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
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