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
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
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
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