these speeches or the practise or in David pertinent to the case in dispute for when Davids men moved him to kill Saul and would have risen up against him to slay him David refused to act or suffer his men to do it neither Saul nor any of his men did actually assault David or his followers nor so much as once discover them but Saul went casually to cover his feet into the Cave where they lay hid which done he rose up and went on his way not once espying David though hâ— cut off the skirt of his Robe privily nor any of his men with him To argue therefore That David and his men might not with a safe conscience stretch forth their hands and rise up against their Soveraingne king Saul to kill him thus in cold blood when he assaulted them not nor so much as thought of their being in the Cave and went out of it quietly not discovering them Ergo they might not they would not in conscience have resisted repulsed him or his Forces had they assaulted or given them battell in the Cave is a Non-sence Conclusion just in effect the same with this I may not resist or repulse one who assaults me not Ergo I may not resist one that actually assaults me to take away my life or to beat rob wound me What Logick Reason Law or Divinitie is there in such an argument So after this when Abishai said to David God hath delivered Saul thine enemie into thy hand this day now therefore let me smite him I pray thee with the spear even to the earth at once I will not smite him the second time And David said to Abishai Destroy him not for who can stretch forth his hand against the Lords Anoynted to wit to slay him purposely as Abishai intended and be guiltlesse The Text is expresse That Saul and his men were then in their own Trenches fast a sleep because a deep sleep from the Lord was fallen upon them David and Abishai were here the onely assailants they came into Sauls Trenches he and his whole army were in so sound a sleep that they came to Sauls own person took away with them his Spear and the Cruse of water from his Bolster and departed not being once discerned No man resists assaults discovers them To slay Saul thus in cold blood without any assault or present provocation and especially upon a private quarrell had been Treachery and impiety in a Son-in-Law a Servant a Subject a Successour and to do it with the hazard of their own lives had any of Sauls Army been awakened at the stroke Abishai would have given him as probably they might have been they being but two and within their enemies Trenches in the midst of the Army who might have easily and speedily slain them had been rashnesse indiscretion their departure with the Spear and Cruse was more Heroicall Loyall prudentiall To conclude therefore as our Opposites do from this speech and example That David thought it unlawfull in point of Conscience for him or Abishai to murther his Soveraign Lord King Saul when he and his men were thus fast asleep in the midst of their Trenches offering them no wrong making no actuall assaults upon them Ergo they could not would not iustly with safe consciences have forcibly defended themselves against Saul and his Army had they been assaulted by them in their own Trenches is a trascendent absurdity refuted by the very next words of David to Abishai at that instant 1 Sam. 26. 10. And David said furthermore As the Lord liveth the Lord shall smite him or his day shall come to die or he shall DESCEND INTO BATTELL AND PERISH which intimates that if Saul would force him to a battell then he might lawfully defend himself against his violence though he might not murther him now in his sleep when he did him no harm and if he casually perished in the battell it was Sauls own wilfull default not his who could not disswade him by all this his fair carriage and sparing of his life when he had those two advantages to slay him from his violent prosecution nor yet succeed him in the Crown as God had appointed and foretold should he suffer him to murther him and his men in battell without resistance Yea Davids earnestnesse to go with Achish and the Philistines to the battell against Saul wherein he perished 1 Sam. 29. unlesse we will taxe David for a notable Hypocrite and dissembler unanswerably evidenceth that he deemed it lawfull to resist to encounter Saul and his Forces in battell not withstanding his person might chance to perish in the fight though not to slay him treacherously and basely upon the precedent advantages And his slaying of that lying Amalekite who brought him tydings of Sauls death reporting that himself had slain him to gain a reward from David he being then one of Sauls souldiers as it seems concludes onely that it was not lawfull for any of Sauls own men to sâ—y him by his own command Not that resistance of him in the open battell was unlawfull in point of conscience Other answers might be given to this Objection concerning David and Saul As 1. that this difference was but private and personall between Saul and David David being then Sauls private subject Servant Son in Law not publike between Saul his whole Parliament or Kingdom now many things are unlawfull to be done in private quarrels which are iust and honourable in publike differences Secondly that David himself though he thus forbore to murther Saul yet he tels him 1 Sam. 24. 10 11 12. This day thine eyes have seen how that the Lord had delivered thee to day into mine hand in the Cave and some bad me kill thee but mine eye SPARED THEE and I said I will not put forth my hand against my Lord for he is the Lords anoynted Moreover my father see yea see the skirt of thy Robe in my hand for in that I cut off the skirt of thy Robe and KILLED THEE NOT know thou and see that there is neither evill nor transgression in mine hand and I have not sinned against thee yet thou huntest my soul to take it The Lord judge between me thee and the Lord avenge me of thee but mine hand shall not be upon thee and plead my cause and deliver me out of thine hand And after this upon the second advantage he useth like words The Lord render to every man according to his righteousnes faithfulnes for the Lord delivered thee into my hand to day but I would not stretch forth my hand against the Lords annointed And behold as THY LIFE WAS MVCH SET BY THIS DAY IN MY EYES so let my life be much set by in the eyes of the Lord and let him deliver me out of all tribulation Wherein David declared that God had given up Sauls life into his power that it was his owne meer goodnesse that moved him to spare Saul contrary to
with Acts 13. 21. And afterward THEY DESIRED A KING and God gave them Saul the son of Cis by the space of forty years All these concurring sacred Texts will infallibly demonstrate that this change of the Iudges into Kings and the originall creation of their Kings and kingdoms proceeded only from the importunity and authority of the people who would not be gainsaid herein not from Gods institution or Samuels approbation who censured and disavowed this their motion though they at last condescended to it all which is elegantly related confirmed by Iosephus Antique Iudaeorum l. 6. c. 4 5 6 7. By all this it is apparent that the congregation and people of the Iews had the Soveraign power in themselves as well as other Nations because the authoritie to alter the whole frame of their former Aristocraticall Government into a Monarchy resided in them though they were taxed forchanging it in Samuels dayes who had so justly so uprightly judged them Secondly it is apparent that the Iudges and kings of the Israelites were not properly hereditary but oft elective by the people and though God did sometimes immediately nominate the persons of those that should reign over them as is apparent by Saul David Ieroboam Iehu others yet the people did constantly confirm make them kings and gave them their royall authority none being made kings by Divine appointment but such as they willingly accepted approved confirmed for their kings Gods previous designation being but a preparative to their voluntary free not restrained or limited election The first king among the Israelites though but over part of them was Abimelech the son of Ierubbaal who was made king by the peoples election Iudges 9. 1 to 7. who having perswaded those of Sechem to elect him for their king thereupon ALL THE MEN of Sechem gathered together and ALL THE HOVSE of Millo went and MADE ABIMELECH KING whence Iotham thus upbraided them and him Verse 14. to 19 Then said all the trees unto the Bramble come thou and reign over us And the Bramble said unto the trees If in truth ye annoint me king over you thèn come and put your trust in my shadow c. Now therefore if ye have done truly and sincerely in that YE HAVE MADE Abimelech KING c And that ye have risen up against my fathers house this day and have MADE Abimelech king c. We read Iudg. 8 21 23. that after Gideon had slain Zebab and Zalmunna with the Midianites The men of Israel said unto Gideon Rule thou over us both thou and thy sons and thy sons son also for thou hast delivered us from the hand of Midiaâ— And Gideon said unto them I will not rule over you neither shall my son rule over you the Lord shall rule over you Where we clearly see the power and right to elect a Ruler and to limit the government to him and his Issue for three Generations only to reside in the peoples free election So Iudges 10. 17 18. and Chap. 11. 1. to 12. When the Children of Ammon were gathered together and encamped against Gilead the people and Princes of Gilead said one to another What man is he that will begin to fight against the children of Ammon he shall be Head over all the Inhabitants of Gilead And the Elders of Gilead went to fetch Iephthah out of the Land of Tob and said unto him Come and be our Captain that we may fight with the Children of Ammon and be our Head over all the inhabitants of Gilead Vpon promise of which dignitie he went with them to Gilead and THE PEOPLE MADE HIM HEAD AND CAPTAIN OVER THEM That the election and making of their Kings belonged of right to all the people is past dispute being so resolved by God himself Deuter. 17. 14 15. When thou art come into the land c. and shalt say I WILL SET A KING OVER ME like as all the Nations that are about me THOV shalt in any wise SET HIM KING OVER THEE whom the Lord thy God shall choose one from among thy Brethren shalt THOV SET OVER THEE THOV MAIST NOT SET A STRANGER OVER THEE Where the power of creating and electing the King is left wholly to the peoples free choice with these generall restrictions that he should be one of their brethren not a stranger and particularly qualified as is there expressed And though God did sometime design and nominate their Kings yet he left the power of approbation and ratification of them free to the people as is apparent by 1 Sa. 8. 18. And ye shall crie in that day because of the King WHICH YE SHALL HAVE CHOSEN you Hence Saul their first King though nominated and designed by God and Samuel was yet approved confirmed and made King by the People Who shouted and said God save the King when Samuel presented him to them 1 Sam. 10. 24. But the children of Belial despising and bringing him no presents Verse 27. after Saul had conquered the Ammonites who besieged Iabesh Gilead The people said unto Samuel who is he that said Shall Saul Râ—ign over us bring the men that we may put them to death Then Saul said There shall not a man be put to death this day for this day the Lord haâ—h wrought salvation in Israel Then said Samuel to the people Come let us go to Gilgal and renew the Kingdom there And ALL THE PEOPLE went to Gilgal and there THEY MADE SAVL KING before the Lord in Gilgal Where Samuel useth this speech to the people concerning Saul Now therefore behold THE KING WHOM YE HAVE CHOSEN and whom Ye have desired the Lordhath set a King over you so that the choice and election of him was as well theirs as Gods And Verse 25. he calls him Your King because chosen and made by as well as for the people Saul being slain by his owne hands the Crown descended not to his sonne by way of descent but David succeeded him by Gods designation and the Peoples election too by whose authority he was made and crowned king being formerly annointed by Samuel to succeed Saul This is irrefragable by the 2 Sam. 2. 4. Where David going up to Hebron by Gods direction the men of Iudah came and there They Annointed David King over the House of Iudah After which 2 Samuel 5. 1. to 5. ALL THE TRIBES OF ISRAEL came to David to Hebron and spake saying Behold we are thy bone and thy flesh Also in time past when Saul was King over us thou wast he that leddest out and broughtest in Israel And the Lord said to thee Thou shalt feed my people Israel and thou shalt be a Captain over Israel So AL THE ELDERS of Israel came to the King at Hebron and King David made a League or Covenant with them before the Lord and THEY ANNOINTED DAVID KING OVER ISRAEL And in the 1 Chron. 12. 23. to 40. Wee have a particular recitall of the numbers of the bands that were ready armed to
bearing of all grosse outward injuries to our persons or estates without resistance which precept being given generally to all Christians to Kings and Magistrates as well as Subjects if it be strictly urged prohibits Kings and Magistrates to resist the violence and injuries of the people as much as the people not to repulse the Armed violence and oppressions of their Pâ—inces and Governours and that Text of Iames 5. 6. Ye have condemned and killed the just and he doth not resist you which some thinke is meant of Christ alone proves onely that some just men and many Martyrs have beene condemned and killed without resistance as our Saviour was not that it is unlawfull to resist an open enemy theefe or murtherer who comes to kill rob or plunder us against Law and Conscience I read of Saint Andrew that when the people ran together in multitudes â—o rescue him out of the hands of a wicked man and defend him from the injury of death he teaching them both by word and example exhorted them not to hinder his martyrdome yet the people lawfully rescued innocent Ionathan from that unjust death which his Father King Saul twice vowed hee should undergoe Some mens patient suffering death and injuries without resistance is no better an argument that all therefore must so suffer without opposition then that all men ought to yeeld their purses up to high-way theeves or their persons goods ships to Turkes and Pyrates without fight or resistance because some yea many have shamefully done it for want of courage when they were able to resist and so have deservedly lost their purses shippes goods liberties and become Turkish Gally-slaves to the ruine of their estates bodies soules which miseries by a manfull just defence they might have easily prevented All which considered I see no ground in Scripture nor reason but that temporall enemies of all kindes which wrongfully invade our persons or estates by open force of Armes in a warlike manner may be resisted with temporall weapons as well as spirituall enemies with spirituall Armes Eighthly That which all Nations in all ages by the very light of nature have constantly practised as just and lawfull must doubtlesse be lawfull in point of conscience if there be no Law of God to the contrary But selfe-defence against invading Tyrants and their instruments hath by the very light of Nature beene constantly practised by all Nations in all ages as just and lawfull which the premises the Appendix the Histories of all ages evidence there being never any one Nation or Kingdome for ought I finde that ever yet reputed it a thing unlawfull in point of Conscience to resist the open malicious destructive tyranny violence hostility of their unnaturall Princes or that desisted from any such resistance giving themselves up willingly to their outragious lusts and butchâ—ries without any opposition though some private men and Martyres have sometimes done it upon particular reasons as to avoid the scandall of Religion to beare witnesse to the truth for the confirmation and conversion of others or for want of power or oportunity to resist or to avoyd a generall massacre of their fellow Christians or because they were onely a few private men and their religion directly opposite to the Lawes and government under which they lived or the like not because they judged all resistance simply unlawfull as blinde Doctors â—alsely informe us which I shall prove hereafter and there is no Law of God at all to prohibite such resistance therefore doubtlesse it must be lawfull even in point of conscience Ninthly that which is directly opposite to what is absolutely illegall and unjust in point of conscience and the chiefe lawfull obstacle and remedy to prevent or redresse it must certainely be just be lawfull in the court of Conscience since that which is directly opposite to that which is â—imply ill and unjust must necessarily be good and just But necessary just defence by force of Armes is directly opposite to that open Armed violence and tyranny which is absolutely illegall and unjust in point of Conscience and the chiefe lawfull remedy and obstacle to prevent or redresse it as reason experience and the premises evidence Therefore it must necessarily be just and lawfull even in the Court of Conscience Tenthly That resistance which doth neither oppose the Kings royal person nor lawfull Authority must certainely be lawfull in point of conscience But the resistance of the Kings Forces not accompanied with his person in the execution of his unjust commands is neither a resistance of his Royall person for that is absent and his Cavalliers I hope are no Kings nor yet invested with the priviledges of Kings nor yet of his lawfull Authority his illegall Commissions and Commands being meere nullities in Law transferring no particle of his just Authority to those who execute them Therefore it must certainely be lawfull in point of conscience Eleventhly That resistance which is the onely remedy to keepe not onely Kings themselves but every one of their Officers and Souldiers from being absolute Tyrants Monarchs and the deny all whereof equalizeth every souldier and particular Officer to Kings yea God himselfe whose prerogative only it is to have an absolute unresistable wil must doubtlesse be lawful in the Court of Conscience But this necessary defensive resistance now used by the Parliament and Subjects is such For if they may not resist any of the Kings Officers or Souldiers in their plunderings rapines fierings sackings of Townes beating wounding murthering the Kings leige people and the like will not every common Souldier and Officer be an absolute Tyrant equall in Monarchie to the great Turke himself and â—aramount the King who hath no absolute irresistable Soveraignety in these particulars Either therefore this resistance must be granted not onely as lawfull but simply necessary else every officer and common Souldier wiâ—l be more than an absolute King and Monarch every subject worse than a Turkish slave and exposed to as many uncontrolable Soveraignes as there are Souldiers in the Kings Army be their conditions never so vile their qualitie never so mean and the greatest Peeres on the Parliaments party must be irresistably subject to these new absolute Soveraignes lusts and wills Twelfthly if all these will not yet satisfie Conscience in the Lawfulnesse the justnesse of the Parliaments and peoples present forcible resistance of the Kings Captaines and Forces though Armed withan illegall Commission which makes nothing at all in the case because voyd in Law there is this one Argument yet remaining which will satisfie the most scrupulous malignant opposite Conscience That necessary forcible resistance which is Authorised and Commanded by the Supreamest lawfull power and highest Soveraigne Authority in the Realme must infallibly be just and lawfull even in point of Conscience by the expresse Resolution of Rom. 13. and our opposites owne confession who have no other Argument to prove the Offensive warre on the Kings part
bitterly the inhabitants thereof because they came not out to the helpe of the Lord to the helpe of the Lord against the mighty with this Corollary so let all thine enemies pâ—rish O Lord but let them that love thee be as the sunne when it goet forth in his might What more can conscience desire to justifie the lawfulnesse of a just defensive warre Sixthly by the Example of Gideon and the Israelites Iudges c. 6. Who being delivered by God into the hands of the Prince of Midian for seven yeares Gideon by speciall incouragement and direction from God himselfe with a poore despicable Army of 300. men defeated the great Hoast of the Midianites and tooke and slew their Princes By these 4 last pregnant presidents it is most evident that a forraigne King who hath gained a Title onely by conquest though with divine concurrence by way of punishment for that peoples sinne may lawfully be resisted repulsed even after some yeares forced subjection and submission to him by the people conquered to regaine their former liberties Seventhly by the precedent of Abimelech King of Shechem who being elected King by the voluntary assents of the people God afterwards sending an evill spirit of division between Abimelech and the men of Shechem thereupon they revolted from him and chusing Gael for their Captaine fortified the City against him and when Abimelech came with an Army to take in the Towne they in their defence went forth and fought with him resisted his seige and they of the Tower of Shechem standing upon their guard refused to surrender it after the Towne was surprised and so were burnt After which comming too neare the wals at the Tower of Thebez assaulted by Abimelech he had his braines and head so bruised with the peece of a milstone cast downe upon him by a woman that he called hastily to his Armour-bearer and said unto him draw thy sword and slay me that men say not of me a woman slew him whereupon he thrust him through that he dyed and so every man departed to his place Thus God rendred the wickednesse of Abimelech and all the evill of the men of Shechem upon their own heads Iudges 9. So the Text. Eighthly by the example of Iepthah who after that God had sold the Israâ—lites for their Idolatry into the hands of the children of Ammon 18. yeeres space Iepthah being made head and Captaine by the Elders and people of Gilead first argued the case with the King of Ammon touching the unjustnesse of his warre upon them desiring God to be Iudge betweene them and then by Gods assistance smote and subdued the Ammonites and their Cities Iudg. c. 11. And so cast off their yoake Ninthly By the practise of Sampson who after God had delivered the Israelites into the hands of the Philistimes who ruled over them forty yeares space did by Gods extraordinary assistance oft encounter slay and resist the Philistimes rescuing the oppressed Israelites from their vassâ—lage and at his death slew more of them then in his life Iudg. c. 13. to 17. which deliverance was afterwards perfected by Samuel 1 Sam 7. and approved nay wrought by God Tenthly by the Example of David who being persecuted by â—edifragous dissembling King Saul his father-in-law a notable patterne of the inconstancie and invaliditie of Kings solemnest oathes and Protestations who contrary to many solemne vowes and feighned reconciliations sought unjustly to deprive him of his life thereupon David retired from the Court entertained a guard of foure hundred men and became a Captaine over them 1 Sam. 22. 2. After which Abiather escaping to him from Nob when the Priests there were slaine by Doeg upon Saules command for Davids sake David used these words to him Abide thou with me feare not for â—e that seeketh thy life seeketh my life but with me thou shalt be in safeguard 1 Sam. 22. 23. Soone after the Philistimes beseiging Keilah David by Gods encouragement smote them and saved Keilah intending there to secure himselfe and his men which Saul hearing of said God hath delivered him into my hands for he is shut in by â—ntring into a Towne which hath gates and barres whereupon he called all the people together to beseige David and his men which he needed not doe did he or any else beleeve that they would not ought not to have made any forcible resistance David informed hereof enquired seriously of God whether Saul would certainely come downe and demanded twice of himâ— will the men of Keilaâ— deliver me and my men up inâ—o his hand And the Lord said they will deliver thee up Had not David and his men resolved to fortifie and defend themselves there if the men of Keâ—lah would have beene faithfull to them and beleeved they might have resisted Saul with his Forces certainely he would never have presumed to aske such a question twice together of God himselfe to receive his resolution therein neither would God have vouchsafed an answere thereto but his double inquirie and Gods resolution infallibly demonstrate his intention to resist and the lawfulnes of his defensive resistance would the Keilites have adhered to him This the very next words fully cleare 1 Sam. 23. 13. Then David and his men about six hundred a rose and departed out of Keilah anâ— went wheresoever they could goe and it was told Saul that David was escaped from Kâ—ilah Gods prediction of the Keilites treachery was the onely cause of their departure thence where they had resolved to defend themselves of which hope being disappointed beyond expectation they went whithersoever they could goe After which David and his men being but few in number not able in humane probability without tempting God to encounter Sauls great Forces retired themselves into woods mountaines rockes strong holds wildernesses where Saul pursuing them they still declined him but had he and his army ever assaulted them no doubt they would and might lawfully have defended themselves else why did they joyne themselves in a body why retire to strong holds and places of advantage why twice urge David to kill Saul in cold blood when he did not actually assault him but came casually unawares within his danger Why did David himselfe say even when he spared his life when he was a sleepe 1 Sam. 26. 10. As the Lord liveth the Lord shall smite him or his day shall come to dye or he shall descend into battell and perish but that if he had given him battle he might have defended himselfe against him though Saul should casually or wilfully perish in the fight And why was David so importunate to goe up against him with King Achish to the battle wherein he perished 1 Sam. 29. were resistance of him in case he assaulted him and his Forces utterly unlawfull This precedent of David then if rightly weighed is very punctuall to prove the justnesse of a defensive warre of which morâ— anon and no evidence at all against it Eleventhly by the practise of the
to stretch forth my hand against him seeing he is the Lords Annointed I will not put forth my hand against my Lord for he he is the Lords annointed And David said to Abishai Destroy him not for who can stretch forth his hand against the Lords Annointed and be guiltlesse The Lord forbid that I should stretch forth my hand against the Lords Annoynted The Lord delivered thee into my hand to day but I would not stretch forth mine hand against the Lords Annointed How wast thou not afraid to stretch forth thy hand against the Lords Annointed Thy blood shall be upon thy head for thy mouth hath testified that thou hast slain the Lords Annointed Which severall Texts seem at first sight to insinuate that Sauls very externall annointing was that which did secure his person from assauls and violence and that it is unlawfull even by way of defence forcibly with Aâ—mes to resist a persecuting unjustly invading king because he is annointed But these Texts if duly pondered will warrant neither of these conclusions First then I answer that Sauls bare annointing considered as an externall Ceremony to declare him a lawfull King did not could not adde any immunity to his person against Davids or any other Subjects justviolent resistance as the premised reasons manifest but it was onely his royall Soveraign Office conferred on him by God and the people to which his externall annointing by Samuel was but a Preparation That which made Saul with other his successours a king was not his bare annointing For Saul himselfe was annointed by Samuel before he was made and chosen King not when he was made King So David Hazael Iehu with others were annointed before they were actuall Kings and many of their Successors by descent were reall kings before they were annointed some of them being not annointed at all for ought we read therefore their unction made them not kings since neither simply necessary nor essentiall to their being kings Nor did Sauls annointing only preceding his Regality make his person sacred or any other kings persons for then it would follow That if Saul had not been actually annointed or had continued king for some yeeres without this annointing then David in such a case might lawfully have slain him without check of conscience and that the persons of kings not at all annointed and of hereditary kings before their Coronations till they are annointed should not be sacred nor exempt from violence which is both false and perillous to affirm but it was his Soveraign Royall Authority over David then his Son-in-law Servant Subject which restrained him from offering violence to his person Saul then being thus priviledged not because he was annointed but because he was an annointed king and that not quatenus Annointed but quatenus King the true sense and genuine interpretation of these Texts must be That Sauls person was sacred exempt from his Subjects violence not because he was annointed as if that only did priviledge him but because he was a lawfull king appointed by the Lord himselfe the Lords annointed being but a periphrasis or forme of speech wherein the Ceremony of annointing is used for the Regality or kingly power it selfe declared not conferred by annointing and in plain words without any figure it is put for the Lords King that is a King appointed by the Lord in which sence God calls Christ my King and David stiles himselfe x Gods King Sauls Royall Authority without his annointing not his annointing predestinating him to his Authority being the ground of this his immunity from Davids violence Secondly Saul was annointed some space before he was made King and David many yeere before hee came to the Crowne I would then demand of any man if Saul or David after their unction and before their election and inauguration to the Crown had invaded or assaulted any of the people in an hostile manner whether they might not have justly resisted repulsed yea slain them â—o in their own necessary defence If noâ— then one Subject may not repulse the unjust violence of another in an elective kingdome if by possibility he may afterwards be chosen king though for the present he be neither actually king nor Magistrate but a Shepheard as David was Psal. 78. 70 71 which I presume none will affirm I am certain none can prove If so then it was not Sauls annointing but onely his Royall Authority which made David thus to spare his life his person So that our Opposites pressing this Argument only from his Annointing is both false and idle as all the premises demonstrate But to set the Argument right I answer thirdly That all which these Texts and Davids example prove is but this That Subjects ought not wilfully or purposely to murder or offer violence to the persons of their kings especially in cold blood when they doe not actually assault them Ergo they may not resist repulse their personall actuall assaults nor oppose their cut-throat Cavaleers when they make an unjust warre against them Which Argument is a meer Non sequitur For 1. Davids example extends only to Sauls own person not to his Souldiers who were neither kings nor Gods Annointed and whom David no doubt would have resisted and slain too had they assaulted him though he spared Saul as Dr. Fern himselfe insinuates in these words Davids Guard that he had about him was onely to secure his person against the cut-throats of Saul if sent to take away his life c. He was annoynted and designed by the Lord to succeed Saul and therefore he might use an extraordinary way of safe-guarding his person Therefore he and his Guard would and might doubtlesse have with a safe conscience resisted repulsed Sauls cut-throat Souldiers had they assaulted David to take away his life And if so then the Kings Cut-throat Cavalleers by his own confession may lawfully be resisted repulsed slain in a defensive way by the Parliaments forces now Secondly the argument is absurd because we may forcibly resist and repulse with safe conscience those whom we may not wilfully slay If a man assaults me to beat or wound me I may resist repulse him with violence but I may not kill him in mine own defence without murder or manslaughter unlesse I could not otherwise preserve my own life by flight or resistance Doctor Ferne grants that a Subject may in his own private defence lawfully ward off the Kings own blows and hold his hands in case of sudden and illegall assaults much more then of malicious and premeditated but yet denies he may either wound or kill him and that truely To argue therefore from Davids example and words The King may not with safe conscience be wittingly slain by his subjects Ergo He and his Cavaleers may not be forcibly resisted repulsed by them for their own defence and preservation is a grosse inconsequent by the Doctors own confession Thirdly there is nothing in all
treacherously contrary to his League and Oath Berthgwin the 14. Bishop of Landaffe hearing thereof assembled a Synod of his Clergy at Landaffe and solemnly excommunicated the King with all his Progeny and Kingdom by uncovering the Altars casting down the Crosses on the earth and depriving the Countrey both of Baptisme and the Eucharist Whereupon the King unable to endure so great an excommunication with great deiection submitted himselfe to the Bishop and leaving his Kingdom went on pilgrimage into forraign parts for a long space after which returning by the intercession of king Morcant he obtained abâ—olution from the Bishop to whose enioyned penance he submitted himself conferring divers Lands upon the Church And in another Synod at Landaffe under this Bishop King Gurcan for living incestuously with his Mother-in-law was solemnly excommunicated in form aforesaid whereupon he craved pardon resolved to put away his Mother-in-law promised satisfaction by k. â—udhail his Intercessor upon which he was absolved upon promise of amendment of life with fasting prayer and almes after which he bestowed divers Lands on the Church Houell king of Gleuissig contrary to his Oath League trecherously circumverring and slaying Gallun hereupon Cerenhir the 18. Bishop of Landaffe calling a Synod solemnly excommunicated him by laying all the crosses on the ground overturning the Bells taking the Reliques from the Altar and casting them on the ground depriving him of all Christian communion under which excommunication he remained almost a whole yeers space After which this king came bare-foot to the Bishop imploring his absolution from this sentence with many teares which he obtained after publke penance enoyned Not long after the same Bishop and his Clergy in another Synod for the like crime in the self-same forme excommunicated Ili sonne of Conblus till he came bare-footed with teares and prayed absolution which upon performance of enjoyned penance promise of future reformation with prayers fasting almes and the setling of some Lands on the Church was granted him by the Bishop So Loumarch son of Cargnocaun was in a full Synod excommunicated by Gulfrid the 20. Bishop of this See for violating the patrimony of the Church and king Brochuail with his family convented before a Synoâ—e threatned Excommunication enjoyned Penance and satisfaction by the Synode for some injuries offered to to Ciueilliauc the two and twentieth Bishop of Landaffe Mauric King of of Glamorgan was excommunicated by Ioseph the eigth and twentieth Bishop of Landaffe for treachâ—rously putting out the eyes of Etguin during the truce between them After which he was again publikely excâ—mmunicated in a Synode for violating the Sanctuarie of the Church of Landaffe and hurting some of this Bishops servants and not absolved till he made his submission and did his Penance and gave some laâ—ds to the Church for satisfaction of these offence Thus Calgucam King of Morganauc and his whole family were solemnly excommunicated by Herâ—wald the nine and twentieth Bishop of Landaffe in a Synod of all his Clergy onely because one of the Kings followers being drunk laid violent hands upon Bathutis the Bishops Physitian and Kinsman on Christmas day Anno 1056. Whereupon all the Crosses and Reliques were cast to the ground the Bells overturned the Church doors stopped up with thorns so as they continued without a Pastor and Divine Service day and night for a long season till the King though innocent submitted himself to the Bishop and to obtain his absolution gave Henâ—inguinna to him and his Successors for ever free from all secular and royall services in the presence of all the Clergie and people So Richard the tenth Bishop of Bangor excommunicated David ap Lhewelin Prince of Wales for detaining his brother Griffith prisoner contrarie to his Oath repairing to him upon the Bishops word for his safe return who never left vexing him till he had delivered him up to to the King of Englands hands Many such presidents of Prelates censuring and excommunicating their Kings occur in Storie which for brevity I pretermit onely I shall inform you that Iohn Stratford Archbishop of Canterbury in the 14. year of K. Edw. 3 contesting with this King and excommunicating divers of his followers and all the infringers of the Churches Liberties presumed to write thus unto his Soveraign There are two things by which the world is principally governed The sacred Pontificall authority and the royall power of which the Priesthood is by so much the more weighty ponderous and sublima by how much they are to give an account of kings themselves at the Divine audit And therefore the kings Majesty ought to know that you ought to depend on their judgement not they to be regulated according to your will For who doubteth that the priests of Christ are accounted the FATHERS AND MASTERS of Kings Princes and all faithfull Christians Is it not known to be a part of miserable madnesse if the son should endeavour to subjugate the Father the servant the master to himself The Canonicall authority of Scriptures testifieth that divers Pontiffs have excommunicated some of them Kings others Emperours And if you require somewhat in speciall of the persons of Princes Saint Innocent smote the Emperour Archadius with the sword of excommunication because he consented that Saint John Chrysostom should be violently expelled from his See Likewise Saint Ambrose Archbishop of Millain for a fault which seemednot so hainous to other priests excommunicated the Emperour Theodosius the great From which sentence having first given condigne satisfation he afterwards deserved to be absolved and many such like examples may be alleaged both more certain for time and nearer for place Therefore no Bishops whatsoever neither may nor ought to be punished by the secular Power if they chance to offend through humane frailtie For it is the duty of a good and religious Prince to honour the Priests of God and defend them with greatest reverence inimitation of the Pious Prince of most happy memory Constantine saying when the cause of Priests was brought before him You cannot be iudged by any to wit of the secular judges who are reserved to the iudgement of God alone according to the assertion of the Apostle very ill applied saying The spirituall man is iudged of no man 1 Corinth 2. 15. Not mean of Bishops or Clergie-men but Saints alone endued with Gods Spirit not of judging in courts of iustice but of discerning spirituall things and their own spirituall Estates as the Context resolves Thus and much more this Prelate who notwithstanding this text of the Romanes pleads an exemption of all Bishops and Priests from the kings secular power by Divine Authority and arrogates to Priest and Prelates a iudiciary lawfull power over Kings themselves to excommunicate and censure them for their offences And to descend to later times even since the the Reformation of Religion here Iohn Bridges Dean of Sarum and Bishop of Oxfort even in his Book intituled The supremacy of Christian Princes over
the Ammonites coâ—selled and overruled him out of overmuch suspition to abuse Davids messengers sent to him in love And in the 1 Kings 22. 47. There was then no King in Edom a Deputy was King the kingdom appointing a Deputy then to rule them in stead of a king and giving him royall authority And in the 2 Kings 8. 22. 2 Chron. 21. 8. In the dayes of Ioram Edom revolted from under the hand of Iudah which had conquered it and MADE A KING OVER THEMSELVES and though Ioram smote the Edomites who encompassed him yet they revolted from under the hand of Iudah till this day The electing and constituting of a king being in their own power See Gen. 23. 3. to 20. and c. 34. 20. to 25. to like purpose These being all Pagan Kings and States I come to the Israelites themselves wherein for my more orderly proceeding and refutation of the many grosse erronious Assertions of * Court Doctors and Royallists touching the estate and Soveraignty of their Kings whom they would make the world beleeve to be absolute Monarchs subject to no Laws to derive all their royall authority from God alone and no wayes from the people to be meerly hereditary and elective to be above all their people irresistible in their Tyrannicall wicked proceedings and no wayes subject to their Realms and Congregations overruling controll much lesse to their defensive oppositition or deprivation I shall digest the whole History of their Kings and Kingdoms Iurisdictions and power into these ensuing propositions which I shall clearly make good out of Scripture as I propound them in their order First That the originall Creation and Institution of the Israelites Kings and Kingdoms proceeded onely from the power and authority of the people and that solely by Divine permission rather then instituâ—ion This is most apparent by Deuter. 11. 14 15. When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee and shall possesse it and dwell therein and shalt say I WILL SET A KING OVER ME like as ALL THE NATIONS THAT ARE ABOVT ME THOV SHALT in any wise SET HIM KING OVER THEE whom the Lord thy God shall chuse one from among thy brethren SHALT THOV SET OVER THEE THOV MAIST NOT SET A STRANGER OVER THEE which is not thy Brother Where God himself by way of prophesie of what afterwards should come to passe expresly declares first that the primary motion of changing the government of the Iewâ— from Iudges and an Aristocracy into a Kingdom should proceed from the peoples inclination as the words and shalt say I will set a King over me c. import Secondly that the authority to change the Government into a Regality to creat and make a King resided in and the authority of the King proceeded meerly from the people as the words I will set a King over me Thou shalt set him over thee four times recited in two Verses manifest beyond dispute Thirdly that all Nations about them who had Kings had the like power to create and make their kings as the words Like as all the Nations that are about me witnesse All which is evicently confirmed by Iosephus Antiqu. Iudaeorum l. 4. c. 8. by Carolus Sigoâ—ius de Repub. Hebraeorum l. 7. c. 3. Bertram Cunaeus Schikardus and divers Commentators on this Text The History of the change of their State into a Kingdom and of their Iudges into kingsâ— added to this Prophesie and precept will leave no place for any scruple We read in the 1 Sam. 8. that the people growing weary of Samuels government who judged them by reason of the ill government of his sonnes who tooke Bribes and perverted judgement thereupon ALL THE ELDERS OF ISRAEL GATHERED THEMSELVES TOGETHER and came to Samuel unto Ramah and said unto him Behold thou art old and thy sons walk not in thy wayes now MAKE VS A KING TO IVDGE VS LIKE ALL THE NATIONS But the thing displeased Samuel when they said Give us a King to judge us and Samuel prayed unto the Lord And the Lord said unto Samuel HEARKEN VNTO THE VOYCE OF THE PEOPLE IN ALL THAT THEY SAY VNTO THEE for they have not rejected thee but they have rejected me that I should not reign over them According to all the works that they have done since the day that I brought them out of Egypt even unto this day wherewith they have forsaken me and served other gods so do they also unto thee Now therefore hearken to their voyce howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them and shew them the manner of the King that shall reign over them And Samuel told all the words of the Lord unto the people that asked of him a King and he said This will be not ought to be the manner of the King that shall reign over you he will take your sons and appoint them for himself c. and ye shall be his servants and ye shall crie out in that day because of YOVR KING WHICH YE SHALL HAVE CHOSEN YOV and the Lord will not â—ear you in that day Neverthelesse the people refused to obey the voyce of Samuel and they said Nay BVT WE WILL HAVE A KING OVER VS that we also may be like all the Nations and that our King may judge us aud go out before us and fight our battels And Samuel heard all the words of the people and rehearsed them in the ears of the Lord And the Lord said unto Samuel Hearken unto their voyce and make them a King After which when God had appointed Saul to be their King Samuel called the people together unto the Lord in Mizpeh and recapitulating the great deliverances God had done for them added And ye have this day rejected your God who himself saved you out of all your adversities and tribulations and ye have said unto him Nay BVT SET A KING OVER VS c. And Samuel said unto all the people See ye him whom the Lord hath chosen that there is none like him among all the people And all the people shouted and said God save the King After which he expostulated again with them thus And when ye saw that Nahash King of the Children of Ammon came against you ye said unto me Nay BVT A KING SHALL REIGN OVER VS when the Lord was your King Now therefore behold the KING WHOM YE HAVE CHOSEN AND WHOM YE HAVE DESIRED c. that ye may perceive and see that your WICKEDNESSE is great which ye have done in the sight of the Lord IN ASKING YOV A KING And all the people said unto Samuel Pray for thy servants unto the Lord thy God that we die not for we have added unto all our sins this evill TO ASK A KING Which compared with Hos. 13. 10 11. I will be thy King where is any other that may save thee in all thy Cities and thy Iudges of whom thou saidst GIVE ME A KING AND PRINCES I gave thee a King in mine anger and tooke him away in my wrath
18. 1. c. 19. 1. c. 21. throughout with the Books of Ezra Nehemiah Iudges Esther Maccabees the four Euangelists touching Christs arraignment and death Acts 4. 5. 22. 23. 24. and 25 chapters or consulted with Iosephus Philo Paul Eber Godwin Cunaeus â—igonius BertraÌ„ or any others who have written of the Jewish Antiquities or Republike he could not have had the impudency to have published such grosse untruths and should have found not onely divers kings in Scripture created by the voyce of the people but an hereditary kingdom oft changed into an elective yea into an Aristocraticall and no Royall government and an Aristocracie and Democracy to even among the Jews themselves whose government before their kings was meerly Aristocraticall as Iosephus Antiqu. Iud. l. 4. c. 8. Carolus Sigonius de Repub. Hebr. l. 1. c. 5. Cunaeus Sâ—hickardus Bertram Paul Eber and all others that I have seen except this Animal irrationale risibile punctually determine they having no kings of their own before Saul nor any after Zedekiah Therefore I shall spend no more waste paper to refute this palpable errour so confidently asserted by parisiticall Court Doctors who make no conscience of writing any though the grossest untruths which may advance the absolute Soveraign Arbitrary tyrannicall government of kings to oppresse and inslave the people Thirdly that the Kings of Iudah and Israel were no absolute Soveraign Princes but took their Crown with and upon such Divine conditions for breach whereof they and their posterities were oft times by Gods command just judgement and speciall approbation deposed disinherited destroyed and the Crown translated to other families This is evident by direct Scriptures Deuter. 17. 14. to the end Thou shalt in any wise set him King over thee whom the Lord thy God shalt chuse one from among thy Brethren shalt thou set King over thee thou maist not set a stranger over thee which is not thy Brother Here is an expresse limitation and condition in respect of the person of the King the conditions in regard of his royall administration follow which are partly Negative partly positive But he shall not multiplie Horses to himself nor cause the the people to return to Egypt c. Neither shall he multiply wives to himself that his heart turn not away neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold And it shall be when he sitteth on the throne of his Kingdome that he shall write him a Copie of this Law in a Book out of that which is before the Priests the Levites and it shall be with him and he shall read therein all the dayes of his life that he may learn to fear the Lord his God to keep all the words of this Law and these Statutes to do them That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren and that he turn not aside from the Commandment to the right hand or to the left to the end that he may prolong his dayes in his Kingdom he and his children in the midst of Israel Here all the kings of the Israelites when their kingdoms should be erected are strictly bound by God himself to negative and positive conditions upon performance whereof they and their children should prolong their dayes in the kingdom and perpetuate their thrones in the midst of Israel and upon breach whereof they and their posterity should lose both their lives and kingdom to as the last clause insinuates and the subsequent Texts in direct terms averre But what if the king should violate these conditions might the people lawfully resist him Iosephus in his paraphrase on this very text which I shall cite at large resolves they might Truely the government of the best meâ— or Aristocraticall government is best and to live in a Republike thus administred nor is there cause why you should desire any other kinde of government but it is best that contenting yâ—â—rselves with this you continue with in the power of your Laws and of your selves But if the desire of a king shall possesse you let there be none unlesse he be of your stock and blood and one to whom justice with other vertues are cordiall He whosoever he shall be let him attribute more to the lawes and unto God than to his own wisedome AND LET HIM DO NOTHING WITHOVT THE HIGH PRIESTS AND Sâ—NATES ADVICE neither may he nourish many wives nor possesse very much money and many Horses with the plenty of which things he may easily become a contemner of the laws and if he shall addict himself to these things more then is meet OBSTANDVM EST ne potentior fiat quamrebus vestris expedit HE IS TO BE RESISTED lest he become more potent then is expedient for your affairs So he Yea Zuinglius with B. Bilson expresly resolve that the people were bound to resist question and depose their kings for their idolatry and breach of these conditions and that God himself justly punished them for Manasses sins and wickednesse because they resisted and punished him not for them as they were obliged to do as I have elswhere manifested to which I shall refer you This condition most clearly appears in other Texts as in the 1 Sam. 12 13 14 15 25. Where when Saul the first king of the Israelites was crowned at their earnest importunity against Gods and Samuels approbation Samuel used these speeches to them Now thereforebehold the King whom ye have chosen and whom ye have desired c. If ye will fear the Lord and serve him and obey his voyce and not rebell against the commandment of the Lord then shall both ye and also the King that reigneth over you continue following the Lord your God But if ye will not obey the voice of the Lord but will rebell against the voyce of the Lord then shall the hand of the Lord be against you as it was against your fathers c. But IF ye shall do wickedly ye shall be consumed both ye and your King After this Saul being distressed by the Philistines weary of staying for Samuel and presuming to offer sacrifice without him hereupon Samuel said to Saul Thou hast done foolishly for thou hast not kept the Commandment of the Lord thy God which he commanded thee for now would the Lord have established thy kingdom upon Israel for ever but NOW THY KINGDOM SHALL NOT CONTINVE for the Lord hath chosen him a man after his own heart and the Lord hath commanded him to be captain over his people BECAVSE THOV HAST NOT KEPT THAT WHICH THE LORD COMMANDED THEE Lo here the breach of Gods conditions by king Saul forfeited his Kingdom and disinherited his posterity of it So when he performed not Gods command in utterly destroying Amalck sparing Agag and the best of the things Samuel sharply reprehending him for this offence said unto him Behold to obey is better then sacrifice and to hearken than the fat of Rams for Rebellion namely king Sauls rebellion against Gods command not subjects rebellion against their
wife of thy bosom or thy friend which is as thine own soul should secretly intice them to commit idolatry or serve other gods they should neither consent nor hearken to nor pitty nor spare nor conceal him but shalt surely kill him thy hand shall be first upon him to put him to death and after the hand of all the people and thou shalt stone him with stones that he die onely for this secret inticement to idolatry And all Israel shall hear and fear and do no more such wickednesse as this is And if they should hear that the inhabitants of any City were seduced to serve other gods tben they must diligently search and inquire after it and if it be truth and the thing certain that such abomination was wrought among them then they shall surely smite the inhabitants of that City with the edge of the sword destroying it utterly and all that is therein and the cattell thereof with the edge of the sword and gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof and burn the City with all the spoile thereof every whit for the Lord their God and it shall be an heap for ever and shall not be built again In pursuance whereof the ten tribes and a half assembled to warre against the Reubenites Gadites and half Tribe of Manasseh for their supposed idolatrous Alter and all the children of Israel assembled together as one man and made warre against the men of Gibeah and the Benjamites for not punishing the grosse Rape of the Levites Concubine destroying the City utterly and the Tribe of Benjamin too welnigh And upon this ground the City of Libnah revolted from under the hand of Iehoram the idolatrous King of Iudah Because he had forsaken the Lord God of his Fathers And as some learned men conceive the people made a Conspiracie against King Amaziah in Ierusalem and he fled to Lachish but they sent after him to Lachish and â—lew him there not privately but openly as acted by publike authoritie consent and meditated deliberation not out of any private hatred but for his impietie whereby he violated the chiefest part of his Oath and Covenant whereupon we read not of any complaint or inquisition or proceedings or punishment inflicted on those that slew him after his death either by the people or his children as there was upon those who slew King Ammon but being slain they brought him back on horses and he was buried at Ierusalem with his Fathers in the Citie of David out of reverence to his royall dignity and family And All the People of Iudah took Azariah and made him King in stead of his father Amaziah which plainly shewes that what was formerly done by the greater part of the States at Ierusalem was afterwards confirmed by common consent as done upon a just cause and executed by command of those who might lawfully doe it Whence they conclude That the Orders or States of the People of Israel had right to chuse what King they would themselves out of the family of David and being elected afterward to correct and punish him as there was cause that they were obliged by this Covenant made to God both to reprehend resist oppose yea depose if not put to death their King for his open incorrigible idolatries and sins by common consent as their king was obliged to punish and put them to death for their idolatries and crimes their kings being included within their Covenants and Gods inhibition of Idolatry under pain of capitall punishments extending to Kings as well as others if not more then to any because their examples were most pernicious and they were as far forth bound by their joynt Covenants made to God with their Kings to hinder their Kings from and to proceed against them for their idolatries as their kings were to impedite and punish them for their breach of Covenant and because God himself did punish them for their Kings idolatries as is evedent by Ier. 15. 1 to 6. and the History of the Kings and Chronicles every where which God would not in justice have done had not the people both just right and power to resist hinder censure punish depose their Kings by publike consent of the State and people for their idolatries and breach of Covenant as Zuinglius Stephanus Iunius Brutus the author of the Treatise De Iure Magistratus in Subditos with others prove at large and Master Calvin yea Bishop Bilson himself assents to Such a Soveraign power had the whole State and Congregation of Israel and Iudah over their kings themselves whose estates in their Crownes and Kingdoms by Gods own institution was not absolute but onely conditionall and subject unto forfeiture upon breach of these Covenants and Conditions by which they did injoy them Fourthly The Kings of Iudah and Israel were no absolute Soveraign Princes paramount their whole Kingdoms the generall Coâ—gregation of the people Senate or Sanhedrin but inferiour to them in power and not onely counselled but over-ruled usually by them in matters of publike concernment This is evident not onely by Iosh. 22. 11. to 34. and Iudges 20. and 21. where the whole Congregation of Israel as the Soveraign power in the dayes of Ioshua and the Iudges assembled about the great causes of the Reubenites Gadites and halfâ— the Tribe of Manasseh concerning their Altar and of the Gibeonites and Benjamites concluding both matters of publike war and peace But likewise by the peoples rescuing Ionathan out of the hands and power of King Saul his father that he died not though Saul had twice vowed that he should be put to death 1 Sam. 14. 38. to 36. And the people said unto Saul Shall Ionathan die who hath wrought this great salvation in Israel God forbid as the Lord liveth there shall not one hair of his head fall to the ground for he hath wrought with God this day So the people rescued Ionathan that he died not By the 1 Chron. 13. 1. to 7. where thus we reade And David consulted with the Caâ—tains of thousands and hundreds and with every Leader and David said unto all the Congregation of Israel If it seeme good unto you and that it be of the Lord our God let us send abroad unto our brethren every where that are left in all the land of Israel and with them also to the Priests and Levites which are in their Cities and Suburbs that they may gather themselves unto us and let us bring again the Ark of our God to us for we enquired not at it in the dayes of Saul And all the Congregation said that they would do so For the thing was right in the eyes of all the people And David went up and all Israel to Baalah to bring up thence the Arke of God the Lord. Compared with the 1 Samuel 18. 2 3 4. where when David sent out the people to battell against Absalon under three Commaunders the King said unto the people I will surely goe
man for the City Ierusalem was chosen out of the Tribe of Benjamin This will be made more evident by examples Ieremie being sent by God to denounce the overthrow of the City Ierusalem is for this first condemned by the Priests and Prophets that is by the Ecclesiasticall judgement or Senate after this by all the People that is by the ordinary Iudges of the Citie to wit by the Captains of thousands and hundreds at last by the Princes of Iudah that is by the 71 men sitting in the new Porch of the Temple his cause being made known he is acquitted Now they in that very judgement expresly condemn King Iehoiakim who a little before had most cruelly slain the Prophet Uriah threatning like things Also we reade elsewhere that King Zedekiah did so much reverence the Authoritie of this Sanhedrin that he durst not free the Prophet Jeremie thrust by these 71 men into a filthy prison but likewise scarce dared to translate him into the Court of the Prison from thence yea when they perswaded him to consent to Jeremiah his death he answered that he was in their hands and that he could not contradict them in any thing Yea he fearing lest they should enquire into the conference which he privately had with Ieremie as if he were about to render an account of the things which he had spoken forgeth a lie Therefore in this Kingdom the States or Officers of the Kingdom were above the King I say in this Kingdome which was instituted and ordaintd not by Plato or Aristotle but by God himself the Author of all order and the chiefe institutor of all Monarchyâ— Such were the seven Magi in the Persian Empire the Ephori in the Spartan Kingdom and the publike Ministers in the Egyptian Kingdome assigned and associated to the King by the People to that onely end that He should not commit any thing against the Lawes Thus and much more this Author together with Con. Super antius Vasco who published this Treatise to all pious and faithfull Princes of the Republike giving large Encomiums of its worth as also the Author of the Treatise De Iure Magistratus in Subditos p. 253 254 255 256. 268 to 275. whose words for brevity I pretermit Bp. Bilson in his forecited passages and Hugo Grotius De Iure Belli pacis l. 1 c 3. sect 20. p. 63 64. where he confesseth That if the King of the Israelites offended against the Lawes written concerning the Office of a King he was to be scourged for it and that the Sanhedrin had a power above their king in some cases Finally the Kings of Israel and Iudah were not superior to nor exempted from the Lawes but inferiour to and obliged by them as well as Subjects This is evident not onely by the premises but by sundry impregnable Texts As Deut. 17. 18. 19. 20. where God himselfe in the very description of the office and duty of their King prescribes this in direct termes as a part of his duty And it shall be when He sitteth on the Throne of this Kingdome that he shall write him a Copy of This Law in a Booke out of that before the Priestâ— and Levites And it shall be with Him and He shall read therein All the dayes of his life that he may learn to feare the Lord his God To kéep all the words of the Law and these Statutes to doe them that his heart be not lifted up above his brethren and that He turn not aside from the Commandement to the right hand or to the left seconded by Iosh. 7. 8. This Booke of the Law shall not depart out of thy mouth but thou shalt meditate therein day and night that thou maist observe to doe according to all that is written therein turne not to it from the right hand or to the left for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous and then thou shalt have good successe Hence it was that as soon as ever Saul was elected and made King by Samuel and the people he being the first of their Kings Samuel told the people the manner of the Kingdom and wrote it in a Booke and laid it up before the Lord which Booke contained not the exorbitances and oppressions that their Kings would exercise over them mentioned in the 1 Sam. 8. 11. to 19. as Iosephus mistakes but as Petrus Curaeus and others more rightly observe the Law of God concerning Kings prescribed by him Deut. 17. 14. to the end and such Lawes which commanded Kings to use Iustice and equity to govern the Common-wealth well for the peoples benefit to abstaine from fornication and lusts to retain modesty in a great fortune c. Hence Samuel enioyned both Saul and the People to feare the Lord and serve him and obey his voyce and follow him and not rebell against his Commandement c. 1 Sam. 12. 14 15. 20. to 25. Hence King David did alwayes meditate in the Law of God day and night accounting it more deare unto him then thousands of Gold and silver And withall pronounceth from Gods own mouth The God of Israel said the Rocke of Israel spake to me he that ruleth over men must be just ruling in the feare of God Hence the Qu. of Sheeba used this speech to king Solomon Because the Lord loved Israel for ever therefore made he thee King what to domineere at his pleasure no verily but To doe Iudgement and Iustice. Vpon this ground King Iosiah made a covenant before the Lord to walke after the Lord And to kéep his Commandements and his testimonies and his statutes with all his heart and with all his soul And King Asa with other Princes and Governors did the like as the premises evidence From all which and infinite other Scriptures obliging Kings to reign in righteousnesse to doe justice and judgement to all and reprehending them exceedingly for their injustice tyranny oppressions idolatries and other sinnes it is iâ—â—efragable that their kings were as much if not more obliged to keep both Gods and the kingdomes Lawes as the Subiects and had no arbitrary power to doe what they pleased All that is or can be colourably obiected to the contrary to prove the kings of Israel absolute Monarchs exempt from Lawes and paramount their Sanhedrin or people collectively considered is First that passage of Psal. 51. 4. where king David confessing his sinnes of Adultery and Murther to God useth this expression Against thee Thee onely have I sinned and done this evill in thy sight Of which Hierom renders this reason Quod Rex erat alium non timebat alium non habebat super se which Ambrose thus seconds Rex erat Nullis ipâ—e legibus tenebatur quia liberi sunt Reges a vinculis delictorum Neque enim ullis ad poenam vocantur legibus Tuti Imperii potestate Homini ergo non peccavit cui non tenebatur obnoxius Arnobius Cassiodor adde De populo si quis erraverit Deo peccat Regi
subsequently seconded therewith after a possession got by force or conquest Now that the kings personall presence cannot justifie the unjust actions or protect the persons of those that assist him in any unlawfull action contrary to the Lawes of God or the Realme is a truth so evident that it needes no proofe it being no part of the kings Royall prerogative or Office but diametrally repugnant to it either to doe injury himselfe or to authorize or protect others in committing it as I have elsewhere proved at large Therefore it can administer no patronage nor defence at all to those who accompany his person in the unjust invasions of his Subjects nor dis-able them to defend or repulse their unjust assaults and rapines For suppose a King should so farre degenerate and dishonour himselfe as personally to accompany a packe of theeves who should rob his subjects on the high way break up their houses in the night or practise Piracie on the Sea or commit Rapes or murthers on his people every where I thinke no man so voyd of Reason Law Conscience but would readily grant that the Subjects in all these cases might lawfully defend themselves by force against these Robbers Theeves Murtherers notwithstanding the Kings presence or association with them whose personall Prerogatives and immunity from assaults or violence being incommunicable underivable to any other and peculiar to himself alone he can transferre no such protection to others who accompany him in their injurious practises and that these Acts of theirs are direct fellonie and murther for which they might be justly apprehended condemned executed though thus countenanced by the Kings owne presence And if this be truth as our Law-bookes resolve and the Scripture to in places forecited the kings presence can no more deprive the subjects of their necessary just defence against his Popish Forces assaults nor justifie their proceedings or the present unjust offensive warre then in the former cases there being the selfe-same reason in both warres being in truth but greater and more detestable Murders and Robberies when they are unjust as Cyprian Augustine with others rightly define Thirdly personall unâ—ust assaults and violence even of Kings themselves may in some cases lawfully be resisted by subjects This Doctor Ferne himselfe acknowledgeth Sect. 2. p. 9. Personall defence is lawfull against the sudden much more then against the premeditated and illegall assaults of such Messengers of the King yea OF THE PRINCE HIMSELFE THVS FARRE to ward his blowes to hold his hands and the like not to endanger his person not to returne blowes no for though it be naturall to defend â— mans selfe yet the whole common-wealth is concerned in his person the king therefore himselfe much more in his Cavalliers may thus farre at least safely be resisted in point of conscience And that he may be so indeed is manifest by two pregnant Scripture examples The first is that of King Saul 1 Sam 14. 38. to 46. where Ionathan and his Armour-bearer routing the Philistimes whole Army violated his Father Sauls command of which he was wholy ignorant in taking a little honey one the end of his sticke in the pursuite hereupon king Saul most rashly and unjustly vowed twice one after another to put him to death whereupon the people much discontented with this injustice were so farre from submitting to the Kings pleasure in it that they presently said to the king shall Ionathan dye who hath wrought so great Salvation in Israel God forbid As the Lord liveth there shall not one haire of his head fall to the ground So the people RESCVED IONATHAN that he dyed not though he were not onely King Sauls Subject but Sonne too Indeede it appeares not in the Text that Saul offered any violence to Ionathans person or the people to Sauls and it may be the peoples peremptory vow and unanimous resolution to defend Ionathan from this unjust sentence of death against him made Saul desist from his vowed bloody intendment but the word rescued with other circumstances in the story seeme to intimate that Ionathan was in hold to be put to death and that the people forcibly rescued him out of the executioners hands However certainely their vow and speeches declare that if Saul himselfe or any other by his command had assaulted Ionathan to take away his life they would have forcibly resiâ—ted them and preserved his life though with losse of their owne beleeving they might lawfully doe it else they would not have made this resolute vow nor could they have performed it had Saul wilfully proceeded but by a forcible rescue and resistance of his personall violence The other is that of king Vzziah 2 Chron. 27. 1â— to 22. who presumptuously going into the Temple against Gods Law to burne incense on the Altar Azariah the high Priest and with him fourescore Priests of the Lord that were valiant men went in after him and WITHSâ—OOD or resisted Vzziah the king and said unto him It appertaineth not unto thee Vzziah to burne incense unto the Lord but to the Priests the sonnes of Aaron that are consecratâ—d to burne incense goe out of the Sanctuary for thou hast trespassed neither shall it be for thine honour from the Lord God Then Vzziah was wroth and had a censor in his hand to burne incense and whiles he was wroth with the Priests the Leprosie rose up in his forehead And Azariah and all the Priests looked upon him and behold he was Leprous in his forehead AND THEY THRVST HIM OVT FROM THENCE yea himselfe hasted also to goe out because the Lord had smitten him If then these Priests thus actually resisted king Vzziah in this sinfull Act thrusting him perforce out of the Temple when he would but offer incense much more might they would they have done it had he violently assaulted their persons If any king shall unjustly assault the persons of any private Subjects men or women to violate their lives or chastities over which they have no power I make no doubt that they may and ought to bee resisted repulsed even in point of conscience but not slaine though many kings have lost their lives upon such occasions as Rodoaldus the 8. king of Lumbardy Anno 659. being taken in the very act of adultery by the adulteresses husband was slaine by him without delay and how kings attempting to murther private Subjects unjustly have themselves beene sometimes wounded and casually slaine is so rise in stories that I shall forbeare examples concluding this with the words of t Iosephus who expressely writes That the king of the Israelites by Gods expresse Law Deut. 17. was to doe nothing without the consent of the high Priest and Senate nor to multiply money and horses over much which might easily make him a contemner of the Lawes and if he addicted himselfe to these things more than was fitting HE WAS TO BE RESISTED least he became more powerfull then was expedient for their affaires To these
his Souldiers and Abishaies minds who would have slain him without any scruple of conscience that the reasons he spared him were First because he was Gods Annointed that is specially designed and made King of Israel by Gods own election which no kings at this day are so this reason extends not so fully to them as to Saul Secondly Because he was his Father and Lord too and so it would have been deemed somewhat an unnaturall act in him Thirdly because it had â—avoured onely of private self-revenge and ambitious aspiring to the Crown before due time which became not David the quarrell being then not publike but particular betwixt him and David onely who was next to succeed him after his death Fourthly because by this his lenity he would convince reclaim Saul froÌ„ his bloody pursuit and cleare his innocency to the world Fifthly to evidence his dependence upon God and his speciall promise that he should enjoy the Crown after Saul by divine appointment and therefore he would not seem to usurp it by taking Sauls life violently away Most of which considerations faile in cases of publike defence and the present controversie Thirdly that Saul himselfe as well as Davids Souldiers conceived that David might with safe conscience have slain as well as spared him witnesse his words 1 Sam. 24. 17 18 19 Thou art more righteous then I for thou hast rewarded me good whereas I have rewarded thee evill And thou hast shewed me this day how thou hast dealt well with me for as much as when the Lord had delivered me into thine hand THOV KILLEDST ME NOT. For if a man finde his enemy WIL HE LET HIM GO WEL AWAY Wherefore the Lord reward thee good for that thou hast done unto me this day c. And in 1. Sam. 26. 21. Then said Saul I have sinned returne my sonne David for I will no more do thee harm because my sovle was precious in thine eyes this day behold I have played the fool exceedingly c. But the former answers are so satisfactory that I shall not pray in ayd from these much lesse from that evasion of Dr. Fern who makes this and all other Davids demeanors in standing out against Saul EXTRAORDINARY for he was annointed and designed by the Lord to succeed Saul and therefore he might also use all extraordinary wayes of safeguarding his person which like wise insinuaâ—es that this his scruple of conscience in sparing Sauls life was but extraordinary the rather because all his Souldiers and Abishai would have slain Saul without any such scruple and Saul himselfe conceived that any man else but David would have done it and so by consequence affirms that this his sparing of Saul is no wayes oblâ—gatory to other subjects but that they may lawfully in Davids case kill their Soveraigns But Davids resistance of Saul by a guard of men being only that ordinary way which all subjects in all ages have used in such cases and that which nature teacheth not onely men but all living creatures generally to use for their own defence and this evasion derogating exceedingly from the personall safety of Princes yea and exposing them to such perils as they have cause to con the Dr. small thanks for such a bad invention I shall reject it as the extraordinary fansie of the Dr. other loyalists void both of truth and loyalty The 7. Obiection out of the Old Testament is this 1 Sam. 8. 11. Samuel tells the people how they should be oppressed under kings yet all that violence and injustice that should be done unto them is no just cause of resistance for they have NO REMEDY LEFT THEM BVT CRYING TO THE LORD v. 18. And ye shall cry out in that day because of the King which ye shall have chosen you and the Lord will not hear you in that day To this I answer 1. that by the Doctors own confession this text of Samuel much urged by some of his fellows to prove an absolute divine Prerogative in Kings is quite contrary to their suggestion and meant onely of the oppression violence and inâ—uâ— not lawfull power of Kings which should cause them thus to cry out to God This truth we have clearly gained by this obiection for which some Royallists will renounce their champion 2. It is but a meer fallacie and absurdity not warranted by the Text which saith not that they shall onely cry out or that they shall use no remedy or resistance but crying out which had been materiall but barely ye shall cry out in that day c. Ergo they must and should onely crie out and not resist at all is a grosse Non-sequitur which Argument because much cryed up I shall demonstrate the palpable absurdity of it by many parallell instances First Every Christian is bound to pray for Kings and Magistrates 1 Tim. 2. 1 2. Ergo they must onely pray and not fight for them nor yeeld tribute or obedience to them Kings and their Subjects too are bound to crie out and pray to God against forraign enemies that come to war against them as Moses did against Pharaoh and his Host David against his enemies Hezekiah against Sennacherib and his Hoste Asa against his enemies Abijah and the men of Iudah against Ieroboam and the Israelites their enemies and as all Christians usually do against their enemies Yea I make no doubt but the Doctor and other Court-Chaplains inform his Majesty and the Cavalleers that they must cry to God against the Parliamenteers and Roundheads now in Arms to resist them Ergo they must onely pray but in no wise resist or fight against them All men must pray to God for their daily bread Ergo they must onely pray and not labour for it Sick persons must pray to God to restore their health Ergo they must take no Physick but onely pray All men are expresly commanded to crie and call upon God in the day of trouble Ergo they must use no meanes but prayer to free themselves from trouble pretty Logick Reason Divinity fitter for deriâ—ion then any serious Answer This is all this Text concludes and that grosly mistaken Speech of Saint Ambrose Christians weapons are Prayers and Tears of which anon in its due place In one word prayer no more excludes resistance then resistance prayer both of them may and sometimes when defence is necessary as now ought to concurre so that our Court Doctors may as well argue as some Prelates not long since did in word and deed Ministers ought to pray and Gods House is an Oratory for prayer Ergo they must not Preach atleast very seldom nor make his House an Auditory for Preaching Or as rationally reason from this Text That Subjects must cry out to God against their kings oppressions Ergo they must not petition their Kings much lesse complain to their Parliament for relief as conclude from thence Ergo they may in no case resist
the king or his invading Forces though they indeavour to subvert Religion Laws Liberties as the Doctor himself states the controversie whose arguments will hardly satisfie conscience being so voyd of reason â—ence yea science The eighth is this None of the Prophets in the old Testament reprehending the Kings of Israel and Iudah for their grosse Idolatry cruelty oppression did call upon the Elders of the people for the duty of resistance neither do we finde the people resisting or taking up Arms against any of their kings no not against Ahab or Manasseh upon any of these grounds Ergo resistance is unlawfull To which I must reply first That none of the Prophets did ever forbid resistance in such cases under pain of Damnation as our new Doctors do now Ergo it was lawfull because not prohibited Secondly that as none of the people werethen inhibited to resist so not dehorted from it therefore they might freely have done it had they had hearts and zeal to do it Thirdly Iosephus resolves expresly That by the very Law of God Deuter. 17. If the King did contrary to that Law multiply silver gold and horses to himself more then was fitting the Israelites might lawfully resist him and were bound to do it to preserve themselves from Tyrannie Therefore no doubt they might have lawfully resisted their Kings Idolatry cruelty oppressions Fourthly Hulderichus Zuinglius a famous Protestant Divine with others positively affirms That the Israelites might not onely lawfully resist but likewise depose their Kings for their wickednesses and Idolatries yea That all the people were justly punished by God because they removed not their flagitious idolatrous Kings and Princes out of their places which he proves by Ieâ—em 15. where after the four Plagues there recited the Prophet subjoynes the cause of them saying Verse 4. I will give them in fury to all the Kingdoms of the Earth that is I will stirre up in fury all the kings of the earth against them because of Manasseh the son of Hezekiah king of Iudah for that which he did in Ierusalem This Manasseh had committed many wickednesses by Idolatrie and the shedding of innocent blood as we may see in the one and twentieth Chapter of the second of the Kings for which evills the Lord grievously punished the people of Israel Manasseh shed over much innocent blood untill he had filled Ierusalem even to the mouth with his sins wherewith he made Iudah to sinne that it might do evill before the Lord Therefore because Manasseh King of Iudah did these most vile abominations above all that the Amorites had done before him and made the Land of Iudah to sin in his uncleanesse therefore thus saith the Lord God of Israel Behold I will bring evill upon Ierusalem and Iudah that whosever shall hear both his ears shall tingle c. In summe if the Iews had not thus permitted their King to be wicked WITHOVT PVNISMENT they had not been so grievously punished by God We ought to pull and cast away even our eye that offends so a hand and foot c. If the Israelites had thus DEPOSED Manasseh by consent and suffrages of all or the greatest part of the multitude they had not been so grievously punished of God So Zuinglius with whom even B. Bilson himself in some sort accords who in desending interpreting his opinion confesseth That it is a question among the Learned What Soveraigney the whole people of Israel had over their Kings confessing that the peoples rescuing Ionathan that he â—â—ed not when Saul would have put him to death Davids speech to the people when he purposed to reduce the Arke all the Congregations speech and carriage toward Rehoboam when they came to make him King with the peoples speech to Ieremy Thou shalt die the death have perswaded some and might lead Zuinglius to think that the people of Israel notwithstanding they called for a King yet RESERVED TO THEMSELVES SVFFICIENT AVTHORITY TO OVERRVLE THEIR KING IN THOSE THINGS WHICH SEEMED EXPEDIENT AND NEEDFVLL FOR THE PVBLIKE WELFARE else God would not punish the people for the kings iniquity which they must suffer and not redresse Which opinion if as Orthodox as these learned Divines and Iosephus averre it not onely quite ruines our Opposites Argument but their whole Treatises and cause at once But fiftly I answer that subiects not onely by command of Gods Prophets but of God himself and by his speciall approbation have taken up Arms against their Idolatrous Princes to ruine them and their Posterities A truth so apparent in Scripture that I wonder our purblinde Doctors discern it not For did not God himself notwithstanding his frequent conditionall promises to establish the Kingdom of Israel on David Solomon and their Posterity for Solomons grosse Idolatry occasioned by his Wives tell Solomon in expresse terms VVherefore for as much as this is done of thee and thou hast not kept my Covenant and my Statutes which I have commanded thee I will surely REND THE KINGDOM FROM THEE and will give it to thy servant Notwithstanding in thy dayes I will not do it for David thy fathers sake but I will rend it out of the hand of thy son Did not the Prophet Abijah in pursuance hereof rending Ieroboams garment into twelve pieces tell him Thus saith the Lord the God of Israel behold I will rend the Kingdom out of the hand of Solomon and will give ten tribes to thee And I will take the Kingdom out of his sons hand and will give it unto thee even ten Tribes and I will take thee and thou shalt reign according to all that thy soul desireth and shalt be King over Israel and I will for this afflict the Seed of David Yea did not ALL ISRAEL upon Solomons death when Rehoboam his son refused to grant their iust requests at their coming to Sechem to make him king use this speech to the king What Portion have we in David neither have we inheritance in the son of Iesse to your Tents ô Israel now see to thine own house David Whereupon they departed and fell away from the house of David everafter and made Iereboam King over all Israel And doth not the Text directly affirm Wherefore Rehoboam hearkned not unto the people for the cause was from the Lord that he might perform the saying which the Lord spake to Abijah unto Ieroboam the son of Nebat After which when Rehoboam raised a mighty Army to reduce the ten Tribes to obedience the Word of the Lord came to Shemaiah the man of God saying Speak unto Rehoboam and all the house of Iudah and Benjamin Thus SAITH THE LORD Ye shall not go up to fight against your brethren the children of Israel return every man to his house FOR THIS THING IS FROM ME They hearkned therefore to the word of the Lord and returned to depart according to the word of the Lord. Lo here a
Prince not so much as once dreamed off in this Text as Court Doctors grosly mistake aâ—d so miserably pervert this Scripture contrary to the sence and meaning translating it from kings to subjects from king rebellion against God to subjects rebellion against men is as the sin of Witchcraft and stubbornnesse is as iniquity and Idolatry BECAVSE thou hast rejected the Word of the Lord he hath also REIECTED THEE FROM BEING KING I will not return with thee for thou hast rejected the word of the Lord and the Lord HATH REIECTED THEE FROM BEING KING over Israel the Lord HATH RENT THE KINGDOM of Israel FROM THEE this day and hath given it to a neighbour of thine that is better then thou Also the strength of Israel will not lie nor repent for he is not as men that he should repent to wit of renting the kingdom from him though he repented that he had made Saul king over Israel because he turned back from following him and performed not his Commandments 1 Sam. 15. 11. 35. After which God said to Samuel How long wilt thou mourn for Saul seeing I have reiected him from Reigning over Israel Fill thine horn with Oyl and I will send thee to Iesse the Bethlemite for I have provided me a king among his sons whereupon he went and annoynted David who succeeded him in the kingdom Sauls posterity being utterly disinherited for his recited sins After this when God setled the kingdom upon David and his seed after him it was upon condition of obedience and threatning of corrections even by men if they transgressed The Lord telleth thee that he will make thee an house and when thy dayes be fulfilled and thou shalt steep with thy fathers then I will set up thy seed after thee which shall proceed out of thy bowels and I will establish the Throne of his kingdom for ever I will be his father and he shall be my son If he commit iniquity I will chastise him with the Rod of men and with the Stripes of the Children of Men that is I will not chasten him immediately by my self but by men my instruments even by Ieroboam and his own subjects the ten Tribes or other enemies whom I will raise up against him and his posteritie 1 Kings 11. 9 to 41. But my mercy shall not depart away from him as I took it from Saul whom I put away before thee And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee yet still upon condition of obedience as is most apparent by Davids speech to king Solomon 1 Chron. 28. 5 6 7 8 9. And the Lord hath chosen Solomon my son to set him upon the throne of the kingdom of the Lord over all Israel And he said to me c. Moreover I will establish his kingdom for ever If he continue constant to do my Commandments and my judgements as at this day Now therefore in the sight of all Israel the Congregation of the Lord and in the audience of our God keep and seek for all the Commandmens of the Lord your God that ye may possosse the good land and leave it for an inheritance for your Children after you for ever And thou Solomon my son know thou the Lord God of thy father and serve him with a perfect heart and with a willing minde for the Lord searcheth all hearts and understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts If thou seek him he will be found of thee but if thou forsake him he will cast thee off for ever notwithstanding the former Covenant and establishment which was but conditionall not absolute as the renting of the ten Tribes from his son and the determining of the very kingdom of Iudah it self in Zedekiah after which it never returned any more to Davids Line infallibly evidence Hence we read in the 1 Kings 11. that Solomons idolatrous wives turning away his heart from following the Lord and drawing him to commit idolatry in his old age hereupon the Lord grew angry with Solomon Wherefore the Lord said unto him for as much as this is done of thee and thou hast not kept my Covenant and my Statutes which I have commanded thee I will surely rend the Kingdom from thee and will give it to thy servant Notwithstanding in thy dayes I will not do it for David thy fathers sake but I will rend it out of the hand of thy son Howbeit I will not rend away all the kingdom but will give one Tribe to thy Sonne for my servant Davids sake and for Jerusalems sake which I have chosen In pursuance whereof the Prophet Ahijah rending Iâ—roboams garment into 12 peeces said to Ieroboam Take thee ten peeces for thus saith the Lord the God of Israel Behold I will rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon and will give tâ—n Tribes to thee BECAVSE THAT THEY HAVE FORSAKEN ME and have worshipped the Goddesse of the Zidonians c. AND HAVE NOT WALKED IN MY WAYES to doe that which is right in mine eyes to keep my Statuts and my judgements as did David his Father howbeit I will not take the whole Kingdome out of his hands but I will make him Prince all the dayes of his life for David my servants sake whom I chose because he kept my Commandements and my Statutes But I will take the Kingdome out of his sonnes hand and give it unto thee even ten tribes And unto his sonne will I give one tribe that David my servant may have a light alway before me in Ierusalem the City which I have chosen to put my name there And I will take thee and thou shalt reigne according to all that thy soule desireth and shalt be King over Israel But what without any limitation or condition at all think you No such matter And it shall be IF THOV WILT HEARKEN VNTO ALL THAT I COMMAND THEE and wilt walk in my wayes and doe that is right in my sight to keep my Statutes and my Commandements as David my servant did that I will be with thee and build thee a sure house as I built for David and will give Israel to thee And I will for this afflict the seed of David but not for ever Loe here both Kingdomes of Iudah and Israel are given and entailed on David Solomon and Ieroboam onely upon condition of good behaviour which not performed they shall be rent from either And was this only a vain idle condition as some deem the Covenants and Coronation oathes of Kings to God and their Kingdoms Surely no for we read experimentall verifications of them in King Rehoboam Who answering all the people and Ieroboam when they came to Sechem to make him King roughly according to the Counsell of the young men and threatning to adde to their yoake instead of making it lighter and hearkning not unto the people FOR THE CAVSE WAS FROM THE LORD that he might perform his saying which he spake by Abijah the Shilomite unto Ieroboam the
against pacts or fraudulently and yet not one of the Nobles speakes against or resists it let them thinke they must then sit still and thinke that the best Physitians to prevent or take away a disease doe oft-times prescribe the opening of a veine the evacuation of humours yea and scarification For such is the nature of things that scarce any mischiefe can be cured without another scarce any good may be acquired without diligent labour They have the example of the people under Solomen who refused not the grievous tributes imposed on them for the building of the Temple and fortifying the Kingdome because they judged those things to be imposed by the publike Councell to the glory of God the beauty and ornament of the Republike They have likewise the example of Christ our Saviour who although he were the King of Kings yet because he then sustained a private person he payed tribute willingly If the Nobles and Magistrates themselves favour apparent tyranny or at least oppose it not they may remember that for the sinnes of the people God suffers Hypocrites to reigne whom unlesse they turne themselves to God with all their heart cannot be overturned with any engines Therefore there is no need of feet or hands but bended knees Finally they must suffer evill Princes wish for better and thinke they must beare that tyranny with a patient minde as they doe haile stormes tempests and other naturall calamities or change their habitations David retired into the Mountaines and spared Saul a tyrant because he was none of the Nobles of the people Christ because he was not of this world fled into Egypt to avoyd Herods tyranny Paul because he describes the office of private Christians not of Magistrates teacheth that they must obey Nero himselfe But if all the Nobles or most of them or at least one of them endeavour to restraine apparent tyranny or the Magistrate to drive it from that part of the Realme which is committed to him if he be such a one as under pretext of expelling it may not introduce another tyranny then verily assembling together they may run who shall goe fastest to this choyce man they may earnestly assist with their feete and hands and as if God himselfe had given a signe from Heaven of a fight against tyrants endeavour to free the Kingdome from tyranny For as God punisheth and chastiseth the people by tyrants so likewise tyrants by the people and that is a perpetuall truth which Syrach saith that Kingdomes are translated from Nation to Nation for the iniquities injuries and wickednesse of Princes and that every tyranny continues but a short space Thus the Captaines and souldiers carefully executed all the commands of Iehojada the High Priest in revenging the tyranny of Queene Athaliah Thus all the godly men of Israel went to the Maccabees partly that they might defend the true worship of God partly that they might free the Republike against the impious and unjust attempts of Antiochus yea God favoured their just endeavours and gave them prosperous successe What then May not God likewise out of private men themselves raise up some avenger of tyranny Cannot the very same who raiseth up tyrants out of the people backed with no title no pretext to punish the people likewise raise up deliverers also out of the lowest of the people Cannot the same who enthralled the people to Iabin and Eglon deliver the same people by Ehud Barac Deborah and as it were manumit them when they were deserted by the Nobles What therefore should now hinder thou wilt say but that the same God who hath sent Tyrants on us at this time should likewise extraodinarily send revengers of tyrants Why if Ahab rageth againt good men if Iezabel suborne false witnesses against Naboth shall not there be also a Iehu which may extirpate the family of Ahab who may avenge the bloud of Naboth who may cast downe Iezabel to be torne in peeces of Dogges Verily what I have answered before as nothing hath departed from the justice of God at any time so not from his mercy But yet since those evident signes by which God was wont to confirme these extraordinary vocations of those Worthies are for the most part wanting to us in this age let the people take heed lest whiles they seeke to passe over Sea with a drie foote some Impostor being their Captaine they fall not headlong into a gulfe which we read sometimes to have hapned to the Jewes lest whiles they seeke a revenger of tyranny they perchance follow one who that tyrant being expelled will translate the tyranny it selfe unto himselfe lest finally whiles they seeke to deserve well of the Common-wealth they militate to the private lust of any so as that may fall out which hath hapned to many Republikes especially the Italian whiles that they endeavour to remove the present evill they bring in a farre greater I shall close up this with three Authorities more the first of Mr. Iohn Calvin who pleads as much for obedience to Tyrants and unjust Magistrates as any man Instit lib. 4. c. 20. sect 31. I alwayes speake of private men For if there be any popular Magistrates constituted to moderate the lust of Kings such as heretofore were the Ephori who were opposed to the Lacedaemonian Kings or Tribunes of the people against the Roman Senate or the Demarchi against the Athenian Senate and which power peradventure as now things stand The three Estates in all Kingdomes enjoy when they assemble I am so farre from inâ—ibiting them to withstand the raging licentiousnesse of Kings according to their duty that if they connive at Kings outragiously encroaching upon and insulting over the inferiour common people I shall affirme that their dissimulation wants not nefarious perfidiousnesse because they fraudulently betray the liberty of the people of which they know themselves ordained protectors by Gods ordinance The second is Fuldericus Zuinglius Explanatio Artic. 42. Quando vero perfide extra Regulam Christi Principes egerint possint cum Deo deponi consensu suffragiis totius aut certe potioris partis multitudinis Quaeris quando id fiet ut major pars populi bono consentiat Ad hoc dico quod antea si non consentiunt ut maâ—um tollant ferant jugum Tyranni demum cum eo perâ—ant Nec querantur sibi fieri injuâ—iam cum sua culpa id mereantur ut quidvis patiâ—â—ntur Quis ergo miretur si populus ob flagitia scelera Principum paenas luat Primum cur non juxta naurae regulam cum proximo agimus Sic enim omnes fratâ—es essemus Principe nullo esset opus Deinde cur non summo studio justitiam sectamur exosam habemus injustitiam omnes Sic enim facile fieret ut unanimi consensu tyrannunt officio moveremus Nunc cum tam â—epidi sumus in tuenda justitia publica sinimus ut impune vitia Tyrannorum hodie regnent Merito ergo ab