exempted from legall censures and forcible resistance is convicted of falsitie IT is taken for granted in the argument which is founded upon those places in Samuel which were produced in the last Chapter that there is as good reason that all other Kings as that Saul should be exempted from humane censures and forcible resistance which supposition I shall acknowledge to be Truths legitimate off-spring and Aeagle-like to sore above the mists and clouds of ignorance and falshood if it can with an undazled and undaunted eye behold the Sun of reason But you shall clearly perceive it to blink when it is brought to the tryall There are many reasons sure for which Saul being compared with other Kings had a large advantage in the cases now mentioned 1 Because he reigned by Gods immediate appointment God made choice of Saul to be Captain over his people Israel 1 Sam. 9.16 17. Those Kings who were chosen and autorized immediately by God had a vast advantage being compared with such as should be chosen by men When God suspended the people from the act of Electing he suspended them also from the act of Deposing otherwise they might presently have pulled down him whom God had set up I acknowledge a difference between the prohibiting people from deposing a Prince enthroned immediately by God himself quam diu benè se gesserit so long as he demeaned himself as it became a prince and an absolute debarring of them from going about to alter their condition howsoever such a Prince should carry himself A King by his mandate giving one title to some place in a society that have Lawes by which they are enabled unless a supetiour power interpose to eject any member of their corporation for certain misdemeanours or because they retain not those qualifications which are required in a member of such a body though permitted otherwise both by the Laws of God and men is not wont to reserve the party whom he hath preferred to his immediate jurisdiction but leaveth him to stand or fall by the statutes of the society into which he is admitted But neither may I omit a difference between the supreme Magistrate and earthly Monarches in this particular So boundless are the knowledg and power of God that he sees all the Delinquencies of the great ones and can punish them immediately by himself without any interruption of his affairs That God whose breath like a stream of Brimstone kindleth Tophet standeth not in need of any instruments for the executing of his wrath upon Kings and sometimes himself immediately inflicteth vengeance sometimes is pleased to assign unto men that office out of the sovereignty of his will What we read Deut. 17.20 leaveth us doubtfull whether God upon any occasions autorised the Israclites to reject their Kings or their posterity He might out of a displeasure conceived against the King permit his subjects or strangers to offer such violence unto him as he did not approve of Himself likewise by a penall sentence might translate the Kingdom from one Family to another One of the reasons which moved David to swear As the Lord liveth the Lord shall smite him or his day shall come to dye or he shall descend into baettell and perish was unless Abarbinel misconstrue him because he knew that the Lord had Anonited him King Most certain it is that Saul could not without injustice be deposed by humane authority much less suffer capitall punishments by any humane censures so long as he demeaned himself so as it became him in which respect he had a large advantage being compared with other Kings who were mens creatures viz. not elected immediately by God himself much more above such whose sword is all the title by which they can pretend to the Scepter Those are as free as can be imagined to recover their liberty who are enslaved by conquest an unlawfull violence may lawfully be removed A people may set a King over them for some short time so that his autority must needs soon expire or with no firmer commission then durante beneplacito so that his Kingdom shall not be more stedfast than one of those houses whose foundations are said in the waves the inhabitants whereof may expect to be tossed to and fro without intermission unless they can congeale the billowes into a sleep The Authority which is perpetuated by the tenor of the Patent may in some cases be recalled both with more wisdom and Religion then it was granted as I before shewed CHAP. 16. That Presumption viz. That there is as good reason that all other Kings as well as Saul should be exempted from humane censures and violent resistance is by another reason refuted The Sin of the Israelites in asking a King is explained negatively and affirmatively The 14. and 15. Verses of Deuteron 17. are enlightened GOD though he granted unto the Israelites a King after the manner of other Nations and according to the Genius of their request might deservedly abridge them from that libertie of unthroning Tyrants which he granted unto other Nations in that they tendered to him such a Petition as was both in the substance and the circumstances thereof exceedingly unlawfull and sinfull God gave them a King in his anger Hos 13.11 God threatneth by Samuel 1 Sam. 8.18 that he would not hear the Israelites crying out to him for relief under the burden of their royall pressures This Scripture informeth us that God determined they should suffer in the things wherein they sinned Here is measure for measure That I may explain the sin of the Isra lites in its full dimensions I shall premise That a King is not a necessary ingredient of the Government of a People which Thesis I have already proved Moreover that the Israelites were not obliged by any divine precept to set over them a King And lastly that although a King had been necessary for other Nations in regard of Civill occasions yet could not he be necessary for the Israelites The Israelites were not necessitated by any divine precept to set over them a King of their own chusing nor yet to ask a King of God Three things saith R. Jehuda were injoyned the Israelites * Gâ—m Sanhedr c. 2. which they should doe after their entrance into the Holy Land to set a King over them to cut off the seed of Amaleck and to build a Temple Schickard also De Jure Regio Hebraeorum c. 1. Theor. 1. affirmeth that God commanded the Israelites to set a King over them Deut. 17.15 * Dei mandatum eâ—at eligere Regem The title of that Theoreme is yet more hardie affirming that God had commanded the Israelites to chuse them a King But if we accurately examine that comma in Deuteronomie quoted by Schickard we shall find that God did not at all permit much less command the Israelites to chuse a King but reserved that choice to himself Neither is there any expression in Deut. 17. which might countenance their asking of a
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
bloodshed which goeth unpunished We shall be more at a loss in the executing of penalties for the breach of some other of the precepts which are said to be given to Noah as idolatry and blasphemy and the eating of flesh with the life thereof unless tribunals be erected In these offences the wrong is not done especially to this or that man nor this or that Family but immediately to God the Lord of all and by way of reflexion in regard of Gods wrath and by bad examples to the whole people The main argument which seemeth to inferre that Tribunalls or the exercize of civil judicature is not inforced by the Law of Nature is that it was not so from the beginning In the Sacred Historie of the World before the deluge we have no instance of any humane censures And * Metam l. 1. Ovid telleth us that those who lived in the first or golden age erant sine judice tuti His meaning I conceive is that they were free from humane censures That which this Author in his description of the golden age delivereth to this purpose maketh me much suspect that for some considerable time after the Creation there were no Courts of justice established nor any humane censures whether by the eldest of a Family or by the multitude or any autorized to that purpose In his work now praysed we may often discern a truth recorded in the Scripture through the cloud of his Poetrie In the beginning of his first book we have the History of the Creation and in that man last of all created His Gygantomachia was occasioned by the building of the Tower of Babel He mentioneth also the deluge That piece of his Poetrie took its rise from Noahs Flood ☞ For it was not confined to this or that patch of ground but overwhelmed all mankind save Deucalion and Pyrrha-Lucian also telleth us that Deucalion with his Wife and Children were saved in a great Ark which he had and that two of every kind of living creatures came to him and were received into the Ark and preserved in it And Plutarch maketh mention of a Dove sent by Deucalion out of the Ark and bringing newes of the abatement of the waters In the beginning of his 8 book we have Samson's hair given to Nisus In the same book we have the destruction of Sodom and the change of the soyl thereabout and Let with his Wife under the names of Philemon and Baucis fetched out thence by Angels under the Poeticall vizard of Jupiter and Mercury We have Lots incest alluded to in Cynaras and Myrrha l. 10. In the beginning of the 12. book Iphigenia when she was fastened to the Altar and about to be sacrificed is changed for a Doe which shadoweth out unto us Isaac excused for a Ram. In the same book Cygnus slaying 7000. men and feigned to be impenetrable is a resemblance of Samson In that I find so much of divine storie in this Poet I conjecture that his Poem about the four ages hath some tincture from holy writ The Image which Nebuchadnezzar saw in his dream is one ingredient of it and mans integrity before his fall another * See Salmas de U uâ—is c. 11. p. 303. and the condition of mankind for some time after our fall a third It was usuall with the Heathen as we may observe both from their Poets and * See Justine l. 36. Tacitus Histor lib. 5. Prosaicall writers and from those two excellent treatises written by a late Author which discover unto us the Banian Religion and the Religion of the Persees to mangle those truths which are contained in the Word of God and likewise to confound and blend them together which is very familiar likewise with the pen-men of the Alcoran But it is easie for the most part to perceive the Sun through their clouds I shall easily grant that men for some time after their fall in our first Parents lived after their own manner being restrained by no Courts of Justice but we cannot inferre from thence that such Courts are not necessary nor yet that they are not by divine right God might out of his secret counsell for some time connive at such an omission after what manner he permitted the Israelites writing a Bill of Divorce to put away their Wives * Those who lived in the former times of the World ought to have set out some time for God in which servants might have been exempted from such works as â—re not of necessity nor charity nor piety or as he connived at the setting of no certain time apart for his worship till himself made choice of a day when the Israelites were brought into the Wilderness or as for a long time he connived at Polygamie CHAP. 6. Other jurisdiction is necessary now a dayes besides that wherein the Law of Nature hath invested Masters of Families THe next question to be discussed is whether the exercise of jurisdiction be confined by a birth-privilege to certain persons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Aristotle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * Polit. l. 1. Every house is governed by the Eldest as also the colonies which are propagated from it in regard of their cognation or kindred But clear it is that now a dayes authority cannot be dispenced according to this principle We have no records by which we can be informed who by way of inheritance and birthright as all are reckoned from Noah should have a preeminence above the rest Neither can one man though Firmicus telleth us that a certain positure of the Starres designeth a man to an universall Monarchie be so Atlantick as to bear upon his shoulders the government of the Universe Nor yet can it be known who in this or that Country in regard of a descent from Noah should have advantage of the rest in order to jurisdiction and government Neither are the Eldest alwayes the wisest * Diodorus Siculus Bâ—blict Hist lib. 3. speaking of the Inhabitants of an Iland in the Southern Ocean saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The eldest in every company beareth rule over it as a King and all the rest obey Though there be a vast difference between bearing ruse over a certain company of men whether their associating of themselves together take its rise meetly from the harmonie of their minds or from their occupation and the goverment of a Nation yet no wise man will conceive that their practise is perpetually to be imitated Those who manage the publick affairs of any people ought to be such as have animi vires strict as pondere mentes That sentence of Aristotle before praised is to be understood of a Family living apart from the rest of mankind as * See Tulliein Oâ—aâ— pro P. Sextio Juvenal Salyr 15. did some in the first Ages of the World and for some generations after the Deluge and perhaps upon some extraordinary occasions in later times But that any Master of a Family at any
those who murdered Ishbosheth had an eye upon his own condition And * Upon 1 Sam. 24.6 Ralbag also determineth that it was lawfull for him to have slain Saul because he pursued him but spared him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of an Hyperbole of clemency and because the killing of Saul would have been of bad consequence to himself who as he knew should succeed in the Kingdom That David's interest should insensibly biase him into a tender care of Kings was not a thing impossible Mens affections often make their judgements partiall But whether Davids conscience dictating that he ought to spare Saul was erroneous and if it was erroneous by what means it was seduced are questions which I shall not adventure to determine But give me leave to conceive till I shall be otherwise informed that David either sinned in the sparing of Saul or else his clemency was warranted by some divine precept or permission which is not now extant in the Scriptures transmitted to us and which in all probability was peculiarly given to David his followers seem to have thought it lawfull for him to kill Saul I doubt not but David would rather have slain Saul than have suffered himself to be killed by him When he spared him in the Cave he might perhaps conceive that such his clemencie though he had no encouragement from Sauls former carriage to expect such an event would conciliate unto him Sauls affection but when he again pursued him with 3000. men 1 Sam. 26. could not have so much as a shadow of a reason to harbour any hopes of a reconciliation yet spared him being delivered the second time into his hands David himself after this repetition of his indulgence and clemency towards Saul said in his heart I shall now perish one day by the hand of Saul Who can doubt but David ought rather to have killed Saul pursuing him and being delivered into his hands when in regard of his power and implacableness he had no other so probable way left him to secure himself as by escaping to the Land of the Philistines whom he had provoked by slaying many of their Nation had not God by some precept which is not conteined in the Scriptures now extant injoyned him to preserve himself by flight onely and not by laying violent hands upon Saul when it was in his power to avoid him or at least promised to preserve him though he offered no violence to Saul David though he had a promise of divine protection might say in his heart All men are Liars CHAP. 19. Another Objection propounded and answered ANother arrow out of the same quiver is wont to be shot against the Abetters of the just liberty of the people Davids regrets of Conscience for his cutting off Sauls skirt 1 Sam. 24.5 seem at the first sight much to countenance the impunity of Tyrants Some will conclude from hence that royaltie by an essentiall privilege is exempted from all opposition sith scarce any is lesse then the cutting off the skirt of a garment This reason hath in it the more shew because it is not very probable that God by any private admonition which is neither expresly nor virtually contained in the Scripture should inhibite David from an act of no greater importance I answer Besides that there are many reasons which evince that Saul much rather then such as now a dayes exercise Kingly Government should have been excepted from all manner of opposition and he might perhaps have received from Samuel some generall instruction out of which he concluded that he ought not to have offered to Saul so much violence as the cutting off his skirt and his own interest might perhaps somewhat bend his judgement towards the dealing gently with Kings and his conscience would strike him as well for a seeming as for a reall iniquitie The Hebrew Doctors tell us that David in that action offended because he exposed Saul in his old age to danger of taking cold and without any due end spoyled him of part of his garment and was suitably punished in his old age according to what we read 1 Kings 1.1 And they covered him with cloaths but he gat no heat CHAP. 20. That Argument which in favour of Tyrants is forced out of Psalm 51.6 is refuted THat of David in the Psalter is wont to be alleged as if it sided with those who would place Kings above the reach of Civill Authority Against thee only have I sinned Psalm 51.6 This testimony if rightly understood will not seem to exempt the Kings of the Nations nor yet David and his successors from humane censure R. David Kimchi's Gloss upon the place is that the thing was done insecret none but God being privy to it Davids Messengers to Bathsheba knew not his intention in sending for her neither did Ioab comprehend the reasons for which he willed the death of Vriah men judged that he caused Vriah to be slain because he had transgressed his commandement Kimchi Sen. the Father of this Doctor who now spake thus commenteth upon the place Had Vriah been living my sin had been against thee and him But seeing he is dead against thee only have I sinned I confess to thee the sin because all my sin is left unto thee neither do I seek pardon of any but thee for the matter of Bathsheba and Vriah whose death I caused Another Author saith upon the place that David accounted his sins against men how great or grievous soever they were as nothing in comparison of his sin against God and therefore said Against thee thee only have I sinned According to this gloss to sin only against God is the same that to sin chiefly against him That wrong which David had done to men vanished and disappeared being compared with that wrong which he had done to God That which cut David to the heart was that he had sinned against God Vbi dolor ibi digitus David mainly bewaileth the offending of so good gracious and indulgent a Father When the same part saith Hippocrates is affected at the same time with severall paines the greater swalloweth up obscureth the other Again most certain it is that sin according to its formality is only against God being a breach of his Law Adultery and Murther had not been sins had not God forbidden them Any sinner as well as Kings may say unto God Against thee only have I sinned Sinne though according to its formality it be only against the Law of God yet may be punished by Earthly Magistrates as it is hurtfull to a Common wealth CHAP. 21. The impotency of that Argument which in favour of Tyrants is drawn from Eccles 8.2 THe second comma of Eccles 8. at the first sight may seem much to countenance Tyranny especiall in our English translation where the words are these I counsell thee to keep the Kings commandement and that in regard of the Oath of God The Later part of the section is translated by Coch summè
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