A treatise of civil policy

Object. 3. Israel made David King, that is, Israel designed Davids person to be King, and Israel consented to Gods act of making David King, but they did not make David King.

Ans. I say not that Israel made the Royal dignity of Kings:¹ God, Deut. 17. instituted that himself: but the Royalist must give us an act of God going before an act of the peoples making David King at Hebron, by which David of no King is made formally a King: and then another act of the People, approving only and consenting to that act of God, whereby David is made formally of no King to be a King. This Royalists shall never instruct, for there be only two acts of God here; 1. Gods act of anointing David by the hand of Samuel; and 2. Gods act of making David King at Hebron: and a third they shall never give. But the former is not that by which David was essentially and formally changed from the state ⟨p. 128⟩of a private subject, and no King, into the state of a public Judge and supreme Lord and King, for (as I have proved) after this act of anointing of David King, he was designed only and set apart to be King in the Lords •it time; and after this anointing, he was no more formally a King then Doeg or Nabal were Kings, but a subject who called Saul the Lords anointed and King, and obeyed Saul as another subject doth his King: but it is certain God by no other act made David King at Hebron, then by Israels act of free electing him to be King and leader of the Lords people, as God by no other act sendeth down rain on the earth, but by Gods melting the clouds, and causing rain to fall on the earth: and therefore to say Israel made David King at Hebron, that is, Israel approved only and consented to a prior act of Gods making David King, is all one as to say Saul prophesied, that is, Saul consented to a prior act of the Spirit of God who prophesied: and Peter preached, Act. 2. that is, Peter approved and consented to the Holy Ghosts act of preaching. Which to say, is childish.

Ans. I say not that Israel made the Royall dignitie of Kings:¹ God, Deut. 17. instituted that himselfe: but the Royalist must give us an act of God going before an act of the peoples making David King at Hebron, by which David of no King is made formally a King: and then another act of the People, approving only and consenting to that act of God, whereby David is made formally of no King to be a King. This Royalists shall never instruct, for there be only two acts of God here; 1. Gods act of annointing David by the hand of Samuel; and 2. Gods act of making David King at Hebron: and a third they shall never give. But the former is not that by which David was essentially and formally changed from the state ⟨p. 128⟩of a private subject, and no King, into the state of a publike Judge and supreme Lord and King, for (as I have proved) after this act of annointing of David King, he was designed only and set apart to be King in the Lords •it time; and after this annointing, he was no more formally a King then Doeg or Nabal were Kings, but a subject who called Saul the Lords anointed and King, and obeyed Saul as another subject doth his King: but it is certaine God by no other act made David King at Hebron, then by Israels act of free electing him to be King and leader of the Lords people, as God by no other act sendeth down rain on the earth, but by Gods melting the clouds, and causing raine to fall on the earth: and therefore to say Israel made David King at Hebron, that is, Israel approved only and consented to a prior act of Gods making David King, is all one as to say Saul prophecied, that is, Saul consented to a prior act of the Spirit of God who prophecied: and Peter preached, Act. 2. that is, Peter approved and consented to the Holy Ghosts act of preaching. Which to say, is childish.

1. 1By one and the same act the Lord of Heaven, and the People make the King according to the physical reality of the act.By one and the same act the Lord of Heaven, and the People make the King according to the physicall realitie of the act.

Assert. 4. The King is an head of the Commonwealth only metaphorically, ¹by a borrowed speech, in a politic sense, because he ruleth, commandeth, directeth the whole politic body in all their operations and functions. But he is not univocally and essentially the head of the Commonwealth. 1. The same very life in number that is in the head, is in the members: there be divers distinct souls and lives in the King, and in his Subjects. 2. The head natural is not made an head by the free election and consent of arms, shoulders, legs, toes, fingers, &c. The King is made King only by the free election of his people. 3. The natural head, so long as the person liveth, is ever the head, and cannot cease to be a head while it is seated on the shoulders: The King, if he sell his people, their persons and souls, may leave off to be a King and Head. 4. The head and members live together, and dye together: the King & the people are not so; the King may dye, and the People live. 5. The natural head cannot destroy the members, and preserve it self: but King Nero may waste and destroy his people. D. Ferne, M. Simmons, the P. Prelate, when they draw arguments from the head, do but dream, as the members should not resist the head. Natural members should not, or cannot resist the head, though the hand may pull a tooth out of the head, which is no small violence to the head. But the members of a Politic body may resist the Politic head. 2. This or that ⟨p. 129⟩King is not the adequate and total Politic head of the Commonwealth: and therefore though you cut off a Politic head, there's nothing done against nature. If you cut off all Kings of the Royal line, and all Governors Aristocratical, both King and Parliament, this were against nature; And a Common-wealth which would cut off all Governors, and all Heads, should go against nature, and run to ruin quickly. I conceive a society of reasonable men cannot want Governors. 6. The natural head communicateth life, sense, and motion to the members, and is the seat of external and internal senses: the King is not so.

Assert. 4. The King is an head of the Commonwealth only metaphorically, ¹by a borrowed speech, in a politique sense, because he ruleth, commandeth, directeth the whole politique body in all their operations and functions. But he is not univocally and essentially the head of the Commonwealth. 1. The same very life in number that is in the head, is in the members: there be divers distinct soules and lives in the King, and in his Subjects. 2. The head naturall is not made an head by the free election and consent of armes, shoulders, leggs, toes, fingers, &c. The King is made King only by the free election of his people. 3. The naturall head, so long as the person liveth, is ever the head, and cannot cease to be a head while it is seated on the shoulders: The King, if he sell his people, their persons and soules, may leave off to be a King and Head. 4. The head and members live together, and dye together: the King & the people are not so; the King may dye, and the People live. 5. The naturall head cannot destroy the members, and preserve it selfe: but King Nero may waste and destroy his people. D. Ferne, M. Simmons, the P. Prelate, when they draw arguments from the head, do but dream, as the members should not resist the head. Naturall members should not, or cannot resist the head, though the hand may pull a tooth out of the head, which is no small violence to the head. But the members of a Politique body may resist the Politique head. 2. This or that ⟨p. 129⟩King is not the adequate and totall Politique head of the Commonwealth: and therefore though you cut off a Politique head, there's nothing done against nature. If you cut off all Kings of the Royall line, and all Governors Aristocraticall, both King and Parliament, this were against nature; And a Common-wealth which would cut off all Governors, and all Heads, should goe against nature, and run to ruine quickly. I conceive a societie of reasonable men cannot want Governours. 6. The naturall head communicateth life, sense, and motion to the members, and is the seat of externall and internall senses: the King is not so.

1. 1The King head of the Community only metaphoricallyThe King head of the Communitie only metaphorically

1. 1The King but metaphorically only Lord of the family.The King but metaphorically only Lord of the familie.

Hence that is a fiduciary power, or a power of trust, wherein¹ 1. the thing put in trust is not his own proper either heritage or gift, so as he may dispose of it as he pleaseth, as men dispose of their goods or heritage. But the King may not dispose of men as men, as he pleaseth; nor 2. of Laws as he pleaseth; nor 3. of governing men, killing or keeping alive, punishing and rewarding, as he pleaseth.

Hence that is a fiduciarie power, or a power of trust, wherein¹ 1. the thing put in trust is not his own proper either heritage or gift, so as he may dispose of it as he pleaseth, as men dispose of their goods or heritage. But the King may not dispose of men as men, as he pleaseth; nor 2. of Lawes as he pleaseth; nor 3. of governing men, killing or keeping alive, punishing and rewarding, as he pleaseth.

1. 1The King not heir nor proprietor of the Kingdom.The King not heire nor proprietor of the Kingdome.

2. My life and Religion, and so my Soul, in some cases, are committed to the King as to a public Watchman, even as the flock to the feeder, the City to the Watchmen: And he may betray it to the Enemy. Ergo, he hath the trust of Life and Religion, and hath both tables of the Law in his custodie, ex officio, to see that other men then himself keep the Law: But the Law is not the Kings ⟨p. 130⟩own, but given to him in trust. 3. He who receiveth a Kingdom conditionally, may be dethroned if he sell it, or put it away to any other is a fiduciary Patron, and hath it only in trust. So Hottoman, quest. ill. 1. Ferdinand. Vasquez, illust. quest. l. 1. c. 4. Althusius polit. c. 24. n. 35. so saith the law of every Factor or Deputy, l. 40. l. 63. procur. l. 16. C. dict. 1. Antigonus dixit Regnum esse nobilem servitutem. Tiberius Caesar called the Senate, Dominum suum, his Lord. Suetonius in vita Tiberii, c. 29.

2. My life and Religion, and so my Soule, in some cases, are committed to the King as to a publick Watchman, even as the flock to the feeder, the Citie to the Watchmen: And he may betray it to the Enemy. Ergo, he hath the trust of Life and Religion, and hath both tables of the Law in his custodie, ex officio, to see that other men then himselfe keep the Law: But the Law is not the Kings ⟨p. 130⟩own, but given to him in trust. 3. He who receiveth a Kingdom conditionally, may be dethroned if he sell it, or put it away to any other is a fiduciarie Patron, and hath it only in trust. So Hottoman, quest. ill. 1. Ferdinand. Vasquez, illust. quest. l. 1. c. 4. Althusius polit. c. 24. n. 35. so saith the law of every Factor or Deputy, l. 40. l. 63. procur. l. 16. C. dict. 1. Antigonus dixit Regnum esse nobilem servitutem. Tyberius Caesar called the Senate, Dominum suum, his Lord. Suetonius in vita Tiberii, c. 29.

QUEST. XVIII. What is the law of the King, and his Power? 1 Sam. 8. 11. This will be the manner of the King who shall reign over you, &c.

QUEST. XVIII. What is the law of the King, and his Power? 1 Sam. 8. 11. This will be the manner of the King who shall reigne over you, &c.

This place, 1 Sam. 8, 9. and v. 11. The law or manner of the King ¹is alleged to prove both the absolute power of Kings, and 2. the unlawfulness of resistance: therefore I crave leave here to vindicate the place, and to make it evident to all, that the place speaketh for no such matter. 1. ^aHug. Grotius argueth thus: that by this place, the people oppressed with injuries of a Tyrannous King, have nothing left them but prayers and cries to God; and therefore there is no ground for violent resisting. ^bBarclay will have us to distinguish inter officium Regis, & potestatem, between the Kings office, and the Kings power: And he will have the Lord here speaking, not of the Kings office, what he ought to do before God, but what power a King hath beside and above the power of Judges, to tyrannize over the people, so as the people hath no power to resist it. He will have the Office of the King spoken of Deut. 17. and the Power of the King, 1 Sam. 8▪ and that power which the People was to obey and submit unto, without resisting. But I answer, 1. It is a vain thing to distinguish betwixt the office and the power; for the power is either a power to rule according to⁴ Gods law, as he is commanded, Deut. 17. and this is the very office or official power which the King of Kings hath given to all Kings under him: and this is a power of the Royal office of a King, to govern for the Lord his maker; or this is a power to do ill, and⁵ tyrannize over Gods people: but this is accidental to a King, and the character of a Tyrant, and is not from God: and so the Law of the King in this place must be the Tyranny of the King, which is our very mind. 2. Barclay. Reges sine domination ne concipi quidem possunt.—Judices dominationem in populum minimé habebant. Hence it is clear that Barclay saith, that the Judges of Israel, and the Kings ⟨p. 131⟩are different in essence and nature; so that domination is so essential to a King, that you cannot conceive a King, but he must have domination, whereas the Judges of Israel had no domination over the people. Hence I argue that, whereby a King is essentially distinguished from a Judge, that must be from God; but by domination, which is a power to oppress the subject, a King is essentially distinguished from a Judge of Israel. Ergo, Domination and a power to do Acts of Tyranny, as they are expressed, Verse 11, 12, 13.

THis place, 1 Sam. 8, 9. and v. 11. The law or manner of the King ¹is alleadged to prove both the absolute power of Kings, and 2. the unlawfulnesse of resistance: therefore I crave leave here to vindicate the place, and to make it evident to all, that the place speaketh for no such matter. 1. ^aHug. Grotius argueth thus: that by this place, the people oppressed with injuries of a Tyrannous King, have nothing left them but prayers and cries to God; and therefore there is no ground for violent resisting. ^bBarclay will have us to distinguish inter officium Regis, & potestatem, between the Kings office, and the Kings power: And he will have the Lord here speaking, not of the Kings office, what he ought to doe before God, but what power a King hath beside and above the power of Judges, to tyrannize over the people, so as the people hath no power to resist it. He will have the Office of the King spoken of Deut. 17. and the Power of the King, 1 Sam. 8▪ and that power which the People was to obey and submit unto, without resisting. But I answer, 1. It is a vaine thing to distinguish betwixt the office and the power; for the power is either a power to rule according to⁴ Gods law, as he is commanded, Deut. 17. and this is the very office or officiall power which the King of Kings hath given to all Kings under him: and this is a power of the Royall office of a King, to governe for the Lord his maker; or this is a power to doe ill, and⁵ tyrannize over Gods people: but this is accidentall to a King, and the character of a Tyrant, and is not from God: and so the Law of the King in this place must be the Tyranny of the King, which is our very mind. 2. Barclay. Reges sine dominatione ne concipi quidem possunt.—Iudices dominationem in populum minimé habebant. Hence it is cleare that Barclay saith, that the Iudges of Israel, and the Kings ⟨p. 131⟩are different in essence and nature; so that domination is so essentiall to a King, that you cannot conceive a King, but he must have domination, whereas the Iudges of Israel had no domination over the people. Hence I argue that, whereby a King is essentially distinguished from a Iudge, that must be from God; but by domination, which is a power to oppresse the subject, a King is essentially distinguished from a Iudge of Israel. Ergo, Domination and a power to do Acts of Tyranny, as they are expressed, Verse 11, 12, 13.

1. 1The place, 1 Sam. 8, 9, 11. discussed.
2. aGrotius de ju. bel. & pacis, l. 1. c. 4. n. 3.
3. bBarclaius contra Monarchom. l. 2. p. 64. Potostatem intelligit non •a• quae competit ex praecepto, neque etiam quae ex permissu est, quatenus liberat à peccato, sed quatenus paenis legalibus •ximit operantem.
4. 4(c) Barclaius contra Monarcho. l. 2. p. 56, 57.
5. 5The power & office of the King, badly disterenced by Barclay.

and to oppress a subject, is from God, and so must be a lawful power; but the conclusion is absurd, the assumption is the doctrine of Barclay: The major proposition I prove. 1. Because both the Judge and the King was from God, for God gave Moses a lawful calling to be a Judge, so did he to Eli, to Samuel, and Deut. 17. 15. the King is a lawful Ordinance of God: If then the Judge and the King, be both lawful Ordinances, and if they differ essentially, as Barclay saith; then that specifice form which distinguisheth the one from the other, to wit, Domination and a power to destroy the subject, must be from God, which is blasphemous; for God can give no moral power to do wickedly; for that is licence, and a power to sin against a Law of God, which is absolutely inconsistent with the holiness of God; for so the Lord might deny himself, and dispense with sin (God avert such blasphemies.) Now if the kingly power be from God, That which essentially and specifically constituteth a King, must be from God, as the Office it self is from God: And ^dBarclay saith expressly, That the kingly power is from God, and that same which is the specifice form, that constituteth a King, must be that which essentially separateth the King from the Judge, if they be essentially different, as Barclay dreameth. Hence have we this jus Regis, this Manner or Law of the King, to tyrannize and oppress, to be a power from God, and so a lawful power; by which you shall have this result of Barclay's interpretation, That God made a Tyrant as well as a King. 3. By this difference that Barclay putteth betwixt the King and the Judge, the Judge might be resisted; for he had not this power of domination, that Saul hath, contrary to Rom. 13. 2. Exod. 22. 28. and 20, 12.

and to oppresse a subject, is from God, and so must be a lawfull power; but the conclusion is absurd, the assumption is the doctrine of Barclay: The major proposition I prove. 1. Because both the Iudge and the King was from God, for God gave Moses a lawfull calling to be a Iudge, so did he to Eli, to Samuel, and Deut. 17. 15. the King is a lawfull Ordinance of God: If then the Judge and the King, be both lawfull Ordinances, and if they differ essentially, as Barclay saith; then that specifice forme which distinguisheth the one from the other, to wit, Domination and a power to destroy the subject, must be from God, which is blasphemous; for God can give no morall power to do wickedly; for that is licence, and a power to sin against a Law of God, which is absolutely inconsistent with the holinesse of God; for so the Lord might deny himself, and dispence with sin (God avert such blasphemies.) Now if the kingly power be from God, That which essentially and specifically constituteth a King, must be from God, as the Office it self is from God: And ^dBarclay saith expressely, That the kingly power is from God, and that same which is the specifice form, that constituteth a King, must be that which essentially separateth the King from the Iudge, if they be essentially different, as Barclay dreameth. Hence have we this jus Regis, this Manner or Law of the King, to tyrannize and oppresse, to be a power from God, and so a lawfull power; by which you shall have this result of Barclayes interpretation, That God made a Tyrant as well as a King. 3. By this difference that Barclay putteth betwixt the King and the Judge, the Judge might be resisted; for he had not this power of domination, that Saul hath, contrary to Rom. 13. 2. Exod. 22. 28. and 20, 12.

1. dBarclaius, l. 3▪ c. 2.

But let us try the Text first [Greek or Hebrew] the word cannot enforce us to expone [Greek or Hebrew] a law; our English rendereth, Show them the manner of the King. ^eArri. Montanus turneth it ratio Regis. ⟨p. 132⟩I grant the Seventy render it, ^f[Greek or Hebrew]. The Chaldee Paraphrase saith, Statutum regis. ^gHieronimus translateth it jus regis; so Calvin: but I am sure the Hebrew both in words and sense beareth a consuetude; yea, and the word [Greek or Hebrew] signifieth not always a law, as Josh. 6. 14. They compassed the city [Greek or Hebrew] seven times. 70. [Greek or Hebrew]. 2 King. 17. 26. They know not the manner of the God of the Land, Vers. 33. They served their ••n gods, after the manner of the Heathen. [Greek or Hebrew] It cannot be according to the Law or right of the Heathen, except [Greek or Hebrew], be taken in an evil part. 70. [Greek or Hebrew]. Vers. 34. Until this day they do after these manners, 1 Kings 18. 28. Baals Priests cut themselves with Knives [Greek or Hebrew] after their manner. 70. [Greek or Hebrew], Gen. 40. 13. Thou shalt give the cup to Pharaoh, according as thou wast wont to do. [Greek or Hebrew], Exod. 21. 19. He shall deal with her after the manner of daughters, 1 Sam. 27. 11. And David saved neither man nor woman alive, to bring (tidings) to Gath, saying, So did David, and so will his manner be, [Greek or Hebrew]. It cannot be, they meant that it was Davids law, right, or privilege to spare none alive, 1 Sam. 2. 13. And the Priests custom with the people was, &c. [Greek or Hebrew] This was a wicked custom, not a law, and the 70. turneth it, [Greek or Hebrew]; and therefore [Greek or Hebrew] is not always taken in a good meaning: so ^hP. Martyr, He meaneth here of an usurped law, saith he; Calvin ^lNon jus a deo prescriptum, sed tyranidem. He speaketh not of Gods, law here (saith he) but of tyranny. ^kAnd Rivetus, [Greek or Hebrew] signifieth not ever jus, law. Sed aliquando morem sive modum & rationem agendi, The custom and manner of doing, so Junius ^land Tremellius. ^mDiodatus expoundeth jus; This law, namely (saith he) that which is now grown to a common custom, by the consent of nations, and Gods toleration. ⁿThe interline gloss (to speak of Papists) exactionem & dominationem; The extortion and domination of King Saul is here meant. ^oLyra expoundeth it tyranny. ^pTostatus Abulens.

But let us try the Text first 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 the word cannot inforce us to expone 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 a law; our English rendreth, Shew them the manner of the King. ^eArri. Montanus turneth it ratio Regis. ⟨p. 132⟩I grant the Seventy render it, ^f〈non-Latin alphabet〉. The Chalde Paraphrase saith, Statutum regis. ^gHieronimus translateth it jus regis; so Calvin: but I am sure the Hebrew both in words and sense beareth a consuetude; yea, and the word 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 signifieth not alwayes a law, as Josh. 6. 14. They compassed the citi• 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 seven times. 70. 〈non-Latin alphabet〉. 2 King. 17. 26. They know not the manner of the God of the Land, Vers. 33. They served their ••n gods, after the manner of the Heathen. 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 It cannot be according to the Law or right of the Heathen, except 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, be taken in an evill part. 70. 〈non-Latin alphabet〉. Vers. 34. Ʋntill this day they do after these manners, 1 Kings 18. 28. Baals Priests cut themselves with Knives 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 after their manner. 70. 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, Gen. 40. 13. Thou shalt give the cup to Pharaoh, according as thou wast wont to do. 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, Exod. 21. 19. He shall deal with her after the manner of daughters, 1 Sam. 27. 11. And David saved neither man nor woman alive, to bring (tydings) to Gath, saying, So did David, and so will his manner be, 〈non-Latin alphabet〉. It cannot be, they meaned that it was Davids law, right, or priviledge to spare none alive, 1 Sam. 2. 13. And the Priests custome with the people was, &c. 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 This was a wicked custome, not a law, and the 70. turneth it, 〈non-Latin alphabet〉; and therefore 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 is not alwayes taken in a good meaning: so ^hP. Martyr, He meaneth here of an usurped law, saith he; Calvin ^lNon jus a deo prescriptum, sed tyranidem. He speaketh not of Gods, law here (saith he) but of tyranny. ^kAnd Rivetus, 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 signifieth not ever jus, law. Sed aliquando morem sive modum & rationem agendi, The custome and manner of doing, so Junius ^land Tremellius. ^mDiodatus exponeth jus; This law, namely (saith he) that which is now grown to a common custome, by the consent of nations, and Gods toleration. ⁿThe interline glosse (to speak of Papists) exactionem & dominationem; The extortion and domination of King Saul is here meant. ^oLyra exponeth it tyranny. ^pTostatus Abulens.

1. eArr. Mon. Haec erit ratio Regis.
2. f70. Interpret. Vatabul. judica •is judicium & consuetudinem, i. mores & ib. bis moribus & hac consuetudine utentur erga vos reges.
3. gChald. Para. [Greek or Hebrew]. 70. Interp. 70. Interp.Chald. Para. 〈non-Latin alphabet〉. 70. Interp. 70. Interp.
4. hP. Martyr. comment. 1 Sam. 8. verum jus regium describit in Deut. apud Samuelem autem usurpatum.P. Martyr. coment. 1 Sam. 8. verum jus regium describit in Deut. apud Samuelem autem usurpatum.
5. lCalvin. conc. 1 Sam. 8.
6. kAndr. Rivetus in decal. •. 20. Exod. in •. mundat. p. 195.
7. lJunius annot. in 1 Sam. 2 13.
8. mDiodatus annot. 1 Sam. 8. 3.
9. nGlossa interlinearis.
10. oLyra in locum, hic accipitur jus large sumptum quod reputatur jus propter malum abusum. Nam illa quae dieuntur hic de jure. Reg is, magis contingunt per Tyranidem.
11. pTostatus Abulens. in 1 Reg. 8. q. 17. deq. 21.

He meaneth here of Kings indefinitely, who oppressed the people with taxes and tributes, as Solomon and others. ^qCornelius a lapide: This was an unjust law. ^rCajetanus▪ ⟨p. 133⟩calleth it, tyranny. ^sHugo Cardinal, nameth them, exactiones & servitutes, exactions and slaveries: And ^tSerrarius, he speaketh not here, Quid Reges jure possint, What they may do by right and law; Sed quid audeant, What they will be bold to do, and what they tyrannically discern against all Laws of nature and humanity. And so ^uspeaketh Tho. Aquinas: ^xSo also Mendoza, saith he, speaketh of the law of Tyrants: and ^yamongst the fathers, Clemens Alexandrinus saith on this place, Non humanum pollicetur dominum, sed insolentem daturum minatur tyrannum, He promiseth not a humane Prince, but threateneth to give them an insolent Tyrant; and the like also saith ^zBede. And an excellent ^aLawyer, Pet. Rebuffus saith, Etiam loquitur de Tyranno qui non erat a Deo electus. And that he speaketh of Sauls Tyrannical usurpation, and not of the law prescribed by God, Deut. 17. I prove, 1. He speaketh of such a power, as is answerable to the Acts here spoken of; but the Acts here spoken of, are Acts of mere tyranny, Vers. 11. And this will be the manner of your King, that shall reign over you, he will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his Chariots, and to be his horsemen, and some shall run before his Chariots: Now to make slaves of their sons, was an Act of Tyranny. 2. To take their fields and vineyards, and oliveyards from them, and give them to his servants, was no better then Ahab's taking Naboths vineyard from him, which by Gods law he might not lawfully sell, except in the case of extreme poverty, and then in the year of Jubilee, he might redeem his own inheritance. 3. Verse 15, 16. To put the people of God to bondage, and make them servants, was to deal with them, as the Tyrant Pharaoh did. 4. He speaketh of such a law, the execution whereof should make them cry out to the Lord, because of their King: but the execution of the just Law of the King, Deut. 17. is a blessing, and not a bondage which should make the people cry out of the bitterness of their spirit. 5. It is clear here, that God is by his Prophet, not instructing the King in his duty, but as ^bRabbi Levi Ben.

He meaneth here of Kings indefinitely, who oppressed the people with taxes and tributes, as Solomon and others. ^qCornelius a lapide: This was an unjust law. ^rCajetanus▪ ⟨p. 133⟩calleth it, tyranny. ^sHugo Cardinal, nameth them, exactiones & servitutes, exactions and slaveries: And ^tSerrarius, he speaketh not here, Quid Reges jure possint, What they may do by right and law; Sed quid audeant, What they will be bold to do, and what they tyrannically decern against all Laws of nature and humanitie. And so ^uspeaketh Tho. Aquinas: ^xSo also Mendoza, saith he, speaketh of the law of Tyrants: and ^yamongst the fathers, Clemens Alexandrinus saith on this place, Non humanum pollicetur dominum, sed insolentem daturum minatur tyrannum, He promiseth not a humane Prince, but threatneth to give them an insolent Tyrant; and the like also saith ^zBeda. And an excellent ^aLawyer, Pet. Rebuffus saith, Etiam loquitur de Tyranno qui non erat a Deo electus. And that he speaketh of Sauls Tyrannicall usurpation, and not of the law prescribed by God, Deut. 17. I prove, 1. He speaketh of such a power, as is answerable to the Acts here spoken of; but the Acts here spoken of, are Acts of meere tyranny, Vers. 11. And this will be the manner of your King, that shall reign over you, he will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his Chariots, and to be his horsemen, and some shall run before his Chariots: Now to make slaves of their sons, was an Act of Tyranny. 2. To take their fields and vineyards, and oliveyards from them, and give them to his servants, was no better then Ahabs taking Naboths vineyard from him, which by Gods law he might not lawfully sell, except in the case of extreme povertie, and then in the yeer of Jubilee, he might redeem his own inheritance. 3. Verse 15, 16. To put the people of God to bondage, and make them servants, was to deal with them, as the Tyrant Pharaoh did. 4. He speaketh of such a law, the execution whereof should make them cry out to the Lord, because of their King: but the execution of the just Law of the King, Deut. 17. is a blessing, and not a bondage which should make the people cry out of the bitternesse of their spirit. 5. It is clear here, that God is by his Prophet, not instructing the King in his duty, but as ^bRabbi Levi Ben.

1. qCornelius a Lapid. in locum.
2. rCajetan. in locum.
3. sHugo Cardinal. in loc.
4. tSerrarius in locum.
5. uThom. Aquin. l. 3. de Regni Princip. c. 11.
6. xMendoza, jus Tyrannorum.
7. yClemens Alexand. pag. 26.
8. zBede, l. 2. expo. in Samuel.Beda, l. 2. expo. in Samuel.
9. aPetrus Rebuffus tract. de incongrua. prert. p. 110. Osiander, he setteth not down the Office of the King, what he ought to be, but what manner of King they should have. Pelican. that ruled by will, not by law. Willet. Such as decline to Tyranny. Borhaius, Tyrants, not Kings.
10. bRabb. Levi Ben. Gersom. in 1 Sam. 8. Pezelius in exp. leg. Mosai. l. 4. c. 8. Tossan. in not. Bibl. Bosseus de Rep. Christ. potest. supra regem, c. 2. n. 103. Bodin. de Rep. l. 1. c. 19. Breutius, homil. 27. in 1 Sam. 8. Mos regis non de jure, sed de vulga•â consuetudine.

Gersom saith, Terrifying them from their purpose of seeking a King, and foretelling the evil of punishment that they should suffer under a tyrannous King; But he speaketh not one word of these necessary and comfortable Acts of favour, that a good King by his good Government was to do for his people, Deut. 17. ⟨p. 134⟩15, 16. But he speaketh of contrary facts here; and that he is dissuading them from suiting a King, is clear from the Text. 1. Because he saith, Give them their will; but yet protest against their unlawful course. 2. He biddeth the Prophet lay before them the tyranny, and oppression of their King; which tyranny Saul exercised in his time, as the story showeth. 3. Because how uneffectuall Samuel's exhortation was, is set down, Verse 19. Nevertheless, they would not obey the voice of Samuel, but said, Nay, but we will have a King over us; if Samuel had not been dehorting them from a King, how could they be said in this, to refuse to hear the voice of Samuel? 6. The ground of Barclay and Royalists, here is weak,¹ For they say, that the people sought a King like the Nations, and the Kings of the Nations were all absolute, and so Tyrants; And God granted their unlawful desire, and gave them a Tyrant to reign over them, such as the Nations had. The plain contrary is true, they sought not a Tyrant, but one of the special reasons why they sought a King, was to be freed of Tyranny; for 1 Sam. 8. 3. Because Samuel's sons turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted judgement; therefore all the Elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel, to Ramah, and their they sought a King. 7. One could not more clearly speak with the mouth of a false Prophet, then the Author of active and passive obedience doth, while he² will have Samuel here to describe a King, and to say; ye have formerly committed one error in shaking off the yoke of God, and seeking a King; so now beware you fall not in the next error, in casting of the yoke of a King, which God at your own desire hath laid on you; for God hath only power, both to make and unmake Kings; therefore prepare your selves patiently to suffer and bear. Answ. For if he were exhorting to patient suffering of the yoke of a King, he should presume it were Gods revealed and regulating will, that they should have a King;

Gersom saith, Terrifying them from their purpose of seeking a King, and foretelling the evil of punishment that they should suffer under a tyrannous King; But he speaketh not one word of these necessary and comfortable Acts of favour, that a good King by his good Government was to do for his people, Deut. 17. ⟨p. 134⟩15, 16. But he speaketh of contrary facts here; and that he is disswading them from suiting a King, is clear from the Text. 1. Because he saith, Give them their will; but yet protest against their unlawfull course. 2. He biddeth the Prophet lay before them the tyranny, and oppression of their King; which tyranny Saul exercised in his time, as the story sheweth. 3. Because how uneffectuall Samuels exhortation was, is set down, Verse 19. Neverthelesse, they would not obey the voice of Samuel, but said, Nay, but we will have a King over us; if Samuel had not been dehorting them from a King, how could they be said in this, to refuse to heare the voice of Samuel? 6. The ground of Barclay and Royalists, here is weak,¹ For they say, that the people sought a King like the Nations, and the Kings of the Nations were all absolute, and so Tyrants; And God granted their unlawfull desire, and gave them a Tyrant to reign over them, such as the Nations had. The plain contrary is true, they sought not a Tyrant, but one of the speciall reasons why they sought a King, was to be freed of Tyranny; for 1 Sam. 8. 3. Because Samuels sons turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted judgement; therefore all the Elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel, to Ramah, and their they sought a King. 7. One could not more clearly speak with the mouth of a false Prophet, then the Author of active and passive obedience doth, while he² will have Samuel here to describe a King, and to say; yee have formerly committed one errour in shaking off the yoke of God, and seeking a King; so now beware you fall not in the next errour, in casting of the yoke of a King, which God at your own desire hath laid on you; for God hath onely power, both to make and unmake Kings; therefore prepare your selves patientlie to suffer and bear. Answ. For if he were exhorting to patient suffering of the yoke of a King, he should presume it were Gods revealed and regulating will, that they should have a King;

1. 1Doct. Ferne, p. 2. sect. pag. 55.
2. 2Active and passive, Obed. pag. 24.

But the scope of Samuel's Sermon, is to dissuade them from a King, and they by the contrary (Verse 19. say they) Nay, but we will have a King; and there not one word in the Text, that may intimate patience under the yoke of a King. 2. There is here the description of a Tyrant, not of a King. 3. Here is a threatening and a prediction, not any thing that smelleth of an exhortation.

But the scope of Samuels Sermon, is to disswade them from a King, and they by the contrary (Verse 19. say they) Nay, but we will have a King; and there not one word in the Text, that may intimate patience under the yoke of a King. 2. There is here the description of a Tyrant, not of a King. 3. Here is a threatning and a prediction, not any thing that smelleth of an exhortation.

Object. But it is evident, that God teaching the people how to behave¹ themselves under the unjust oppressions of their King, he sets ⟨p. 135⟩down no remedy but tears, crying to God, prayer, and patience; therefore resistance is not lawful.

Object. But it is evident, that God teaching the people how to behave¹ themselves under the unjust oppressions of their King, he sets ⟨p. 135⟩down no remedy but tears, crying to God, prayer, and patience; therefore resistance is not lawfull.

1. 1D. Ferne. 3. p. Sect. 2. pag. 10.

Answ. Though this be not the place due to the doctrine of Resistance,¹ yet to vindicate the place; I say, there is not one word of any lawful remedy in the Text, only it is said, [Greek or Hebrew], Et clamatis in illa die a faciebus regis vestri: It is not necessarily to be exponed of praying to God, Job 35. 9. by reason of the multitude of the oppression, They make the oppressed to cry, [Greek or Hebrew] clamare faciunt, Isai. 15. 4. And Heshbon shall cry. [Greek or Hebrew] The armed soldiers of Moab shall cry out. There is no other word here, then doth express the idolatrous prayers of Moab, Isai. 17. 12. and Habak. 2. 11. The stone shall cry out of the wall [Greek or Hebrew], Deut. 22. 24. You shall stone the maid [Greek or Hebrew], because she cried not [Greek or Hebrew]; but she is not to be stoned, because she prayed not to God, Ps. 18. 4. Davids enemies cried, and there was none to save, even to the Lord, and he heard not. 2. Though it were the Prophets meaning, they cried to the Lord, yet it is not the crying of a people humbled, and in faith speaking to God in their troubles, Zach. 7. 13. They cried, and I will not hear, therefore Royalists must make crying to God out of the bitterness of affliction, without humiliation and faith, and such prayers of sinners as God heareth not, Psal. 18. 41. Joh. 9. 31. Isaiah 17. 12. to be the only remedy of a people oppressed by a Tyrannous King; now it is certain, God prescribeth no unlawful means to an oppressed people, under their affliction, therefore it is clear here, that God speaketh only of evils of punishment, such as is to cry in trouble, and not be heard of God, and that he prescribeth here no duty at all, nor any remedy. 3. All Protestant Divines say; Ex particulari non valet argumentum negativé, from one particular place, a negative argument is not good. This remedy is not written in this particular place, therefore it is not written at all in other places of Scripture; so 1 Tim. 1. 19. The end of excommunication is, that the party excommunicated may learn not to blaspheme, ergo the end is not also that the Church be not infected, it followeth not, the contrary is clear, 1 Cor. 5. v. 6. D. Ferne and other Royalists teach us, that we may supplicate and make prayers to a Tyrannous King. 2. We may fly from a tyrannous King:

Answ. Though this be not the place due to the doctrine of Resistance,¹ yet to vindicate the place; I say, there is not one word of any lawfull remedy in the Text, onely it is said, 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, Et clamatis in illa die a faciebus regis vestri: It is not necessarily to be exponed of praying to God, Iob 35. 9. by reason of the multitude of the oppression, They make the oppressed to cry, 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 clamare faciunt, Isai. 15. 4. And Heshbon shall cry. 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 The armed souldiers of Moab shall cry out. There is no other word here, then doth expresse the idolatrous prayers of Moab, Isai. 17. 12. and Habbak. 2. 11. The stone shall cry out of the wall 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, Deut. 22. 24. You shall stone the maide 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, because she cryed not 〈non-Latin alphabet〉; but she is not to be stoned, because she prayed not to God, Ps. 18. 4. Davids enemies cryed, and there was none to save, even to the Lord, and he heard not. 2. Though it were the Prophets meaning, they cryed to the Lord, yet it is not the crying of a people humbled, and in faith speaking to God in their troubles, Zach. 7. 13. They cryed, and I will not heare, therefore Royalists must make crying to God out of the bitternesse of affliction, without humiliation and faith, and such prayets of sinners as God heareth not, Psal. 18. 41. Ioh. 9. 31. Esay 17. 12. to be the only remedy of a people oppressed by a Tyrannous King; now it is certaine, God prescribeth no unlawfull meanes to an oppressed people, under their affliction, therefore it is cleare here, that God speaketh only of evills of punishment, such as is to cry in trouble, and not be heard of God, and that he prescribeth here no duty at all, nor any remedy. 3. All Protestant Divines say; Ex particulari non valet argumentum negativé, from one particular place, a negative argument is not good. This remedy is not written in this particular place, therefore it is not written at all in other places of Scripture; so 1 Tim. 1. 19. The end of excommunication is, that the party excommunicated may learne not to blaspheme, ergo the end is not also that the Church be not infected, it followeth not, the contrary is cleare, 1 Cor. 5. v. 6. D. Ferne and other Royalists teach us, that we may supplicate and make prayers to a Tyranous King. 2. We may fly from a tyranous King:

1. 1Learned Authors teach that Gods Law, Deut. 17. and the [Greek or Hebrew] a manner of the King, 1 Sam. 8, 9. are opposite one to another, so Gerson in trinprin•. sac. adu. lat. par. 4. Alp. 66. lit. l. cons. 8. Buchan. de jure regni. apud Scot. Chasson. cat. glo. mundi cons. 24. n. 162. cons. 35. Tholoss. l. 9. c. 1. Rossen. De polus Rep. c. 2. n. 10. Magdeburg. in trac. de. off. ma. Crying to God not the only remedy against a tyrant.Learned Authors teach that Gods Law, Deut. 17. and the 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 a manner of the King, 1 Sam. 8, 9. are opposite one to another, so Gerson in trinprin•. sac. adu. lat. par. 4. Alp. 66. lit. l. cons. 8. Buchan. de jure regni. apud Scot. Chasson. cat. glo. mundi cons. 24. n. 162. cons. 35. Tholoss. l. 9. c. 1. Rossen. De polus Rep. c. 2. n. 10. Magdeburg. in trac. de. off. ma. Crying to God not the only remedy against a tyrant.

but neither supplicating the King, nor flying from his fury shall be lawful means left by this Argument, because these means are no more in this text (where Royalists say the spirit ⟨p. 136⟩of God speaketh of purpose of the means to be used against Tyranny) then violent resisting, is this text.

but neither supplicating the King, nor flying from his sury shall be lawfull meanes left by this Argument, because these meanes are no more in this text (where Royalists say the spirit ⟨p. 136⟩of God speaketh of purpose of the meanes to be used against Tyranny) then violent resisting, is this text.