parts Object It may be objected that this reason implieth that all in a Commonwealth who have attained to years of discretion ought to be admitted to Vote about every State-business Ans I deny the consequence in that the managing of all publick affairs by the Votes of the whole people especially in populous Commonwealths is a thing altogether impossible both because it would almost wholly withdraw men from their private concernments and likewise retard the dispatching of those businesses in which they have a joynt-interest 2 * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Arist Po. lit 3. Because there are but few in comparison who are able to judge in State affairs Those who are themselves unfit for that taske may be able to
bloodshed which goeth unpunished We shall be more at a loss in the executing of penalties for the breach of some other of the precepts which are said to be given to Noah as idolatry and blasphemy and the eating of flesh with the life thereof unless tribunals be erected In these offences the wrong is not done especially to this or that man nor this or that Family but immediately to God the Lord of all and by way of reflexion in regard of Gods wrath and by bad examples to the whole people The main argument which seemeth to inferre that Tribunalls or the exercize of civil judicature is not inforced by the Law of Nature is that it was not so from the beginning In the Sacred Historie of the World before the deluge we have no instance of any humane censures And * Metam l. 1. Ovid telleth us that those who lived in the first or golden age erant sine judice tuti His meaning I conceive is that they were free from humane censures That which this Author in his description of the golden age delivereth to this purpose maketh me much suspect that for some considerable time after the Creation there were no Courts of justice established nor any humane censures whether by the eldest of a Family or by the multitude or any autorized to that purpose In his work now praysed we may often discern a truth recorded in the Scripture through the cloud of his Poetrie In the beginning of his first book we have the History of the Creation and in that man last of all created His Gygantomachia was occasioned by the building of the Tower of Babel He mentioneth also the deluge That piece of his Poetrie took its rise from Noahs Flood ☞ For it was not confined to this or that patch of ground but overwhelmed all mankind save Deucalion and Pyrrha-Lucian also telleth us that Deucalion with his Wife and Children were saved in a great Ark which he had and that two of every kind of living creatures came to him and were received into the Ark and preserved in it And Plutarch maketh mention of a Dove sent by Deucalion out of the Ark and bringing newes of the abatement of the waters In the beginning of his 8 book we have Samson's hair given to Nisus In the same book we have the destruction of Sodom and the change of the soyl thereabout and Let with his Wife under the names of Philemon and Baucis fetched out thence by Angels under the Poeticall vizard of Jupiter and Mercury We have Lots incest alluded to in Cynaras and Myrrha l. 10. In the beginning of the 12. book Iphigenia when she was fastened to the Altar and about to be sacrificed is changed for a Doe which shadoweth out unto us Isaac excused for a Ram. In the same book Cygnus slaying 7000. men and feigned to be impenetrable is a resemblance of Samson In that I find so much of divine storie in this Poet I conjecture that his Poem about the four ages hath some tincture from holy writ The Image which Nebuchadnezzar saw in his dream is one ingredient of it and mans integrity before his fall another * See Salmas de U uâ—is c. 11. p. 303. and the condition of mankind for some time after our fall a third It was usuall with the Heathen as we may observe both from their Poets and * See Justine l. 36. Tacitus Histor lib. 5. Prosaicall writers and from those two excellent treatises written by a late Author which discover unto us the Banian Religion and the Religion of the Persees to mangle those truths which are contained in the Word of God and likewise to confound and blend them together which is very familiar likewise with the pen-men of the Alcoran But it is easie for the most part to perceive the Sun through their clouds I shall easily grant that men for some time after their fall in our first Parents lived after their own manner being restrained by no Courts of Justice but we cannot inferre from thence that such Courts are not necessary nor yet that they are not by divine right God might out of his secret counsell for some time connive at such an omission after what manner he permitted the Israelites writing a Bill of Divorce to put away their Wives * Those who lived in the former times of the World ought to have set out some time for God in which servants might have been exempted from such works as â—re not of necessity nor charity nor piety or as he connived at the setting of no certain time apart for his worship till himself made choice of a day when the Israelites were brought into the Wilderness or as for a long time he connived at Polygamie CHAP. 6. Other jurisdiction is necessary now a dayes besides that wherein the Law of Nature hath invested Masters of Families THe next question to be discussed is whether the exercise of jurisdiction be confined by a birth-privilege to certain persons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Aristotle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * Polit. l. 1. Every house is governed by the Eldest as also the colonies which are propagated from it in regard of their cognation or kindred But clear it is that now a dayes authority cannot be dispenced according to this principle We have no records by which we can be informed who by way of inheritance and birthright as all are reckoned from Noah should have a preeminence above the rest Neither can one man though Firmicus telleth us that a certain positure of the Starres designeth a man to an universall Monarchie be so Atlantick as to bear upon his shoulders the government of the Universe Nor yet can it be known who in this or that Country in regard of a descent from Noah should have advantage of the rest in order to jurisdiction and government Neither are the Eldest alwayes the wisest * Diodorus Siculus Bâ—blict Hist lib. 3. speaking of the Inhabitants of an Iland in the Southern Ocean saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The eldest in every company beareth rule over it as a King and all the rest obey Though there be a vast difference between bearing ruse over a certain company of men whether their associating of themselves together take its rise meetly from the harmonie of their minds or from their occupation and the goverment of a Nation yet no wise man will conceive that their practise is perpetually to be imitated Those who manage the publick affairs of any people ought to be such as have animi vires strict as pondere mentes That sentence of Aristotle before praised is to be understood of a Family living apart from the rest of mankind as * See Tulliein Oâ—aâ— pro P. Sextio Juvenal Salyr 15. did some in the first Ages of the World and for some generations after the Deluge and perhaps upon some extraordinary occasions in later times But that any Master of a Family at any
time before the Flood passed a sentence of death upon any appertaining to his Family cannot be proved out of any monuments of antiquity now extant Neither doth it appear whether Iudah pronounced sentence of death upon Thamar by virtue of any authority which he had over her as belonging to his Family or by virtue of some Law consented to by his Fore-fathers or according to the Law and manner of the Countrey in which he lived or out of rashness Some of the Hebrew Doctors affirm that Iudah intended not that Thamar should be burned to death but only stigmatized in the forehead for an harlot What authority soever a Master of a Family may challenge by the Law of nature over his children and servants and those who by mariage are ingrafted into his Family whilst he is a sojourner among a Nation into which he is not incorporated clear it is that those who have their share in any Country and a setled abode among others have no title to such authority in that they are tempted to partiality and may expose their neighbors to divine justice by neglecting judgments or by giving unjust sentence of death and the same wayes weaken the Country in which they live and expose it to a common enemy Homer in the Iota of his Odyss maketh it a badge of rude and uncivill people to live together in the same Countrey and not to imbodie themselves into a Society nor have any publick jurisdiction saying of the Cyclopes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They give lawes every one of them to his Wives and children neither regard one another Most agreable it is to the light of Nature that those who inhabite the same Countrey and so nigh together that they are without inconveniencie capable of a common government so combine and associate the strengths of their minds and estates as that they may be * Herodotus saith of the Thracions who by some are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because every man wâ—â— a Law to himself that if they had either been all of one mind or under one K. they had been invincible in a positure of defence against a common Enemy and home-bred disturbances which cannot be effected without common lawes and publick execution of justice * Plato de Legibus l. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Men must of necessity establish lawes and observe them or not at all differ from the most savage beasts CHAP. 7. Magistracy standeth by divine right IT remaineth doubtfull whether people who live together may lawfully retain an Isocracie among them having all of them suffrages of equall value in the censuring of Delinquents and the managing of such affairs as conduce to their publick safety or be bound by the law of Nature or any of Gods positive lawes to set Governors and Magistrates over them We inquire not now of Magistracy fettered in the circumstances of hic and nunc determined to time and place for there is no doubt but among the Israelites not only Magistracy but also certain forms of Magistracy were by divine right moreover that certain persons also bare rule among them by divine right and that without the mediation of any humane choice nor yet of Magistracy during the time for which it is established by men that is of Magistracy with a presupposition of humane consent by which in some form or other it was erected and is for some time to be continued seeing that Gods Law requireth that men stand to their agreements and the Scripture saith * Rom. 13.1 The powers that be are ordained of God and * 1 Pet. 2.13 Submit your selves to every ordinance of man for the Lords sake but whether God hath commanded all Nations at all times to have Magistrates Judges or State-Officers The question is that I may further explain the state of it whether Isoâ—rasie be lawfull or men be bound by the Law of God to set up a Magistracy to preferre some to bear rule over the rest The Scripture doth not extricate us in this controversie by any generall precept Nor yet if we search the History of the World before the Flood shall we find any foot-step of Magistracy or of humane censures We have much wickednesse mentioned in the gross Gen. 6.5 and some sins specified elsewhere but no intimation of any punishment inflicted by any humane judicature * The murdering of Abel Gen. 4.8 and according to some Interpreters murder committed by Lamech Gen. 4.23 and idolatry according to some of the Hebrew Doctors Gen. 4.26 I should otherwise interpret the two places last quoted but Lamech's rash speech deserved a censure We have Polygamie likewise mentioned v. 19. of the same chap. but which some deny to have been a sin in Lamech That of Cain It shall come to pass every one that findeth me shall slay me importeth not that he feared any judiciary sentence but only a rude and boystrous inflicting of punishment that it was permittted to every one to punish so hainous a delinquent and that he expected not any regular proceedings of justice against him But I take notice that in regard of the present he feared where no fear was departing from the presence of his Parents neither was likely to prophecie after what manner punishments should afterwards be dispenced I conceive he expressed a fear of men onely and not of beasts His speech was rash and inconsiderate having a tincture from his guilty conscience If we consult with the light of reason it will inform us that in large countryes Magistracie is necessary because in such the Inhabitants though all who are servile and indigent be excluded cannot convene so oft as virtue is to be rewarded and encouraged or as disorders are to be repressed and vice to be punished nor yet so oft as the preservation of their common safetie requireth It is clear also from the written word of God that all publick affairs ought to be managed in such a way as may conduce most to Gods glory and the publick good Moreover God appointed a few in his own peculiar people to govern the rest Such likewise at all times hath been the custom almost of all Nations CHAP. 8. The qualifications of those who ought to vote in the dispencing of Authority The major part of suffrages is equivalently the whole number Those who are uncapable of Voting are tied to subjection ARistotle well observeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Polic. 3. that all are not Citizens who inhabit the City seeing Strangers and Servants have their share in habitation He frequently excludeth those who are indigent from bearing sway in a Commonwealth Vnequall it is that Helots and those who have no estates should have equall authority with those who are wealthy in making Laws which concern mens estates in that by their private condition they are much tempted to favour theft and encroachment Seeing men are by an innate and hereditary distemper biased towards wicked practices indigent people who