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
stature That civil government which God instituted in the beginning of the World standeth by divine right throughout all ages But God instituted absolute Monarchie in the beginning of the World Ergo. The Assumption seemeth to be warranted by that Scripture before produced God say my Antagonists gave to the eldest Sonne after his Fathers death Monarchicall authority over his brethren Into this sense they construe that sentence And unto thee shall be his desire and thou shalt rule over him Ans The proposition of the syllogism before exhibited is very impotent neither can I divine with what crutch my Antagonists can support it There is not the like reason for Monarchy in after-ages as in the infancy of the world unless it be as casie for one man to govern a Nation as to govern a Family There was truth though no sincerity in that speech of Tiberius se in partem curarum ab Augusto vocatum experiendo didicisse quà m arduum quà m subjectum fortunae cuncta regendi onus The Kings which God appointed the Israelites after they had cast off him from ruling over them were not absolute Monarchs I shall now explain whether those words before quoted in Gen. 4.7 warrant what was assumed to wit a divine institution of Monarchy The words in the Originall are capable of this construction The desire of it that is of sin is unto thee but thou shalt rule over it Compare Rom. 6.12 The affixes I confess differ in gender from the word for sin but so also doth robets the word for lieth Ainsworth well observeth other such differences in other texts of Scripture Amongst the Hebrew Scholiasts Raesi Bechai Nachmanides and Abarbinel as also the Author of Thargum Jerus are very full for that sense which I have propounded According to these Interpreters teschukatho which in our English translation is his desire meaneth the desire of sin to wit jetser haraugh an evil frame or temper of soul and * jeiser haraugh is not by the Hebrew Doctors confined to the minds though by many learned Authors it be rendered mala cogitatio Abarbinel upon that place in Gen. before quoted having before interpreted tejchukah to be jetsâ—â— haraugh saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because the body inciteth a man to sin bodie we call it concupiscence which fitly interpreteth the word teschukah which say they instigated and tempted Cain to sin and which he should vanquish would he repent Becanus is clearly of the same sense Dixit Dominus ad Cain Nonnè sibene egeris recipies sin autem malè statim in foribus peccatum tuum aderit sub te erit appetitus ejus peccati scilicet tu dominaberis illius appetitus scilicet quo ad peccatum propendes alliceris Thus the Author now quoted Theol. Scholast part 2. tract 1. cap. 2. p. 50. But let us suppose the affixes of the sentence quoted to be referred to Abel who is not mentioned in the 5.6 nor in the preceding part of the 7. verse yet cannot the word for desire in this verse import a subjection of Abel to his Brother Cain as an absolute Monarch or a King In Gen. 3.16 it is said of Eve thy desire shall be to thy husband and he shall rule over her * Polit. 1. Aristotle telleth us that a man ruleth his wife and his children but both as those who are free or not servile But not with the same manner of Government 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but his wife politically and his children after the manner of a King The word for desire saith Ainsworth implieth a desirous affection as appeareth by Cant. 7.10 The Apostle seemeth to allude to it in 1 Thes 2.8 Whereas Onkelos for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and ye shall be as Gods saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and ye shall be as Princes which is agreeable enough to the Originall the Serpent by Gods not meaning the S. Trinitie as Eve construed him but the faln Angels who whilst they stood had experimental knowledge of good and since their fall of evill and which are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * see also Rom. 8.38 Colos 2.15 and Eph. 2 2. where the Prince of the Air or of darkness for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will also without wresting admit of that construction may fitly enough signifiâ— the chief of the faln Angels or all the faln Angels according to our English translation principalities powers and rulers of the darkness of this world Eph. 6.12 Abarbinel * Vpon Gen. 3.5 conceiving him to speak of earthly Princes saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Onkelos here is not to be allowed because then there were no Princes in the world which words I conceive are not to be determined precisely to the time in which the Serpent tempted Eve but to be extended to the whole time of Adams life if not to all the time before the Flood But I shall seem to have spent needless labour in discovering the weaknesse of the Minor seeing there is not the like reason for Monarchy now as in the beginning of the World and especially which I desire all men to take notice of in that the authority which they attribute to Cain over Abel affordeth us as firm an Argument for an absolute Monarchy of the eldest Sonne over his brethren throughout all ages as for Monarchie to be continued in the World The authority of the eldest Sonne over his brethren which God instituted in the beginning of the World standeth by divine right throughout all ages But God in the beginning of the World appointed the eldest Sonne to be an absolute Monarch over his Brethren Ergo Every eldest Sonne in every age and so now a dayes is an absolute Monarch after his Fathers death over his Brethren Let none therefore henceforth who force that Scripture for the assertion of Monarchy dare to affirm That any one by divine right ought to have larger authority over others then every eldest Sonne after his Fathers death hath over his brethren CHAP. 3. Monarchy is so far from standing by divine right as that it falleth short of some other forms of Government MOnarchy is worse then some other governments 1 Because one cannot discern so much as many of equall parts Object It may be objected that this reason implieth that all in a Commonwealth who have attained to years of discretion ought to be admitted to Vote about every State-business Ans I deny the consequence in that the managing of all publick affairs by the Votes of the whole people especially in populous Commonwealths is a thing altogether impossible both because it would almost wholly withdraw men from their private concernments and likewise retard the dispatching of those businesses in which they have a joynt-interest 2 * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Arist Po. lit 3. Because there are but few in comparison who are able to judge in State affairs Those who are themselves unfit for that taske may be able to
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
to be adjudged to death by the sentence of the Magistrate They leave to the King and likewise to the Sanhedrin a liberty to punish such with death or to exempt them Certainly he who committeth murder by a proxie is more guilty than if he had shed blood immediately in that he hath propagated the sin Some of them determine that if an Israelite slew a stranger though he was proselytus domicilis he was not to be condemned to death for it because he was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his neighbour These considered not that strangers also bear the Image of God and that God was the Lord of all mankind The * Sanheds c. 9. Misna of the Talmud telleth us that when a homicide is mingled with others they are all free that is as I conceive when many men strike a man so that it cannot be known that what was done by any one of them killed him This exception hath no more warrant from the word of God than have the two former Who so sheddeth mans blood whether by himself immediately or by the ministery of some other whether a strangers or a neighbours whether alone or with the help of others is a son of death No Mortall is excused by his greatness Plato is very orthodox in this point * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And speaking of an homicide 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He urgeth afterwards the in flicting of this penalty especially upon such as shall kill any of their kindred An homicide as he determineth l. 9 de leg must be punished with death He passeth the same sentence upon a Sranger killing a Stranger and a Citizen killing a Stranger and a Stranger killing a Citizen as upon one Citizen killing another and upon a man killing another with his own hand or otherwise He excepteth not any so offending from capitall punishment That it is not left arbitrary to the Magistrate to punish or pardon Murther is cleared by the 33. Section of Num. 35. where it is written that The Land cannot be clear sed from the blood that is shed therin but by the blood of him that shed it Vpon which place saith * More Nevochim Part. 3. cap. 41. Maimonides as he is construed by Buxtorf agreeably to the sence of the Hebrew Proptereà licet interfectus per horas vel dies aliquot adhuc vixerit locutus fuerit sanumque intellectum retinuerit testatusque fuerit se ei condonare remittere non auditur sed necessariò anima pro animâ danda est aequaliter pro parvo magno servo * F lio ingenuorum seu filio nobilium libero sapiente stulto Take notice from this gloss that the murderer ought necessarily to be put to death though the person murdered live some days after he receive the wound which is contrary to the sense of some other Hebrew Doctors God in divers places of Scripture requireth that capitall punishment be inflicted as for murder so for some other crimes neither are Kings excepted from those Laws in any part of the written word which is now extant Princes in some other cases are liable to capitall punishment to be inflicted by private men When a Prince attempteth to murder another the person invaded may lawfully kill him in his own defence and is bound by the 6. Commandement to doe it rather than suffer himself to be murdered Davids great guard intimateth that he would rather have killed Saul than have suffered himself to be killed by him * Lib. 9 de leg Plato maketh it lawfull for a man to kill a Thief who by night entereth his house to steal * That is when he pursaeth a young woman betrothed to defile her saith R. Schem Tof The wifes nâ—kedness is the husbands nakedness but Maimonides his words are more comprehensive than that Interpreter maketh them That place in Plato's Lawes before quoted provideth for the chastity of both Sexes whether mariedor single Maimonides his words are capable of the same constiuction adam sometimes being of as large a Signification as bomo That testimony which have added out of the Misua prevaileth with me to think that Maimonid under adam comprehended both Sexes or one that attempteth at any time after what manner soever to spoil him of his goods or one who invadeth his chastitie or hath defiled some other related to him Maimonides saith It is unlawfull to kill a man who hath purposed to commit any wickedness before he hath done it unlesse in these 2 cases 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he pursueth a man to kill him and when he pursueth a mans nakedness to uncover it The Misna in Sanbedr c. 8. paragr 7. to the same purpose These are they whom they hinder from sinne by the loss of their life him that pursueth another with an intention to kill him and him that pursueth a maid and him that pusueth a young woman that is betrothed Should one pursue another to kill him all Israel according to the sense of our Hebrew Doctors was bound to rescue the person who was pursued if it could not be effected otherwise by the death of the pursuer Should any one deliver an Israelite or his goods into the power of the Heathen it was lawfull say * See Maimonid and Moses Mikotsi quoted by Mr. Selden De Jur. Natur. Gent. juxta Discipl Hebr. li. 4. c. 3. the same Writers for any one to kill the Traytor It is as great a fault to betray the goods and lives of Christians into the hands of Papists CHAP. 12. The injunction of subjection to the higher powers is but a brittle Argument for the impunity of Tyrants CHrysostome taketh notice that the Apostle Rom. 13.1 doth not say there is no ruler but of God but that he spake of the office saying there is no power but of God all the powers that be are ordained of God According to this Doctor the scope of the Apostle is not to inhibit men from resisting Tyrants but to bridle-in unruly spirits which are altogether impatient of any authority I may adde that this Scripture likewise opposeth those who could be contented to submit unto such Magistrates as will countenance their licentious courses but cannot endure such as goe about to restrain sin and to encourage religion If by powers be meant such as are invested in authority the trope used will chastise all such as resist Magistrates who are duely called to the exercise of authority neither abuse the authority wherewith they are betrusted and so discover themselves to be enemies to authority it self but the peoples hands are not tyed when authority is usurped or the ends thereof neglected What we read Rom. 13.1 2 3 4 5. according to Mr. Calvin and Buchanan bindeth us onely to submit our selves to the Edicts of Princes when they enjoyn us what is agreeable to the Law of God And indeed the reasons which inforce our subjection to the higher powers and the motives which incite us to our
dutie expressed in 3. and 4. verses of the Chapter before quoted byase us into that sense For rulers are not a terrour to good works but to the evill We must be subject to rulers because they are not a terror to good works and because they are a terror to the evill We have afterward a double motive to the subjection which is enjoyned us Doe that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the power But if thou doe that which is evill be afraid for the Magistrate beareth not the sword in vain for he is the minister of God a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evill That injunction Rom. 13.1 cannot pretend to bind us to the observance of the Magistrate when he is a terror to good works but not to evill when those who doe evill have praise of him and those who doe good are discountenanced and punished by him The reasons of a Law whether divine or humane are the measure of the latitude of it Civil Courts of Equity are appointed to exempt us from the literall severity of humane Lawes where it is not accompanied with the reasons thereof The Holie Ghost as we see in the Scripture exhibited requireth subjection to be given onely to those who are legitimately called to the exercise of government and to such onely so long as they rule well Tyrannie is not ordained of God nor supported by the other reasons for which subjection is enjoyned or by the motives thereunto before mentioned Beza understandeth by the higher powers both the supreme and inferiour Magistrates Buchanan conceiveth that we are no more tied to be subject to Kings then to inferiour Officers by vertue of that Scripture The Author of the Appostolicall Constitutions l. 7. c. 17. in the Latine interpreter's judgment expresseth the same sense His words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thou shalt fear the King knowing that the choice is of the Lord thou shalt honour his Magistrates as the Ministers of God for they are the revengers of all iniquity The Latine interpreter in the Margent directeth us to Rom. 13. and the word used by the Author of the Apostolicall Constitutions is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Rom. 13.3 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the 1. Pet. 2.14 I doubt not but in Rom. 13.3 the supreme and subordinate rulers are alike to be understood The reasons which back the authority of Rulers make alike for both Peter in his first Epistle c. 2.13 14. presseth upon us alike submission to the supreme Magistrate and to subordinate Rulers To this Scripture I think the Author of the Apostolicall Constitutions alludeth in the place before quoted Scarce any will deny but a man in some cases may resist and likewise kill an inferiour Magistrate without offence to God Who will doubt should a Constable rob upon the High-way but a traveller upon whom he maketh an onset may lawfully if it be necessary to the defence of his own life or of his goods make opposition to the utmost of his ability If any distinguish between such an one's person and his Office I answer that the same distinction may be applied to the King himself as well as to his ministers There is a vast distance between the opposing of authority and the resisting of the person invested therein who abuseth it or otherwise misdemeaneth himself Quest. Some will be ready here to aske whether the Christians were not bound in Conscience to be subject unto the Romans Emperours though they were Heathens and Tyrants ruling according to their own wills and not called to the exercise of Authority by Gods immediate choice nor yet by the Choice of the Major part of the people Ans I conceive but with submission to better judgments that those Christians who lived under the Heathenish Emperours but wanted strength to defend themselves were by that precept Rom. 13.1 Let every Soul be subject unto the higher powers obliged to sit still and to endeavour nothing against those who had the sword in their hands My reason is this but the cause dependeth not upon it The Holy Ghost there injoyneth not only a visible obedience but also such a temperament of spirit as is patient of lawfull Government and cheerfully ready to submit unto it of which those fall short who forcibly resist unlawfull Government when in all probability the opposition which they make will only exasperate and not dispell the evill which they groan under Those who in such circumstances use resistance discover themselves to be of unruly spirits which frame of mind is forbidden in that they proceed wholly according to passion and not according to the dictate of a sober and well-ordered judgment But the injunction according to the immediate sense of it requireth only subjection unto the powers which are ordained of God and I know not with what spectacles any one can discern tyranny to be of that number Children saith * Enchicidâ—e 37. Epictetus must yield to a Father in all things and when he revileth or striketh them must patiently bear it because by Nature they stand related to a Father as a Father not to a Father as good Subjects are not so rigorously tyed to submit to their Prince in that their engagement is not naturall but adventitious CHAP. 13. The 15 Section of Psalm 105. vindicated from mis-interpretation THat negative precept Touch not mine Anointed and doe my Prophets no harm if rightly understood will not contradict those Theses which I before propounded That Scripture conceiveth that we cannot without sin offer injurie to the Lords Anointed This is the mind of it It pointeth at Abraham Isaac and Jacob as we may gather from the context compared with the History of their lives God reproved Pharaoh for Abram's sake Gen. 12.17 And Abimelech for Abraham's sake Gen. 20.3 God restrained Abimelech from hurting Isaac Gen. 26. God reproved Laban for Jacobs sake Gen. 31.24 R. Alsheach upon that comma of the Psalmist before quoted telleth us that Laban was King of Mesopotamia and that he was Cushan-Rishathaim He with some other who affirm the same had no reason to conceive that Laban should be the Cushan-Rishathaim who is mentioned Iudg. 3. nor more ground to think that Laban had that name But those who were wealthy especially if they had great families had the name of Princes The children of Heth called Abraham a mighty Prince Gen. 23.6 It 's as easie a matter to make good that Abraham Isaac and Iacob were the Lords Anointed as that God reproved Kings for their sakes I cannot close with those Hebrew Doctors who tell us that the whole world set Abraham a King over them but shall shew that in severall respects he with Isaac and Iacob might fitly be called the Lords Anointed 1. There is an Anointing with the Spirit sealing to our hearts the promises of God 2 Cor. 1.21 in which they had a large portion 2. They were Anointed with the Spirit of Illumination and of Holinesse and so
became Prophets and Kings and Priests unto their God Every true beleever hath his conscience so illuminated that he is a Prophet to himself and is so sanctified that he hath victorie and dominion over his lusts and offereth up himself a living sacrifice to God See 1 Iohn 4.6 Heb. 8.10 11. 1. Pet. 2.9 Rev. 5.10 Rom. 12.1 3. All those three Worthies before-named were Prophets as some of our Hebrew Doctors have observed Abrahâ—m is expresly called a Prophet Gen. 20.7 Isaac prophesied in the benedictions which he gave to his Sons Gen. 27. And Iacob prophesied Gen. 49. This Exposition is very well acquainted with that Text of the Psalmist The end of the Verse commenteth upon the beginning and telleth us in what sense they were called the Lords Anointed See Ger. 20.7 Aben-Ezra upon Psal 105.15 construeth the word Anointed into a double sense viz. Princes and Prophets but the same Scholiast upon Gen. 23.6 saith that Abraham was called a Prince of God because he was a Prophet As he was a Prophet he was lifted up into a degree of dignity above those who were not Prophets as the word which is translated a Prince importeth And so I conceive with Onkelos that he is there signified to be a Prince before the Lord rather then a great Prince although he was truly great because he was so highly honoured of God In the same notion the Priests are called Princes of God 1 Chron. 24.5 And Rachels prayers for Children the wrestlings of God Gen. 30.8 But by the mountains of God Psal 36.7 are meant great mountains and by the Cedars of God Psal 80.11 tall Cedars The flame of God Cantic 8 6. is a most vehement flame In this Scripture the Hebrew for God is Iah in those two places in the Psalms El in the other three places quoted Elohim Gods Strength or greatnes is an essential attribute of God but the Prophets and Priests were dignified by and in the presence of the three sacred persons and Rachel powred out her prayers before the blessed Trinity It is competently clear from what I have said upon Psal 105.15 that by Gods Anointed there are meant such as were not Kings but over their own Families and that those who were commanded not to hurt them neither to doe them harm were not in subjection to them and the matter of the Commandement is that they should offer them no wrrong The strength of this precept doth not so tie the hands of Princes but that they have liberty upon some occasions to make War against other Princes who are without the circumference of their dominion and endeavour to subdue them nor yet so confine Subjects that they may not lawfully defend their right against their Princes I acknowledge that men are by the impetuousnes of a native distemper till such time as it be restrained and bridled by grace carried on to envie such as God hath placed in authority over them Moses and Aaron because they were highly in favour with God were envied and hated by a great party of the Israelites Farre be it from me to countenance this Anarchicall humor We sin if we withdraw from any whilst they have lawfull authority over us and rule well our due subjection yet I see not that they are so baracadoed by the Law of God against all opposition that it should be unlawfull upon any occasion whatsoever to resist or to question them CHAP. 14. An Argument which is wont to be drawn from 1. Sam. 24.6 and c. 26.9 10 11. is propounded THe main pillar by which Tyranny is supported remaineth still unshaken viz. Davids Authority or testimony for the unlawfullness of killing Saul when God had delivered him up into his hands which is expressed 1 Sam. 24.6 c. 26.9 10 11. And he said unto his Men in the former of these Scriptures the Lord forbid that I should do this thing unto my Master the Lords anointed to stretch forth my hand against him seeing he is the Anointed of the Lord. And David said to Abishai in the other place quoted destroy him not for who can stretch forth his hand against the Lords Anointed and be guiltless David said further more as the Lord liveth the Lord shall smite him or his day shall come to dye or he shall descend into Battail and perish The Lord forbid that I should stretch forth mine hand against the Lords Anointed Many now a days in their familiar discourses allege for Tyrants immunity from censures especially from deposition and capitall punishment the example of Saul and his successors in the Kingdom This their argument should scarce have any shew of a foundation in Saul should have in regard of him no firmer basis then a Castle in the air were they not beholden to the text that I have now quoted Whereas God requireth that those who have committed murther * Gen. 9.6 Compare also the 6 Commandement with the scope of it be put to death * Rom. 13. by the Magistrate and hath made it * Compare the 6. Commandement with the scope of it a mans duty to kill another if he can rather than to suffer himself to be murthered David seemeth to except all violence which is offered by tyrants even that which amounteth to the endangering of other mens lives from such rough and austere replies and to leave unto their subjects or rather their vassals no weapons but prayers and tears flight and lurking holes wherewith to defend themselves This Argument though nothing should be added to its stature would prove the Goliah of those who love to dispute themselves into slavery or else to share with Tyrants in their authority but is somewhat heightned and strengthned by some circumstances in Which David stood viz. his frequent dangers in regard of Saul by whom he was restlesly pursued and the dignity of his own person David lest Abishai should have conceived that although it was unlawfull for a private man to stretch forth his hand against the Lords anointed yet one anointed might stretch forth his hand against another after he had said * 1 Sam. 26.9 Who can stretch forth his hand against the Lords Anointed and be gniltless addeth The Lord forbid that I should stretch forth my hand against the Lords Anointed saith Abarbinel upon the place He intimateth that it was obvious to think that although it was a fault in some one to stretch forth his hand against the Lords Anointed yet not in David who was himself also the anointed of the Lord. That David should cause the Amalekite to be put to death who witnessed against himself that he had slain Saul contributeth no more to the preserving of the lives of Kings then of other men in that the party who accused himself could not pretend to any authority by which he might adjudge Saul to death nor yet plead that he slew him in his own defence CHAP. 15. One of the premises from which some conclude that all Kings are by divine right
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
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