taking upon him to be King till the Tribe of Judah had chosen him that he often acknowledged Saul to be his Lord. When Baanah and Rechab brought the head of Ishbosheth to him he commanded them to be slain Because they had killed a righteous man upon his Bed in his own House which he could not have said if Ishbosheth had unjustly detained from him the ten Tribes and that he had a right to reign over them before they had chosen him The Word of God did not make him King but only foretold that he should be King and by such ways as he pleased prepared the hearts of the People to set him up and till the time designed by God for that work was accomplished he pretended to no other Authority than what the six hundred men who first followed him afterwards the Tribe of Judah and at last all the rest of the People conferred upon him I no way defend Absalom's revolt he was wicked and acted wickedly but after his death no man was ever blamed or questioned for siding with him and Amasa who commanded his Army is represented in Scripture as a good man even David saying that Joab by slaying Abner and Amasa had killed two men who were better than himself which could not have bin unless the People had a right of looking into matters of Government and of redressing abuses tho being deceived by Absalom they so far erred as to prefer him who was in all respects wicked before the man who except in the matter of Uriah is said to be after God's own heart This right was acknowledged by David himself when he commanded Hushai to say to Absalom I will be thy Servant O King and by Hushai in the following Chapter Nay but whom the Lord and his People and all the men of Israel chuse his will I be and with him will I abide which could have no sense in it unless the People had a right of chusing and that the choice in which they generally concurred was esteemed to be from God But if Saul who was made King by the whole People and anointed by the command of God might be lawfully resisted when he departed from the Law of his Institution it cannot be doubted that any other for the like reason may be resisted If David tho designed by God to be King and anointed by the hand of the Prophet was not King till the People had chosen him and he had made a Covenant with them it will if I mistake not be hard to find a man who can claim a right which is not originally from them And if the People of Israel could erect and pull down institute abrogate or transfer to other Persons or Families Kingdoms more firmly established than any we know the same right cannot be denied to other Nations SECT II. The Kings of Israel and Judah were under a Law not safely to be transgress'd OUR Author might be pardon'd if he only vented his own follies but he aggravates his own crime by imputing them to men of more Credit and tho I cannot look upon Sir Walter Raleigh as a very good Interpreter of Scripture he had too much understanding to say That if practice declare the greatness of Authority even the best Kings of Israel and Judah were not tied to any Law but they did whatsoever they pleased in the greatest matters for there is no sense in those words If practice declares the greatness of Authority even the best were tied to no Law signifies nothing for practice cannot declare the greatness of Authority Peter the Cruel of Castille and Christiern the 2d of Denmark kill'd whom they pleas'd but no man ever thought they had therefore a right to do so and if there was a Law all were tied by it and the best were less likely to break it than the worst But if Sir Walter Raleigh's opinion which he calls a conjecture be taken there was so great a difference between the Kings of Israel and Judah that as to their general proceedings in point of Power hardly any thing can be said which may rightly be applied to both and he there endeavours to show that the reason why the ten Tribes did not return to the house of David after the destruction of the houses of Jeroboam and Baasba was because they would not endure a Power so absolute as that which was exercised by the house of David If he has therefore any where said that the Kings did what they pleased it must be in the sense that Moses Maimonides says The Kings of Israel committed many extravagancies because they were insolent impious and despisers of the Law But whatsoever Sir Walter Raleigh may say for I do not remember his words and have not leisure to seek whether any such are found in his Books 't is most evident that they did not what they pleased The Tribes that did not submit to David nor crown him till they thought fit and then made a Covenant with him took care it might be observed whether he would or not Absalom's Rebellion follow'd by almost all Israel was a terrible check to his Will That of Sheba the Son of Bichri was like to have bin worse if it had not bin suppressed by Joab's diligence and David often confessed the Sons of Zerviah were too hard for him Solomon indeed overthrowing the Law given by Moses multiplying Gold and Silver Wives and Horses introducing Idolatry and lifting up his heart above his Brethren did what he pleased but Rehoboam paid for all the ten Tribes revolted from him by reason of the heavy burdens laid upon them stoned Adoram who was sent to levy the Tributes and set up Jeroboam who as Sir Walter Raleigh says in the place before cited had no other Title than the curtesy of the People and utterly rejected the house of David If practice therefore declares a right the practice of the People to avenge the injuries they suffered from their Kings as soon as they found a man fit to be their Leader shews they had a right of doing it 'T is true the best of the Kings with Moses Joshua and Samuel may in one sense be said to have done what they pleased because they desired to do that only which was good But this will hardly be brought to confer a right upon all Kings And I deny that even the Kings of Judah did what they pleased or that it were any thing to our question if they did Zedekiah professed to the great men that is to the Sanhedrin that without them he could do nothing When Amaziah by his folly had brought a great slaughter upon the Tribe of Judah they conspired against him in publick Council whereupon he fled to Lachish and they pursuing him thither killed him avowed the Fact and it was neither question'd nor blamed which examples agree with the paraphrase of Josephus on Deut. 17. He shall do nothing without the consent of the Sanhedrin and if
turning his lawful Power into Tyranny disobeying the word of the Prophet slaying the Priests sparing the Amalekites and oppressing the Innocent overthrew his own Right and God declared the Kingdom which had bin given him under a conditional promise of perpetuity to be intirely abrogated This did not only give a right to the whole people of opposing him but to every particular man and upon this account David did not only fly from his fury but resisted it He made himself head of all the discontented persons that would follow him he had at first four and afterwards six hundred men he kept these in Arms against Saul and lived upon the Country and resolved to destroy Nabal with all his House only for refusing to send Provisions for his men Finding himself weak and unsafe he went to Achish the Philistin and offer'd his service even against Israel This was never reputed a sin in David or in those that follow'd him by any except the wicked Court-flatterer Doeg the Edomite and the drunken fool Nabal who is said to have bin a man of Belial If it be objected That this was rather a Flight than a War in as much as he neither killed Saul nor his men or that he made war as a King anointed by Samuel I answer that he who had six hundred men and entertain'd as many as came to him sufficiently shewed his intention rather to resist than to fly And no other reason can be given why he did not farther pursue that intention than that he had no greater power and he who arms six hundred men against his Prince when he can have no more can no more be said to obey patiently than if he had so many hundreds of thousands This holds tho he kill no man for that is not the War but the manner of making it and 't were as absurd to say David made no War because he killed no men as that Charles the eighth made no War in Italy because Guicciardin says he conquer'd Naples without breaking a Lance. But as David's strength increased he grew to be less sparing of Blood Those who say Kings never die but that the right is immediatly transfer'd to the next Heirs cannot deny that Ishbosheth inherited the right of Saul and that David had no other right of making war against him than against Saul unless it were conferred upon him by the Tribe of Judah that made him King If this be true it must be confessed that not only a whole People but a part of them may at their own pleasure abrogate a Kingdom tho never so well established by common consent for none was ever more solemnly instituted than that of Saul and few Subjects have more strongly obliged themselves to be obedient If it be not true the example of Nabal is to be follow'd and David tho guided by the Spirit of God deserves to be condemned as a fellow that rose up against his Master If to elude this it be said That God instituted and abrogated Saul's Kingdom and that David to whom the right was transmitted might therefore proceed against him and his Heirs as privat men I answer that if the obedience due to Saul proceeded from God's Institution it can extend to none but those who are so peculiarly instituted and anointed by his Command and the hand of his Prophet which will be of little advantage to the Kings that can give no testimony of such an Institution or Unction and an indisputable right will remain to every Nation of abrogating the Kingdoms which are instituted by and for themselves But as David did resist the Authority of Saul and Ishbosbeth without assuming the Power of a King tho designed by God and anointed by the Prophet till he was made King of Judah by that Tribe or arrogating to himself a Power over the other Tribes till he was made King by them and had enter'd into a Covenant with them 't is much more certain that the Persons and Authority of ill Kings who have no title to the Privileges due to Saul by virtue of his institution may be justly resisted which is as much as is necessary to my purpose Object But David's Heart smote him when he had cut off the skirt of Saul's Garment and he would not suffer Abishai to kill him This might be of some force if it were pretended that every man was obliged to kill an ill King whensoever he could do it which I think no man ever did say and no man having ever affirmed it no more can be concluded than is confessed by all But how is it possible that a man of a generous Spirit like to David could see a great and valiant King chosen from amongst all the Tribes of Israel anointed by the command of God and the hand of the Prophet famous for victories obtained against the enemies of Israel and a wonderful deliverance thereby purchased to that People cast at his feet to receive Life or Death from the hand of one whom he had so furiously persecuted and from whom he least deserved and could least expect mercy without extraordinary commotion of mind most especially when Abishai who saw all that he did and thereby ought best to have known his thoughts expressed so great a readiness to kill him This could not but make him reflect upon the instability of all that seemed to be most glorious in men and shew him that if Saul who had bin named even among the Prophets and assisted in an extraordinary manner to accomplish such great things was so abandoned and given over to fury misery and shame he that seemed to be most firmly established ought to take care lest he should fall Surely these things are neither to be thought strange in relation to Saul who was God's Anointed nor communicable to such as are not Some may suppose he was King by virtue of God's unction tho if that were true he had never bin chosen and made King by the People but it were madness to think he became God's Anointed by being King for if that were so the same Right and Title would belong to every King even to those who by his command were accursed and destroyed by his Servants Moses Joshua and Samuel The same men at the same time and in the same sense would be both his anointed and accursed loved and detested by him and the most sacred Privileges made to extend to the worst of his enemies Again the War made by David was not upon the account of being King as anointed by Samuel but upon the common natural right of defending himself against the violence and fury of a wicked man he trusted to the promise that he should be King but knew that as yet he was not so and when Saul found he had spared his Life he said I now know well that thou shalt surely be King and that the Kingdom of Israel shall surely be established in thy hand not that it was already Nay David himself was so far from
much esteemed for Valour and Wisdom God's peculiar People had a peculiar regard to that Wisdom and Valour which was accompanied with his Presence hoping for deliverance only from him The second is known by the name of the great Sanhedrin which being instituted by Moses according to the command of God continued till they were all save one slain by Herod And the third part which is the Assembly of the People was so common that none can be ignorant of it but such as never looked into the Scripture When the Tribes of Reuben Gad and half that of Manasseh had built an Altar on the side of Jordan The whole Congregation of the Children of Israel gathered together at Shiloh to go up to war against them and sent Phineas the Son of Eleazer and with him ten Princes c. This was the highest and most important action that could concern a People even War or Peace and that not with Strangers but their own Brethren Joshua was then alive The Elders never failed but this was not transacted by him or them but by the collected body of the People for They sent Phineas This Democratical Embassy was Democratically received It was not directed to one man but to all the Children of Reuben Gad and Manasseh and the answer was sent by them all which being pleasing to Phineas and the ten that were with him they made their report to the Congregation and all was quiet The last eminent Act performed by Joshua was the calling of a like Assembly to Sechem composed of Elders Heads of Families Judges Officers and all the People to whom he proposed and they agreeing made a Covenant before the Lord. Joshua being dead the Proceedings of every Tribe were grounded upon Counsels taken at such Assemblies among themselves for their own concernments as appears by the Actions of Judah Simeon c. against the Canaanites and when the Levite complained that his Wife had bin forced by those of Gibeah the whole Congregation of Israel met together at Mispeth from all parts even from Dan to Beersheba as one man and there resolved upon that terrible War which they made against the Tribe of Benjamin The like Assembly was gathered together for the Election of Saul every man was there and tho the Elders only are said to have asked a King of Samuel they seem to have bin deputed from the whole Congregation for God said Hearken to the voice of the People In the same manner the Tribe of Judah and after that the rest chose and anointed David to be their King After the death of Solomon all Israel met together to treat with Rehoboam and not receiving satisfaction from him ten of the Tribes abrogated his Kingdom If these Actions were considered singly by themselves Calvin might have given the name of a Democracy to the Hebrew Government as well as to that of Athens for without doubt they evidently manifest the supreme Power to have bin in the supreme manner in these General Assemblies but the Government as to its outward order consisting of those three parts which comprehend the three simple species tho in truth it was a Theocracy and no times having bin appointed nor occasions specified upon which Judges should be chosen or these Assemblies called whereas the Sanhedrim which was the Aristocratical part was permanent the whole might rightly be called an Aristocracy that part prevailing above the others and tho Josephus calls it a Theocracy by reason of God's presence with his People yet in relation to man he calls it an Aristocracy and says that Saul's first Sin by which he fell from the Kingdom was that Gubernationem optimatum sustulit which could not be if they were governed by a Monarch before he was chosen Our Author taking no notice of these matters first endeavours to prove the excellency of Monarchy from natural instinct and then begging the question says that God did always govern his People by Monarchy whereas he ought in the first place to have observed that this instinct if there be any such thing is only an irrational appetite attributed to Beasts that know not why they do any thing and is to be followed only by those men who being equally irrational live in the same ignorance and the second being proved to be absolutely false by the express words of the Scripture There was then no King in Israel several times repeated and the whole series of the History he hath no other evasion than to say That even then the Israelites were under the Kingly Government of the Fathers of particular Families It appears by the forementioned Text cited also by our Author that in the Assembly of the People gathered together to take counsel concerning the War against Benjamin were four hundred thousand Footmen that drew Sword They all arose together saying Not a man of us shall go to his Tent. So all the men of Israel were gathered together against the City This is repeated several times in the relation The Benjamites proceeded in the like manner in preparing for their defence and if all these who did so meet to consult and determine were Monarchs there were then in Israel and Benjamin four hundred and twenty six thousand seven hundred Monarchs or Kings tho the Scriptures say there was not one If yet our Author insist upon his notion of Kingly Government I desire to know who were the Subjects if all these were Kings for the text says that the whole Congregation was gathered together as one man from Dan to Beersheba If there can be so many Kings without one Subject what becomes of the Right of Abraham Isaac and Jacob that was to have bin devolved upon one man as Heir to them and thereby Lord of all If every man had an equal part in that inheritance and by virtue of it became a King why is not the same eternally subdivided to as many men as are in the World who are also Kings If this be their natural condition how comes it to be altered till they do unthrone themselves by consent to set up one or more to have a power over them all Why should they devest themselves of their natural Right to set up one above themselves unless in consideration of their own good If the 426700 Kings might retain the power in themselves or give it to one why might they not give it to any such number of men as should best please themselves or retain it in their own hands as they did till the days of Saul or frame limit and direct it according to their own pleasure If this be true God is the Author of Democracy and no assertor of human Liberty did ever claim more than the People of God did enjoy and exercise at the time when our Author says they were under the Kingly Government which Liberty being not granted by any peculiar concession or institution the same must belong to all Mankind 'T is in vain to say the 426700 men