Natures Dowrie OR THE PEOPLES NATIVE LIBERTY ASSERTED Art thou called being a servant care not for it but if thou mayest be made free use it rather 1 Cor. 7.21 Ovis non est propter pastorem sed pastor ovi inservit Warneri Proverb Pers 16. Quin et mortalem summum fortuna repentè Reddidit è summo ut regno famul optumus essit Fortune the low soon lifts to th' high'st degree That made great Kings they should good servants be Ennius VIII Annali By L. S. LONDON Printed for W. R. at the signe of the Vnicorn in Pauls Church-yard 1652. To the Reader Gentle Reader THis Treatise I assure thee is no more dipp'd in passion then the Sunne is drowned in the clouds which are so far below him The Author of it desired whilst he asserted other mens liberty himself to be ruled by reason bearing in mind that sentence Reges alios si ratio te rexerit Thou shalt govern others if reason guide thee It was occasioned by a question which a worthy Member both of the Parliament and Committee of State above three years since propounded to me Within short time after I provided this answer and at my first opportunity presented it unto him He judged that it deserved to be made of publick use and offered it to the Press yet Lucina was not so propitious as to bring it to light the Printer not daring to undertake it unles the Author had been present to superintend the work I publish this discourse after I have so long suppressed it because the usefulnesse thereof is still in date in that it explaneth many Scriptures which are still by many wrested into false senses and because there is now a more convenient opportunity then formerly Farewell L. S. Natures Dowrie OR The Peoples Native Liberty asserted c. CHAP. 1. Certain Theses concerning the freedom and authority of any Nation WHereas some have concluded that an absolute Monarchie is the best of Governments because it imitateth that by which God ruleth the Universe I conceive their reason is feeble and impotent and that they considered not that men may abuse their authority and power which liberty is impossible to God All authority unless God determine otherwise by chusing out one or more to rule over the rest which now a dayes we have no reason to expect is fundamentally and radically in the people A conquered people unless they be obliged to the Conquerour by consenting formerly to be subject to him in their own persons or in their Fore-fathers or after the conquest voluntarily took upon them his yoke without conditions or else upon stipulation are warranted by the light of naturall reason to endeavour the recovery of their liberty and likewise after a composition when the Conquerour in his own person or in his posterity neglecteth the terms upon which they submitted to him That Kings should be ex se uati as Tiberius said of Curtius Rufus That nature or conquest should be a sufficient title to dominion and that an illegall force may not by force be lawfully removed are opinions which the clear light of reason never smiled upon Should any one with * Tacitus Annal lib. 3. Tiberius be sine miseratione sine irâ obstinatus claususque ne quo adfectu perumperetur by a reserv'd and merciless obstinacy shut up and baracado'd against the lawes counsell and prayers I see not but a people may warrantably goe about to break such an one seeing he will not be bended by reason CHAP. 2. Monarchy is not by Divine right I Shall in the first place shew that Monarchicall Government is not of absolute necessity ' The Peravians have thus much notice of the generall deluge that the Country was overwhelmed with waters all men perished except seven The chief of these seven was Mangocaga whose posterity governed themselves for some time in Aristocr at icall state See Heylyn in his Description of Peruana I cannot assent to Diodorus Siculus telling us Biblioth Hist l. 2. that there were Kings in Asia long before Ninus especially if as some Authors conceive his Ninus be the same with Nimrod I mean not here a physicall necessity for to such a Monarchy cannot pretend nor a necessity of coaction seeing that excludeth choice but a morall necessity hinged upon the Law of God Most clear it is that neither the Law of Nature which is written upon the tables of mens minds by the finger of God nor yet any positive Law which God superadded to the Law of Nature determineth any Nation to that form of Government Turn over the Scripture which hath omitted none of Gods commandements that are now in force and shew me a precept for it None will be so impudent as to affirm that there is any expresse commandement for Monarchy in the written word of God neither is there so much as a shadow of any Virtuall or Consequentiall injunction thereof unless it be clear by natural reason that Monarchy is the best of Governments for all Nations at all times howsoever their circumstances varie It is clear I acknowledge both by the light of Naturall reason and by the Scripture that men are bound in Conscience to prefer that form of Government which they know to be the best for them but that Monarchy should by the light of naturall reason be discovered to be the best of Governments and that for all Nations and at all times I cannot consent because the world after the flood till Nimrods days * Nimrod was a mighty hunter before the Lord Gen. 10.9 For the understanding of that phrase compare with this Scripture Ier. 16.16 Lament 4.18 Mich. 7.2 Pro. 1.17 That of Arist. in the first of his Politicks is a good comment likewise upon Nimrod's hunting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. had no Monarch neither oeccumenicall nor provinciall and because Monarchy then came into the World not by choice * Diodorus Siculus informeth us that the Kings of Aegypt were in all their actions confined by their Lawes and particularly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Biblioth Histor l. 1. The same Historiographer speaking of the K. of the Aethiopians saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Biblioth Hist l. 3. but by intrusion usurpation by force conquest because the Israelites had a mixt Government and the most flourishing States amongst the Papists and all reformed Churches together with such Heathenish Commonwealths as have most abounded in perspicacitie and wisdom have ever preferred other forms of Government before it Aristotle likewise determineth Polit. 3. that a King ought to have power to protect the Lawes but not such power as may render him more potent than the Kingdom Obj. The main argument which opposeth what I have delivered in this Chapter is bottomed upon part of the 7th comma of the 4. Chapter of Gen. which in our translation saith Anà unto thee shall be his desire and thou shalt rule over him The Argument propounded in full dimensions hath this
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
are not restrained from injustice by any self interest but on the contrary tempted to rapine and perfidiousness are altogether unfit to manage the publick affairs of a Nation If they have power in their hands they are fit to squeese their neighbours or if they want power themselves through envy and hope of sharing in the prey ready to betray them to foreiners if an opportunity be offered Good nature excepteth some and Religion others in Christian Common-wealths from this rude and barbarous disposition but the Character which I have given fitteth the most of those who are indigent in every nation It necessarily followeth that they are unfit to be trusted with a Legislative power or offices of judicature and government or to Vote in the choice of those to whom such authority and power shall be committed It remaineth that only such as have an ingenuous subsistence in the Country to be governed have a title to vote in the dispencing of authority whether for the preserving of the whole body from forein invasions and homebred tumults or for the restraining of vice and encouraging of virtue Neither ought any so qualified to be debaried from that privilege unless they have discovered themselves to be malignantly affected towards the publick good Whereas those who choose State-officers and such also as by their votes immediately order the publick affairs of a City or Country are apt to be divided among themselves in that they differ in their judgments and in their ends the light of reason telleth us that the major part of the suffrages is equivalently the whole number It cannot be expected that all the members of a Societie should agree about the means which are most effectuall to the promoting of their publick welfare Neither can the lesser number of those who have equall authority be of more value than or of equall with the greater That strife may be avoided the number of those who suffrage must be odde or else some one of them have a casting voice granted him in case the numbers of those who are divided be equall and the major part of the suffrages must bear sway as if the rest concurred with them That Maxim Quod ad omnes spectat ab omnibus debet approbari What concerneth all ought to be approved by all is satisfied by a consent of the greater part which is equivalently the whole number If a lesser part of those who vote forcibly resist a greater unlesse that which is concluded by the prevailing number of votes be repugnant to the Law of God they infringe the Law of Nature and likewise the positive Law of God and so have no reason to expect that God should goe along with them in their enterprises More doubtfull it is whether those Inhabitants of a Citie which are upon due grounds debarred from bearing Office and from the choice of Officers be bound in conscience to submit to those who are invested in lawfull authority and to the wholesom Laws which are enacted by those who according to the Law of nature have a Legislative power either fundamentally or else derivatively residing in them Whereas Gods Law leaveth men indifferent to severall courses which may be taken for the preservation of their lives and liberties and livelihoods when they have once consented that one certain course not repugnant to the word of God and convenient for the obtaining of any of these ends shall be used and have compromitted to any person or persons the executing of their Law God requireth that they submit to the person or persons to whom they have betrusted authority till their grant expire so he or they transgresse not the bounds of the Commission but execute the agreement But the Question is whether those who are hindered from voting in the molding and forming of the government of the City which they inhabite be obliged likewise to subjection The truth of the negative part being supposed those who did not agree to a Law enacted neither directly nor yet virtually as included in the major part of those who voted should not be determined by God's Commandements to submit to that Law as it is the Law of man though they be obliged to observe the matter of it when it is contained likewise in the Law of God Men by virtue of the 8. precept are warranted to defend their estates according to their abilities were there no humane Law superadded and should have no further advantage according to the former supposition by superadding an humane law against such as were not permitted to vote in the enacting thereof but only that they agree to preserve their livelihoods answerably to the Law of God against all who shall invade them They might without any former Law or agreement warrantably vindicate one another from injuries as Abraham did Lot but moreover are by an agreement mutually ingaged But I conceive that such of the people as have title to vote in the choice of a Representative or of other Governors or by themselves immediately to establish Lawes have another advantage against those who by the meanness of their condition or by their misdemeanors are debarred from those privileges Forasmuch as the meanest Inhabitants of a City reap some benefit from the well-tempered government thereof most equall it is that they should submit unto those Laws which conduce to the preservation of publick safety And forasmuch as God hath exempted none who offend from humane censures Some are bound to be accomptable for their demeanors to the Magistrate who by divine providence or by their own delinquency were rendered unfit to have an influence into the choice of him God requireth that evill doers be punished but hath left unto men the specifying of the punishment whether it be capitall or more gentle Such then as are justly hindered from voting about the kinds of penalties that are used in the City which they inhabit when they offend must suffer in such a way as is agreed upon by others The will of God is that those who have done evill submit to lawfull punishment rather than resist lawfull authority CHAP. 9. All Civill Authority unless God determin other wise by choosing out one or more to Rule over the rest which now a days we have no reason to expect is fundamentally and radically in the People WHereas some tell us of an absolute Monarchie before the Deluge I conceive with the best Historians that none can prove that there was any such Government in the World before Nimrods incroachment and usurpation We have no shadow thereof intimated in the written word of God nor in any humane writing of approved credit Had any one before Nimrod used Monarchicall authority it is probable the Scripture should have given us notice thereof as it doth of Nimrods Tyranny But clear enough it is that although there should have been Kings otherwise than as every man is a Prince over his own family to wit such as reign now a dayes before the deluge yea so soon as
the World through the encrease of mankind was capable of such they could have no sufficient title to reign unless through Gods immediate choice or by the choice of the people Conquest unless the Conquerour was provoked by some injuries * It is not the first blow that maketh the War Invasive for that no wise Prince will stay for but the first Provocation or at least the first Preparation See the Ambassage of Charles the 8th the French K. to Henry the seventh K. of England in the Lord Verulam's Henry the seventh or reall dangers such as were a just occasion of a warre can give no better a title to authority than thest to another mans goods Neither ought the Conquerour though he was provoked to the War to use violence longer than it shall be necessary for the securing of himself from violence †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Succession in a Kingdom which hath it's rise from a Conquest unless the consent of the People supervene is no better a title than mere Conquest sith a continuance in doing wrong cannot make that which is Wrong to become right When God maketh choice of Governors for a people he suspendeth the Peoples authority but taketh it not quite away they have liberty to dispence authority so soon as God ceaseth to interpose When a Monarchy or Aristocracie is founded upon the Peoples choice the authority is actually in one or some few but radically in the People If any incroach and usurp authority by force the right still remaineth in the people greater thefts no more than lesser alienating the right or title to the thing which is invaded Solon though he permitted not such whose revenue amounted not to so much as 200 measures of aride and liquide fruicts who were called Thetes to bear any Office in the Common-wealth yet gave them authority to be present in the Assemblies of the City and to vote in the choosing of Officers and in matters of judicature And he suffered those to appeal to the people who thought they were wronged by the Magistrates See Plutarch in the life of Solon But this perhaps was to prophane authoritie by immoderate popularity Whereas Demetrius the sonne of Antigonus surnamed Gonates after he had reigned a short time left a young sonne called Philip the Macedonians preferred one Antigonus Cosin to the deceased King to be King Philips Protector and the chief manager of his warlike affairs but after having experience of him * Plutarch in his Paulus Aemilius made him their King Timoleon when he had delivered Syracusa from former tyrannie made it a free City as Plutarch witnesseth in his life * Plutarch in the life of Marcus Cato The Roman Censors one of which was a Patrician the other a Plebeian had power to degrade a Knight or to eject any one out of the Senate who lived intemperately and disorderly * Plutarch in the life of C. Marius The Senators of Rome when Saturninus was Tribune of the People sware that they would observe what the People should vote Agamemnon in Euripides saith of himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Sentence I find thus translated in our English Interpreter of Plutarch in the life of Nicias In outward shew of stately pomp all others I exceed And yet the Peoples underling I am in very deed CHAP. 10. Kings agreeably to the Law of God may in some Cases be forcibly resisted by their Subjects and likewise deposed A Competency of the light of naturall reason will discover unlesse it be overcast with passion that it is as lawfull for a conquered People by violence to recover their Libertie as it is for any man to extort his goods out of the hand of a Felon who is running away with them as it was for David to rescue his goods and wives out of the hands of the Amalekites who had plundered Ziglag Scarce any will dare to affirm that possession is sufficient to give a just title Neither is it less clear that a conquered people which submitted upon termes to the Conqueror whether in their own persons or in their forefathers are no longer engaged to subjection by their submission than the Conqueror and his Successors observe the Conditions upon which subjection was promised The Peoples promise in their stipulation cannot pretend to bind them any longer than the terms upon which they promised are observed Were it otherwise there should remain no difference between an absolute and a conditionall submission I acknowledge if the infringement of the conditions on the Conquerours part be in such particulars onely as are not momentous to the impairing of the publick welfare and there be no danger of further encroachment much more if there be a likelihood of redress and reparation * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist Polit. lib. 2. Especially when violent proceedings threaten greater disadvantages to the present age or to succeeding generations it is better for the People to continue in subjection than to endeavour a change In some cases it may be their prudence to pardon their Prince not observing his stipulation but their promise is out of date and cannot bind them to further subjection A People whose Ancestors have for themselves and their posterity either gratis or upon inconvenient articles promised subjection and obeisance to any one and his heirs may lawfully as Mr. Cnox and Bachanan well perceived renounce the ingagement and cast off the yoak Gods proceedings with the Israelites in the case of Sauls breach of Covenant with the Gibeonites have seemed unto some to countenance the negative God punished Saul in his posterity for violating that Covenant which the Israelites against his commandement before their passage over Iordan had made with the Gibeonites Here it may be answered that although a People be bound to observe a bad Covenant made by their fore-Fathers which is not much inconvenient yet in some cases it may be necessary that the Covenant be broken Learned Mr. Selden intimateth that such agreements made by a People as are repugnant to the Law of God whether naturall or positive do not bind De Iure Naturali Gentium juxta Disciplinam Ebraeorum l. 1. c. 8. Should any by their own or by their fore-Fathers Oath stand ingaged to the observance of such Laws as establish Heathenism Mahumedanism Iudaism or Popery such a Law cannot without sin be kept and may without sin be violated Civill inconveniencies which accrue through the observance of a Covenant may rise so high as to warrant the reassuming of liberty If any Prince go about to destroy Religion he affordeth unto his subjects a just occasion of resisting him If Religion be established by an humane Law the Prince may be questioned for incroachment in case he oppose it as well as for violating other terms of his agreement with his people It may be Objected That the infringment of such a Law though it violate the Princes agreement and consent to that Law yet
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
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