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
shall his blood be shed was not then first given but only repeated and inforced by a vocall promulgation God permitted the Isralites to spoil the Aegyptians Exod. 11.2 And some of those of whom they borrowed jewels perhaps had no influence into their pressures If all Gods providential dispensations should have been written I suppose that even the World it self could not contain the Bookes that should be written I cannot conceive that it will seem strange to any who are not sworn to hold their conclusions that Saul should by some un-written dispensation be exempted from some penalties to which otherwise he should have been liable or that David by some countermand which was not committed to writing should be inhibited from killing Saul which otherwise he might have done in his own defence * Upon 1 Sam. 26. Abarbinel saith by way of conjecture that David received from Samuel at Naioth in Ramah what he saith to Abishai 1 Sam. 26.10 God had promised David the Kingdom and so virtually at least that he would deliver him out of the hands of Saul and that his information out of supposition that he sinned not in sparing Saul was ich'd out by some divine light not recorded in Scripture sith otherwise he might have conceived that God had decreed he should by his Sword hew out his way to the Kingdom that Gods promise was to be accomplished by his killing of Saul when he was delivered into his hands It is probable enough that God by some revelation not contained in the Scriptures now extant signified unto David that himself without his help would shorten Sauls dayes and admonished him expresly or by consequence not to lay violent hands upon his Master the Lords anointed I am confident that the Historie of some privileges which were granted to Saul and those who by Gods appointment succeeded him in the Kingdom perished with that book which Samuel wrote concerning the manner of the Kingdom and layed up before the Lord 1 Sam. 10.25 That Book was of divine authority but not joyned to the other Scriptures in that it would be of little use after the Kingdom expired and Gods Providence ordered that those divine Writings which should be transmitted to all posterity should be comprehended in such a volume as would be portable and might be easily purchased When I before spake of unwritten dispensations and precepts I meant such as were not inserted in the Scriptures which should be preserved as a perpetuall rule of our lives And perhaps there was never but for some short time any unwritten tradition but in this sense It is is probable enough that the Book of which Samuel maketh mention perished with the first Temple The sacred Writings as Elias Levita witnesseth were not gathered into one Volume till after the Babylonian captivity Seeing the Scripture now extant exempted not Saul from violent resistance which might endanger or take away his life when the life of any of his Subjects which he unjustly sought after could not be preserved upon other terms we must grant unless we resolve to be irrationall that David sinned in sparing Saul or else that his omissions were warranted by some divine precept or permission which is not now extant No divine command or permission from which there resulted any privilege to Saul alone or to him and those who succeeded him in the Kingdom * Deut. 30.11 12 13 14. could be longer in force then it was transmitted to Posterity by undoubted authority And indeed all of the Reformed Religion acknowledge the written word of God now extant to be a sufficient rule of our religious actions and omissions CHAP. 18. The remainder of the premises in that Syllogism which is built upon Davids carriage towards Saul by those who have endeavoured to support Tyranny is examined THe other proposition to be examined is That Saul was free from humane censures and violent resistance for so much is wont to be assumed as warranted by Davids carriage towards Saul But he must have better eyes then ever had Lyneeus who can see any thing in those Texts of Samuel which I produced in the 10th Chapter whence it may be concluded that Saul if he had committed such sins as according to Gods Law were to be punished with death might not by the great Sanhedrin or if there had been no such Court by divine institution by the major part of the people be deposed and put to death or punished with death without other deposition unless there be the like reason that any one should be exempted from humane censures and from resistance to be made by a private person whose life he invadeth which that I may not deny it to be true none that I have met with have urged I shall now examine whether we may infallibly conclude from Davids testimony that Sauls Subjects were bound by Gods Law rather to suffer themselves to be murthered by him then to slay him in their own defence David expresseth his own judgement touching Gods will which was contrary to the sense of his followers some of which undoubtedly were not strangers to the Spirit of God R. David Kimchi upon those words 1 Sam. 24.10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and bad me kill thee where our English translation supplyeth the sense by some and some of the Hebrew Doctors by every one of my men saith And our Rabbines of blessed memorie interpret it and say the Scripture saith when one cometh to murdor thee consent to kill him as for instance if a Theef be found in a Cave as if he David should have said I had liberty being also able to kill thee bad not my Soul spared thee The same Doctor a little after upon those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. but mine eye spared thee according to our English translation and according to Jonathan Ben Vriel in some copies my Soul spared thee according to David Kimchi my soul or mine eye spared thee saith It was lawfull for me to kill thee because thou didst pursue me and the rule is consent thou to kill him that cometh to kill thee Those Hebrew Doctors which Kimchi mentioneth and which be doth not gainst-say though they mis-construe David yet certifie us that in their opinion the Scripture bad David kill Saul And indeed so much was injoyned in the 6th Commandement whether he was countermanded by God who without doubt can dispence with the Commandementts of the 2d Table according to the materialitie of them the two last being excepted I dispute not in this place Abarbinel though upon 1 Sam. 26 he conjectures that God by Samuel might have warned Davia to spare Saul and foretold that himself would shorten his dayes saw so little warrant from the Scripture for Davids clemencie towards Saul that he saith upon Chapter 24. of the same book without doubt David in his professions to his servants about the sparing of Saul and in slaying the Amalekite who feigned that he had killed Saul and in putting to death
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
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
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