the honour of the Family might be preserved entire and not be shattered into pieces and that the people should be subject to one Lord rather than to many The Israelites as * Hal. Mcl. c. Sect. 10. Marmamides witnesseth ought to have refused him that in regard to his birthright had the next title to the Crown unless he was pious and feared the Lord. Omnis potestas omne officium in Israel haereditarium est ad filies nepotes in aeternum modò filius impleat locum patris sui cum sapientiâ pietate Quòd si pietate tantum non sapientiâ ipsi par sit perficiunt nihilominùs officio paterno docent id quid deest At penes quem nulla est pietas quamvis saptentissimus esset non promovetur tamen ad ullum officierum in universo Israel Thus the Hebrew Doctor before-quoted as he is taught to speak Latine by a learned Writer whose translation I use because it cannot be bettered If this Doctor speak truth it will unavoidably follow that the wicked Kings of Judah used deep dissimulation before they were inaugurated or that the great Sanhedrin neglected their duty or that they wanted power to execute it This knot is somewhat morose and will not easily be untied The publick influence of Kingly authority might be a just ground of some exceptions from the usuall way of hereditary propagation The Eldest Sonne with the Israelites though he were grossely wicked inherited a double portion of his Fathers estate we cannot hence conclude that the Kingdom perpetually descended upon the Eldest Sonne howsoever he was qualified because it respected not so much one mans private benefit as the welfare of the people The case of Solomon who was preferred before Adonijah his Elder Brother will not extricate us in that the choice was made by God himself 1 Chron. 28.5 6 7. Gods dispencing with any of his positive Lawes conferreth not the like privilege upon his creatures Though we are left in the dark in that Quaere to wit whether the Sanhedrin had authority to reject the heir apparent of the Kingdom from reigning over them for his want of religion yet I shall make it clear that the Kings afore-mentioned were more established in their authority against humane opposition by their call to it then any can be by a violent invasion thereof or by the meer choice of men David and Solomon were expresly called to be Kings and the Kingdom was setled upon Solomons posterity be Gods immediate appointment 1 Chron. 28.7 When God gave unto Ieroboam ten Tribes he confirmed unto Solomons posterity the Kingdom of Iudah 1 Kings 11.36 If the Sandhedrin could lawfully hinder their Kings first-born Sonne from reigning over them when he was not an heir of his Fathers virtues that autority was given them by Gods Commandement or permission and it should remain that they were determined by God himself to preferre to the Kingdom him that had the next title by discent being duely qualified and one of Solomons posterity though all of them were egregiously wicked God secured the Kingdom for Solomons posterity against those iniquities wherewith they should provoke his divine Majestie 2 Sam. 7.14.15.16 That the grant of the Kingdom was not conditionall as to Saul is cleared by that Scripture and by 1 King 11.36 The History of the Kings of Judah informeth us that some of them provoked God as deeply as did Saul from whom he took away the Kingdom God did not preserve them from provoking him as did Saul but shewed them more visible favour by continuing the Kingdom in their posterity That condition which is expressed in 1 Chron. 28.7 in those words I will establish his Kingdom for ever if he be constant to doe my Commandements and my judgments as at this day had respect unto the Kingdom as it was entire over the 12 Tribes but not to every part of it as we may gather from what hath been spoken and by comparing it with 1 King 11. v. 12 13. That of the Psalmist Psal 132.12 If thy children will keep my Covenant and my testimony c. importeth that Davids posteritie unlesse they revolted from God as did Solomon should reigne over the 12 Tribes but moreover that their Line and Succession should not be interrupted as it was for the King of Manasseh and some other of their Kings by captivity untill the coming of Shiloh Here it may be inquired how the establishing of Davids Kingdom for ever which is promised 2 Sam. 7.16 can consist with those events which have befaln his posterity as the Babylonian captivity and the bereaving of them of all outward and visible Dominion That I may not confine the promise to Christs spirituall Kingdom the word Olam which is there used doth not alwayes denote eternity or a duration till the end of the World but in generall a duration hidden from man whether infinite or finite * See Munster de side Christinorum Part of the Ceremoniall Law is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an ordinance for ever Numb 10.8 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for ever Exod. 21.6 is till the next Jubilee according to Rasi Aben-Ezra Bechai and Abarbinel upon those words and the Talmud in Kidushin Abarbinel telleth us that because 50 yeers were counted one Age or Generation the fiftieth yeer which is the yeer of Jubilee is called Olam According to his construction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall supply the place of * See Psal 18.50 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and indeed it is wont to signifie ad which is thence derived But I should rather conceive that for ever there according to the gramaticall accompt is the same that for the present generation The Servant whose Ear was bored thorow when the generation was renewed as Aben-Ezra speaketh to wit in the year of Jubilee was to be set at liberty 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For ever in 2 Chron. 23.7 seemeth to signifie the time in which the Ceremoniall Law should continue in force 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For evermore is untill Shiloh come Psal 132.12 We cannot determine out of those Scriptures before-quoted to wit 2 Sam. 7.16 Psal 89.31 32 33 1 King 11.36 Whether David and Solomon and the Kings of Iudah were liable to deposition and capitall punishment by their Subjects for tyranny murder and other gross delinquencies without an expresse permission or injunction from God God might punish their persons in such sort yet not cause his mercy to depart from them as he took it away from Saul whose posterity he secluded from succeeding in the Kingdom But it is clear that those Kings had a large advantage as I shewed before concerning Saul being compared with such as came to a Kingdom meerly by Conquest or by humane choice in that they were not liable to deposition so long as their carriage was worthy of their office Abarbinel expresseth the same sense in his Preface to his Comment upon 2 Sam. 15. Absalom saith
years saith Abarbinel could not begin at Sauls inauguration for that was above 50 years past He reckoneth that David had reigned al most 40 years and that Absolom was born at Hebron in the beginning of Davids Kingdom 40 years and because they were disaffected towards Solomon both by reason of Davids Adultery with Bathsheba and his killing of Vriah and likewise that he was but a Child about 9 years old that is because they thought him unfit to govern and feared a curse upon his Government in regard of the sins of his Parents Ahithophel according to the same commentator conjectured * Not much unlike to this is the deliberation of Ioab in the Author now praysed who suspected should Absolom be suffered to escape with life his Father might perhaps make him being his eldest Son his successor in the Kingdom and himself should be the Butt for his enmlty and hatted that David to buy his peace would consent that Absolom his eldest Son should succeed him in the Kingdom and that he would retain an enmity and hatred against himself and therefore suggested such Counsels as might debar a reconciliation and cut off David His advice in 2 Sam. 26.21 tended to the preventing of all thoughts touching a reconciliation but moreover to inmind the people of Davids sin with Bathsheba and to beget in them an expectation of divine revenge to be executed upon David wherein they should be much confirmed by Nathans prophecie 2 Sam. 12.11 12. and that other part of his Counsell in the 2 Sam. 17.1 2. to the taking away of Davids life Absolom saith the same Author consented to the former part of Ahithophel's advice which was that he should go in unto his Fathers Concubines lest the Israelites should revolt from him before he perfected an agreement with his father but the other part of his Counsell which was to kill David he abhorred and therefore consulted with Hushai and preferred his advice The same Doctour saith upon 2 Sam. 17.4 that it pleased Absolom and the elders of Israel that Anithophel and the young men should go after David but Absolom did not acquiesce in Ahithophel's advising him to smite David and therefore inquired the judgement of Hushai But the Scripture affordeth no hint for Absoloms disliking of any part of Ahithophel's counsell before he had consulted with Hushai Were Abarbinel right in his conjecture yet the Israelites thought it lawfull to translate by violence the exercise of Royall authority from David to Absolom wherefore scarce any Prince though of Methuselah's years would desire to be disburthened and to appoint their King a successor against his mind though he were a Prophet and therefore likely to have received punctuall instructions from God touching the propagation of the Kingdom The ten tribes rebelled against Rehoboam because he would not abate somewhat of the grievous servitude which his Father had imposed upon them 2 Chron. 10. Their revolting is not resolved into Ahijahs prophecie but the harsh answer which Rehoboam returned to them Libnah revolted from Jehoram because he had forsaken the Lord God of his Fathers 2 Chron. 21.10 But see especially the instances before produced in the tenth Chapter To be inserted in Chapter 9. after those words From violence Whilst people are Malignant they are not to be permitted to suffrage in state affairs neither indeed would it become them or prove for their welfare for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 servilis pravitas as Plato in Alcibade primo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Caeterùm antequam virtus adsit Conducit viro non solùm puero regià meliore quam regere Plato ibid. But as soon as they are reformed they ought to be trusted with their votes for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Liberalis virtus ibid. This to be inserted in Chap. 9. after these Words can give no better a title to authority than thest to another mans Goods Mem. That what I have out Elias Levita and Broughton who undoubtedly followed him in Chap. 17. p. l. to be contradicted as it fastneth upon Ezra the collecting of the Scripture into one body That probably was needless I cannot consent to Arist telling us Polit. l. 1. c. 8. that a War undertaken to compell men to subjection who being more fit to obey then to command are unwilling to submit themselves to such as are more able to govern is agreeable to the Law of Nature and putting no difference in point of justice between the subduing of these and the hunting of Wild beasts FINIS Behold the Wonder of this Age. If thou observ'st these Rules and tak'st my Physick 'T will keep thee from the Pox Plague Cough or Tysick Consumptions Dropsies nay the truth to tell ye From all griefes either i'th'head back or belly
King but clearly what should have diverted them from that attempt It 's probable also that those words Thou shalt in any wise set him him King over thee whom the Lord thy God shall chuse consider well the scope of them contain onely one precept which is negative viz. That they should not set over them a King whom the Lord did not chuse and certain that if an affirmative precept be likewise intended in them the reason was not that God took complacency in their setting over them a King but that his choice might be regarded Their acquiescing in Gods choice should be the pith and kernel of the precept and the setting up of a King onely the husk and shell of it It was needless to injoyn them to sâ—t a King over them when they intemperately desired Kingly Government God did not antecedently nor simply injoyn them to set a King over them but if at all in reference to the choice that he should make And he chus'd a King for them not out of any complacencie which he took in their request but out of condescension to the hardness of their hearts Again * The Book which Samue wrote touching the manner of the Kingdom 1 Sam. 10.15 shewed what autority the K. should have over the people and what punishment he should inslict upon those who disobeyed his commands and was layed up before the Lord viz. in the Ark as R. Levi Bell Gersom commenteth upon the place though a King should have been necessary for other Nations yet not for the Israelites God had undertaken to rule over them in a more peculiar way then over the Nations had promised to goe before them and to fight their battles and had given them Judges and directed them by his Prophets The Israelites in the times of the Iudges before Samuel seemed to be of this opinion This last Thesis is cleared by 1 Sam. 10.19 And ye have this day rejected your God who himself saved you out of all your adversities and your tribulations The Israelites in desiring a King did not act in the virtue of any divine commandement nor out of any Civil necessity or Stateexigency but out of an unbridled humor out of a Caâ—exie and evill frame of spirit I cannot think with some of the Hebrew Doctors in Siphre that they desired a King who would bring in Idolatrous worship nor with R. Nissim that their offence was in asking a King not only to fight their battails but also to judge them seeing all judicature was not entailed upon their great Sanhedrin and their inferiour judges it was not necessary that their request should encroach upon those Courts of justice which were established by Divine right nor yet with some other that their sin consisted in desiring a King who should make laws and rule according to his pleasure not submitting himself unto the Law of God seeing that we have no hint that they were guilty of this crime They offended as I conceive with Maimonidas in that there was a spirit of murmuring in their asking of a King They were not contented with that Government which God had appointed them God permitted them not to aske a King but commanded them to set over them a King whom the Lord should chose Deut. 17.14 15. God foretelleth their repining against the present Government and here as in some other cases condescendeth to the hardness of their hearts in granting them a King but confineth them to one whom himself should chuse R. Nehorai in the Gemara of Sanhedrin c. 2. expresseth the same sense of that place in Deut. viz. That in regard of their murmuring which is intimated in those words And shalt say I will set a King over me like as all the Nations that are round about me the Lord said Thou shalt in any wise set him King over thee whom the Lord thy God shall chuse Those Doctors whose opinions I rejected mistook as conceiving that God absolutely commanded the Israelites to set over them a King and sinned not in the matter of their request but only in the circumstances thereof Had there been such a commandement their forefathers had sinned in omitting it throughout the time after they were possessed of Canaan till they asked a King * See Nathmanides upon Gen. 49.10 They sinned also in rejecting Samuel one who was endewed with the Spirit of prophecie and eminent in holinesse Besides that they expressed a desire that some other should rule over them 1 Sam. 8.5 Vnlesse they were supinely ignorant or understood by revelation that God would not settle the Kingdom at its beginning upon Iudah they could no expect a king who was not of that tribe They had an itching desire to be like unto other Natations in w th there was a spice tincture of Idolatry They chose rather to be governed after the manner of the heathen then in that way which God had prescribed them being taken with the pomp and lustre of a visible King As they had formerly adored the Gods of the Nations so now they idolize their government as they had often cast off Iehovah from being their God so now they cast him off from being their King R. Eliezer in the Gemara of Sanhedr c. 2. sayth the Elders sinned not in asking a King but the common people were perverse in affecting to be like other Nations The beginnning of this sentence is already refuted the remainder in part maketh for my purpose The same who desired a King affected also to be like other Nations 1 Sam. 8.5 20. and were therein perverse but sinned likewise in the matter of their request It was impossible for the Israelites to aske a King with such circumstances as not to sin in that the request it self implied a rejecting of God from bearing rule over them They had not the same liberty with other Nations in this particular in that God had vouchsafed to reign over them in a peculiar manner Forasmuch as the Israelites so haynously provoked God in asking a King it was just with him to abridge them or the Liberty of deposing Tyrannicall Kings which he left to other Nations that they might have enough of Kingly government which they had so much thirsted after CHAP. 17. A third reason is opposed against that proposition or presumption which was examined in the two last Chapters SHould we grant that Davids sparing of Saul when he was delivered into his hands was approved off by God yet the times in which he lived will suggest an exception of Tyrants now a dayes from Sauls Privilege and of subjects whose lives are unjustly sought after by their Princes from Davids Liberty No one will doubt but in the times in which the spirit of Prophecie flourished God dispenced oftner with the matter of his Laws then we have notice given us in the Scriptures God remitted unto Cain the sentence of death due to him for his Murder Gen. 4.15 That Law Gen. 9.6 Who so sheddeth mans blood By man
intentionem juramenti Dei and chiefly the intention of the oath of God An Oath here as this learned Author explaineth himself in his notes upon the place is whereby any one citeth God as his witness and judge that with a good Conscience because God hath so commanded he will obey the King and seek his good and the good of the Common-wealth I doubt not but some will be ready to conclude from hence that it is not lawfull upon any accompt to resist the edicts of Kings I acknowledge that the Hebrew is capable of our English translation and likewise of that construction which Coch assigneth it We may admit of our English translation without detriment to the cause with this provifoe that Kings be legitimately invested in their authority and be a terror to evill works and an incouragement to good and manage well the affairs of the Common-wealth That all these conditions are to be taken in is clear from Rom. 13. and the 6. and 8. Commandements Coch hath these words upon Eccles 8.2 Os Regis serva h. e. fac quodcunque ex Regis ore prodit quicquid jubet statuit pro eâ potestate quam habet divinâ ordinatione Regard the Kings mouth that is doe whatsoever he commandeth and appointeth out of that authority which he hath by divine ordination No one hath from God any authority to doe evill neither hath any one now a days a just title to royall authority but through the approbation of the people I find in Elisha Galico upon the place this gloss I am the mouth of the King of Kings of Jehovah wherefore observe the words which I speak and as our Doctors say because thou art sworn to the observance of the Law when thou comest into the world to wit as say our Doctors of blessed memorte they adjure a man in this form Hevi tsadik veal tehi rashaugh be thou righteous and be not wicked One interpretation in Rasi importeth this sense I say it is necessary and meet to observe the mouth of the King of the world because we sware unto him in Horeb to keep his Commandements Hierome varieth but little from that interpretation which I have now propounded out of Rasi his construction of the Text running thus Ego os Regis observo praecepta juramenti Dei I observe the mouth of the King and the commandements of the oath of God R. Levi in Midrasch hath the same interpretation of the beginning of the Verse Ani eschmor c. saith this Doctor I will observe the mouth of the King of Kings that holy blessed one that mouth which said I am the Lord thy God c. Another interpretation which I find in Rasi is this I say It is meet to observe the commandement of the Kings of the Nations so they cause us not to transgresse the oath which we sware to God Elisha Galico before quoted to the same sense I say observe the mouth of the King but chiefly the * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any note of an Apocope matter of the oath of God that is the Law which we sware to observe at Mount Sinay Learned Broughton and Tremellius and Junius expresse the same sense though they differ in some Grammaticall punctilio's I say regard the Kings mouth yet after the Oath of God Broughton The Latter part of the verse is rendred in Latin by the other interpreters now mentioned Sed pro ratione juramenti Dei Their note upon it is thus Moderatio obsequti quod homines debent potestatibus parendum est inquit sed non nisi bouâ side conseientiâ quia non est potestas nisi à Deo ac proinde jus non habet homines ab obsequio avocandi quod Deus à suis jure jurando exigit illi side datâ se exhibituros receperunt That which followeth in the fourth verse viz. Where the word of a King is there is power and who may say unto him What dost thou is by Elisha Galico applyed to Iehovah the King of Kings but is spoken I conceive of an earthly Prince yet implyeth not that he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such an one as may not be called to an accompt for his actions but that we ought when he commandeth what is backed by the law of God to obey him not only out of Religion which in such cases requireth our loyalty but likewise out of prudence because he hath power and beareth not the Sword in vain * See Elisha Galico upon Eccles 8.3 moreover according to some interpreters that it is wisdom in a private man when the Magistrate enjoyneth what is repugnant to Gods will to remove out of his dominions rather then contest with him which they conceive to be imported by the word Telec in the foregoing verse ' That it is dangerous to resist Kings because they have power is the sense of that Scripture according to Abarbinel That we ought to beware of resisting them because they do whatsoever pleaseth them is the mind of that Section according to Eben-Ezra The scope of the words is as I conceive comparing them with the foregoing verses of the same chapter and especially with the end of the 3d. verse that as we tender our own safety we ought not to withstand the Magistrate in his edicts which are consonant to the word of God CHAP. 22. The endeavours of the Israelites towards David and the Kings of his Family afford no solid Argument to prove that Princes may not lastfully be called to accompt nor forcible resisted when they have discovered themselves to be unworthy of their Authority ANother Argument by which some contend that Kings are exempted from humane censures and forcible opposition is drawn from the constant submission of all Israel to David and Solomon and of the Tribes of Judah and Benjamin to the Kings of Iudah though by many of them they were burdened with excessive taxes and by some of them with the yoak of Idolatrous worship * Deut. 1◠59 to which whosoever assayed to seduce them was to be punished with death according to their municipall Laws which were enacted immediately by the Senate-house of heaven What I have already delivered in the former Chapters is sufficient for the removall of this argument 1 These Kings had their call to government immediately from God himself The Lord commanded Samuel to Anoint David 1 Sam. 16.12 The Lord setled the Kingdom upon Davids posterity 2 Sam. 7.16 Psal 89.31 32 33. 1 Kings 11.36 If one of the Kings of the Family of David had many Sonnes the first-born succeeded in the Kingdom with analogy to that precept Dent. 21.17 That the eldest Sonne should enjoy a double portion * Maimon Hal. Malech c. 1. Sect. 1. The eldest Sonne had the advantage of his Brethren as well in the occupying of the Kingdom as in the inheritance of his Fathers goods The first born alone succeeded in the whole authority of the Kingdom that
he there intended not to slay David neither ascended it into his heart neither did Israel agree at all to rebell against their King and to kill him farre be it from them for who shall stretch forth his hand against the Lords anointed and be guiltless The other two Arguments which I used against such as denyed Saul to be privileged above the Kings of other Nations in the 16. and 17 Chapter make equually for David and Solomon and the Kings of Iudah If Saul and the Kings of the Family of David were exempted from deposition and capitall punishment and forcible resistance yet not by a common Crown-privilege but by a speciall grant from God directly expressed or at least implied by the manner of their call to the Kingdom and some other reasons which were peculiar to them This assertion hath already been sufficiently confirmed but is much countenanced also * See Chap. 6. by the demeanour of the Iews towards their Kings which were not of the Family of David in the times of the second Temple Another reason for which David with his successors of his linage seem to have been privileged above the Kings of other Nations is that they were types of christ whose Kingdom should endure It is very considerable likewise that the Sanhedrin and that such among the Israelites as desired a reformation in the Church or State or both might want strength to oppose their Kings and that through the just ordination of divine Providence in that they had preferred earthly Kings before the Monarch of heaven and earth Neither can I doubt but the major part of the people would the rather bear with wicked Kings in that themselves were addicted to the like wickedness I shall now examine what the Hebrew Doctors say in this point touching matter of right and what the Scripture witnesseth touching matter of fact The kings of the Family of David judge and are judged saith the Babylonian Talmud in the tractate of the Mischnah called Sanhedr Chapt. 2. Sect 2. That the Kings of the Family of David were not exempted from that Law Deut. 25.2 which required that a certain number of stripes should be inflicted upon those who deserved to be beaten but were for certain faults liable to it is affirmed by Mabimon Hal. Melach c. 3. Sect. 4. in the Talmud Sanhedr c. 19. and in other Tractates thereof and in severall other writings of the Hebrew Doctors That those who reigned over the Israelites were as obnoxious to censure for some other faults as for those three which were wont to be reckoned up by the Hebrew Doctors viz. the multiplying of Wives Gold and Silver and Horses is so clear to such as will not jurare in verba Magistrorum that it needeth no proof Neither could this Law be executed without the endangering of their lives in case they resisted If the Kings of the Iews for multiplying Wives Gold and Silver and horses were to be punished with stripes then by the rule of proportion for the greatest fault with death and they might be deposed when they were notoriously wicked as the next heir of the Kingdom might by his wickedness be debarred from reigning unless they were exempted for the reasons before mentioned which agrees not to any Princes now a dayes God foretelleth in 1 Sam. 8. how their Kings should demean themselves but doth not there or elsewhere authorise them to use such acts of violence Mischpat in 1 Sam. 8.11 signifieth the Manner or Custome as in 1 Sam. 2.13 not Right and Authority as in c. 10.25 That the Kings of Iudah were not liable to be censured by the Sanhedrin in such manner as the Hebrew Doctors affirm because we read not in the Scripture that they were so censured or because they never were so censured is an argument not so substantive but it will fall of it self without opposition We may conclude much rather that we ought to assent to that piece of history in those writers in that it is not contradicted in the word of God some of them I conjecture had been brought to their trialls and censures by the Sanhedrin nisi impunitatis Cupido retinuisset maginis semper conatibus adversa That I may now speak touching matter of fact we shall find in the practice of the Israelites in the times of David and Rehodoam and Iehoram might we lawfully make the examples of actions and omissions our rules enough to warrant the taking up of Arms against Kings when they neglect the executing of justice or squeese their Subjects by immoderate taxes or impose upon them too heavy servitude That method which Absolom used to steal away he peoples hearts from his Father 2 Sam. 15.2 3 4. being compared with his successe maketh us conjecture that those who joyned themselves to him in the conspiracy thought it lawfull for them to wrest authority out of Davids hands and to settle it upon Absolom by the sword that justice might be more freely dispenced David was old neither deputed any if we may believe Absolom to hear those who had controversies with other men Absolom promiseth that he were he made judge in the Land would do justice and meant as it is probable by himself immediately not by his ministers It appeareth that they intended not only to strip David of his Authority but also to take away his life from 2. 4. verses of the 2 Sam. 17. compared together Abarbinel conceiveth that neither Absolom nor the Elders of Israel nor the rest of the People who sided with him in the conspiracie had any thought to devest David of his Crown and Dignity but to substitute Absolom to him for the executing of the Royall Authority during his life and for his successor afterwards Absolom was induced saith this Doctour to that attempt because David had sworn unto Bathsheba that Solomon should reign after him and sit on his Throne in his stead as also because he suspected that David would cause Solomon to be placed in the Kingdom during his own life and after he was once King who should say unto him what doest thou The people consented to Absolom saith the same Author because he was Davids eldest Son after the death of Amnon and was of the fittest age both to judge them and to fight their Battles to with about * Rasi R. Kim fasten the epocha of the 40. years which are mentioned 2 Sam. 15.7 In the Iraelites asking a King of Samuel and Kimchi addeth that Saul reigned with Samuel 1 year and two years alone and that the other 37 years belonged to the reign of David Ralbag and R. Ieschaiah make mention of this opinion but seem to have thought that the 40 years began with Davids Kingdom Ralbag also conjectureth that it was prophesied of Davids Kingdom that it should stand only 40 years and Absolom concluded these years now expired that the Kingdom should depart from david and that he should bring to passe his Intention of killing him These 40
shall his blood be shed was not then first given but only repeated and inforced by a vocall promulgation God permitted the Isralites to spoil the Aegyptians Exod. 11.2 And some of those of whom they borrowed jewels perhaps had no influence into their pressures If all Gods providential dispensations should have been written I suppose that even the World it self could not contain the Bookes that should be written I cannot conceive that it will seem strange to any who are not sworn to hold their conclusions that Saul should by some un-written dispensation be exempted from some penalties to which otherwise he should have been liable or that David by some countermand which was not committed to writing should be inhibited from killing Saul which otherwise he might have done in his own defence * Upon 1 Sam. 26. Abarbinel saith by way of conjecture that David received from Samuel at Naioth in Ramah what he saith to Abishai 1 Sam. 26.10 God had promised David the Kingdom and so virtually at least that he would deliver him out of the hands of Saul and that his information out of supposition that he sinned not in sparing Saul was ich'd out by some divine light not recorded in Scripture sith otherwise he might have conceived that God had decreed he should by his Sword hew out his way to the Kingdom that Gods promise was to be accomplished by his killing of Saul when he was delivered into his hands It is probable enough that God by some revelation not contained in the Scriptures now extant signified unto David that himself without his help would shorten Sauls dayes and admonished him expresly or by consequence not to lay violent hands upon his Master the Lords anointed I am confident that the Historie of some privileges which were granted to Saul and those who by Gods appointment succeeded him in the Kingdom perished with that book which Samuel wrote concerning the manner of the Kingdom and layed up before the Lord 1 Sam. 10.25 That Book was of divine authority but not joyned to the other Scriptures in that it would be of little use after the Kingdom expired and Gods Providence ordered that those divine Writings which should be transmitted to all posterity should be comprehended in such a volume as would be portable and might be easily purchased When I before spake of unwritten dispensations and precepts I meant such as were not inserted in the Scriptures which should be preserved as a perpetuall rule of our lives And perhaps there was never but for some short time any unwritten tradition but in this sense It is is probable enough that the Book of which Samuel maketh mention perished with the first Temple The sacred Writings as Elias Levita witnesseth were not gathered into one Volume till after the Babylonian captivity Seeing the Scripture now extant exempted not Saul from violent resistance which might endanger or take away his life when the life of any of his Subjects which he unjustly sought after could not be preserved upon other terms we must grant unless we resolve to be irrationall that David sinned in sparing Saul or else that his omissions were warranted by some divine precept or permission which is not now extant No divine command or permission from which there resulted any privilege to Saul alone or to him and those who succeeded him in the Kingdom * Deut. 30.11 12 13 14. could be longer in force then it was transmitted to Posterity by undoubted authority And indeed all of the Reformed Religion acknowledge the written word of God now extant to be a sufficient rule of our religious actions and omissions CHAP. 18. The remainder of the premises in that Syllogism which is built upon Davids carriage towards Saul by those who have endeavoured to support Tyranny is examined THe other proposition to be examined is That Saul was free from humane censures and violent resistance for so much is wont to be assumed as warranted by Davids carriage towards Saul But he must have better eyes then ever had Lyneeus who can see any thing in those Texts of Samuel which I produced in the 10th Chapter whence it may be concluded that Saul if he had committed such sins as according to Gods Law were to be punished with death might not by the great Sanhedrin or if there had been no such Court by divine institution by the major part of the people be deposed and put to death or punished with death without other deposition unless there be the like reason that any one should be exempted from humane censures and from resistance to be made by a private person whose life he invadeth which that I may not deny it to be true none that I have met with have urged I shall now examine whether we may infallibly conclude from Davids testimony that Sauls Subjects were bound by Gods Law rather to suffer themselves to be murthered by him then to slay him in their own defence David expresseth his own judgement touching Gods will which was contrary to the sense of his followers some of which undoubtedly were not strangers to the Spirit of God R. David Kimchi upon those words 1 Sam. 24.10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and bad me kill thee where our English translation supplyeth the sense by some and some of the Hebrew Doctors by every one of my men saith And our Rabbines of blessed memorie interpret it and say the Scripture saith when one cometh to murdor thee consent to kill him as for instance if a Theef be found in a Cave as if he David should have said I had liberty being also able to kill thee bad not my Soul spared thee The same Doctor a little after upon those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. but mine eye spared thee according to our English translation and according to Jonathan Ben Vriel in some copies my Soul spared thee according to David Kimchi my soul or mine eye spared thee saith It was lawfull for me to kill thee because thou didst pursue me and the rule is consent thou to kill him that cometh to kill thee Those Hebrew Doctors which Kimchi mentioneth and which be doth not gainst-say though they mis-construe David yet certifie us that in their opinion the Scripture bad David kill Saul And indeed so much was injoyned in the 6th Commandement whether he was countermanded by God who without doubt can dispence with the Commandementts of the 2d Table according to the materialitie of them the two last being excepted I dispute not in this place Abarbinel though upon 1 Sam. 26 he conjectures that God by Samuel might have warned Davia to spare Saul and foretold that himself would shorten his dayes saw so little warrant from the Scripture for Davids clemencie towards Saul that he saith upon Chapter 24. of the same book without doubt David in his professions to his servants about the sparing of Saul and in slaying the Amalekite who feigned that he had killed Saul and in putting to death