Lex Rex, Question 18
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.
The place, 1 Sam. 8, 9, 11. discussed.THis place, 1 Sam. 8, 9. and v. 11. The law or manner of the King is 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. (a)Grotius de ju. bel▪ & pacis, l. 1. c. 4. n. 3.Hug. 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. (b)Barclaius contra Monar chom. l. 2. p. 64. Potestatem intelligit non cam quae competit e… praecepto, neque etiam quae ex permissu est, quatenus liberat à …cecato, sed quatenus paenis legalibus eximit operantem.Barclay 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;(c)Barclaius contra Monarcho. l. 2. p. 56, 57. for the power is either a power to rule according to 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, and tyrannize over Gods people:The power & office of the King, badly di…erenced by Barclay. 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 minimè habebant. Hence it is cleare that Barclay saith, that the Iudges of Israel, and the Kings 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. 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 (d)Barclaius, l. 3. c. 2.Barclay 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.
But let us try the Text first foreign the word cannot inforce us to expone foreign a law; our English rendreth, Shew them the manner of the King. (e)Arr. Mon. Haec erit ratio Regis.Arri. Montanus turneth it ratio Regis. I grant the Seventy render it, (f)70. Interpret. Vatabul. judica … judicium & consuetudinem, …. mores & ib. his moribus & hac consuetudine utentur erga vos reges.foreign. The Chalde Paraphrase saith, Statutum regis. gChald▪ Para. foreign. 70. Interp. 70. Interp.Hieronimus translateth it jus regis; so Calvin: but I am sure the Hebrew both in words and sense beareth a consuetude; yea, and the word foreign signifieth not alwayes a law, as Josh. 6.14. They compassed the citie foreign seven times. 70. foreign. 2 King. 17.26. They know not the manner of the God of the Land, Vers. 33. They served their own gods, after the manner of the Heathen. foreign It cannot be according to the Law or right of the Heathen, except foreign, be taken in an evill part. 70. foreign. Vers. 34. Vntill this day they do after these manners, 1 Kings 18.28. Baals Priests cut themselves with Knives foreign after their manner, 70. foreign, Gen. 40.13. Thou shalt give the cup to Pharaoh, according as thou wast wont to do. foreign, 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, foreign. 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. foreign This was a wicked custome, not a law, and the 70. turneth it, foreign; and therefore foreign is not alwayes taken in a good meaning: so (h)P. Martyr. coment. 1 Sam. 8. verum jus regium describit in Deut. apud Samuelem autem usurpatum.P. Martyr, He meaneth here of an usurped law, saith he; Calvin (i)Calvin. conc. 1 Sam. 8.Non jus a deo prescriptum, sed tyranidem. He speaketh not of Gods law here (saith he) but of tyranny. (k)Andr. Rivetus in decal. c. 20. Exod. in …. mundat. p. 195.And Rivetus, foreign signifieth not ever jus, law. Sed aliquando morem sive modum & rationem agendi, The custome and manner of doing, so Junius (l)Junius annot. in 1 Sam. 2.13.and Tremellius. (m)Diodatus annot. 1 Sam. 8.3.Diodatus exponeth jus; This law, namely (saith he) that which is now grown to a common custome, by the consent of nations, and Gods toleration. (n)Gloss… interlinearis.The interline glosse (to speak of Papists) exactionem & dominationem; The extortion and domination of King Saul is here meant. (o)Lyra in locum. hic accipitur jus large sumptum quo… reputatur jus propter malum abusum. Nam illa quae dicuntur hic de jure Regis, magis contingunt p…r Tyranidem.Lyra exponeth it tyranny. (p)Tostatu… Abulens. in 1 Reg. 8. q. 17. deq. 21.Tostatus Abulens. He meaneth here of Kings indefinitely, who oppressed the people with taxes and tributes, as Solomon and others. (q)Cornelius a Lapid. in locum.Cornelius a lapide: This was an unjust law. (r)Cajetan. in locum.Cajetanus calleth it, tyranny. (s)Hugo Cardinal. in loc.Hugo Cardinal, nameth them, exactiones & servitutes, exactions and slaveries: And (t)Serrarius in locum.Serrarius, 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 (u)Thom. Aquin. l. 3. de Regni Princip. c. 11.speaketh Tho. Aquinas: (x)Mendoza, jus Tyrannorum.So also Mendoza, saith he, speaketh of the law of Tyrants: and (y)Clemens Alexand. pag. 26.amongst 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 (z)Beda, l. 2 expo. in SamuelBeda. And an excellent (a)Petrus Robuffus tract. d… incongrua. prert. p. 110. Osiander, he setteth not down the Office of the King, what he ought to be, but what man…ner of King they should have. Pelican. that ruled by will, not by law. Willet. Such as decline to Tyranny. Borhaius, Tyrants, not Kings.Lawyer, 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 (b)Rabb. 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. … 19. Brentius, homil. 27. in 1 Sam. 8. Mos regis non de jure, sed de vulgatâ consuctudin….Rabbi Levi Ben. 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. 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? Doct. Ferne, p. 2. sect. pag. 55.6. The ground of Barclay and Royalists, here is weak, 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 he will have Samuel here to describe a King,Active and passive, Obed. pag. 24. 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 onelyonly 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; 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.
D. Ferne. 3. p. Sect. 2. pag. 10.Object. But it is evident, that God teaching the people how to behave themselves under the unjust oppressions of their King, he sets down no remedy but tears, crying to God, prayer, and patience; therefore resistance is not lawfull.
Answ. Learned Authors teach that Gods Law, Deut. 17. and the foreign a manner of the King, 1 Sam. 8, 9 are opposite one to another, so Gerson in trinprinc. 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.Though this be not the place due to the doctrine of Resistance, yet to vindicate the place; I s…y, there is not one word of any lawfull remedy in the Text, onelyonly it is said, foreign, Et cl…matis 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, foreign clamare faciunt, Isai. 15.4. And Heshbon shall cry. foreign 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 foreign, Deut. 22.24. You shall stone the maide foreign, because she cryed not foreign; 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 prayers 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: but neither supplicating the King, nor flying from his fury shall be lawfull meanes left by this Argument, because these meanes are no more in this text (where Royalists say the spirit of God speaketh of purpose of the meanes to be used against Tyranny) then violent resisting, is in this text.
Barclay, Ferne, Grotius, Arnisaeus, the P. Prelate following them saith,Ferne par. 3. pag. 95. Resisting of tyrants, and patience not inconsistent. An ill King is a punishment of God, for the sins of the people, and there is no remedy but patient suffering. Ans. Truely it is a silly Argument. The Assyrians comming against the people of God, for their sins, is a punishment of God, Esa. 10.5.12.13. But doth it follow that it is unlawfull, for Israel to fight and resist the Assyrians, and that they had warrant to doe no other thing, but lay downe Armes, and pray to God, and fight none at all? Is there no lawfull resisting of ills of punishment, but meere prayers and patience? The Amalikites came out against Israel for their sinnes, Senahkerib against Ezekiah, for the sins of the people. Asa his enemies fought against him for his sins, and the peoples sins; shall Moses and the people, Hezekiah, Asa, do then nothing but pray and suffer? Is it unlawfull with the sword to resist them? I beleeve not, Famine is often a punishment of God in a Land, Amos. 4.7, 8. is it therefore in famine, unlawfull to till the earth, and seeke bread by our industry and are we to doe nothing but to pray for daily bread? It is a vaine Argument.
Observe therefore the wickednesse of Barclay, contra Monarch. l. 2. p. 56. for he would prove, that a power of doing ill, and that without any punishment to be inflicted by man, is from God; because our Lawes punish not perjurie, but leaveth it to be punished of God, l. 2. l. de Reb. cred. Cujacius, l. 2. obs. c. 19. And the husband in Moses his law, had power to give a bill of divorce to his wife, and send her away; and the husband was not to be punished. And also Stewes and work-houses for harlots, and to take usurie, are tolerated in many Christian Commonwealths, and yet these are all sorts of murthers, by the confession of Heathen: Ergo, (saith Barclaius) God may give a power for Tyrannous acts to Kings, so as they shall be under no punishment to be inflicted by men.
Ans. All this is an argument from fact. 1. A wicked Magistracie may permit perjurie and lying in the Common-wealth,The Law of the King not a permissive law as was the law of devorcement and that without punishment; and some Christian Commonweales, he meaneth his own Synagogue of Rome, spirituall Sodome, a cage of uncleane birds, suffereth Harlotrie by Law, and the whores pay so many thousands yearely to the Pope, and are free of all punishment by Law, to eschew homicides, adulteries of Romish Priests, and other greater sinnes: Therefore God hath given power to a King to play the Tyrant, without any feare of punishment to be inflicted by man. But 1. if this be a good argument, The Magistrate to whom God hath committed the sword to take vengeance on evill doers, Rom. 13.3, 4, 5▪ 6. such as are perjured persons, professed whores and harlots, hath a lawfull power from God to connive at sinnes and grosse scandals in the Commonwealth, as they dreame that the King hath power given from God to exercise all acts of Tyranny without any resistance. But, 1. this was a grievous sinne in Eli, that he being a father and a Iudge, punished not his sonnes for their uncleannesse, and his house, in Gods heavy displeasure, was cut off from the Priesthood therefore. Then God hath given no such power to the Iudge. 2. The contrary duty is lying on the Iudge, To execute judgement for the oppressed, Iob 29.12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. Ier. 22.15, 16. and perverting of judgement, and conniving at the heynous sinnes of the wicked, is condemned, Num. 5.31, 32. 1 Sam. 15.23. 1 King. 20.42, 43. Esa. 1.17. & 10.1. & 5.23. and therefore God hath given no power to a Iudge to permit wicked men to commit grievous crimes, without any punishment. As for the Law of Divorce, it was indeed a permissive law, whereby the husband might give the wife a bill of divorce, and be free of punishment before men, but not free of sinne and guiltinesse before God, for it was contrary to Gods institution of Mariage at the beginning, as Christ saith: and the Prophet saith, that the Lord hateth putting away. Mal. 2.But that God hath given any such permissive power to the King, that he may doe what he pleaseth, and cannot be resisted: This is in question. 3. The Law spoken of in the Text, is by Royalists called, not a consuetude of Tranny, but the divine law of God, whereby the King is formally and essentially distinguished from the Judge in Israel: Now if so, a power to sinne, and a power to commit acts of Tyranny, yea, and a power in the Kings Sergeants and bloody Emissaries to waste and destroy the people of God, must be a lawfull power given of God: for a lawfull power it must be, if it commeth from God, whether it be from the King in his own person, or from his servants at his commandement, and by either put forth in acts, as the power of a bill of Divorce was a power from God, exempting either the husband from punishment before men, or freeing the servant, who at the husbands command, should write it, and put it in the hands of the woman. I cannot beleeve that God hath given a power, and that by Law, to one Man to command twenty thousand Cut-throats to kill and destroy all the Children of God, and that he hath commanded his Children to give their necks and heads to Babels sonnes without resistance. This I am sure is another matter then a Law for a bill of Divorce to one woman, maried by free election of a humorous and unconstant man. But sure I am, God gave no permissive law from heaven, like the law of Divorce, for the hardnesse of the heart, not of the Iewes only, but also of the whole Christian and Heathen Kingdomes under a Monarch; that one Emperour may, by such a Law of God, as the Law of Divorce, kill, by bloody Cut-throats, such as the Irish Rebels are, all the Nations that call on Gods name, men, women, and sucking infants. And if Providence impede the Catholike issue, and dry up the seas of Blood, it is good: but God hath given a law, such as the law of Divorce, to the King, whereby he, and all his, may without resistance, by a legall power given of God, who giveth Kings to be fathers, nurses, protectors, guides, yea the breath of nostrils of his Church, as speciall mercies and blessings to his people, he may (I say) by a law of God, as it is 1 Sam. 8.9, 11. cut off Nations, as that Lyon of the world, Nebuchadnezzar did. So Royalists teach us.
Barclaius l. 2. cont. Monarchoma. pag. 69. The Lord spake to Samuel the Law of the King, and wrot it in a book…, and laid it up before the Lord. But what Law? That same law which he proposed to the people when they first sought a King: but that was the Law contemning Precepts rather for the peoples obeying, then for the Kings commanding, for the people was to be instructed with those precepts, not the King. Those things that concerned the Kings duty, Deut. 17. Moses commanded to be put into the Arke, but so if Samuel had commanded the King, that which Moses, Deut. 17. commanded, he had done no new thing, but had done againe what was once done, actum egisset, but there was nothing before commanded the people concerning their obedience and patience under evill Princes. Ioseph. Antiq. l. 6. c. 5. he wrote foreign, the evills that were to befall them. Ans. It was not that same Law, for though this Law was written to the people, yet it was the Law of the King: and I pray you, did Samuel write in a booke all the Rules of Tyranny,The law of the King written in a booke, 1 Sam. 11. not the law of Tyranny. and teach Saul and all the Kings after him (for this book was put in the Ark of the Covenant, where also was the booke of the Law) how to play the Tyrant? And what instruction was it to King or people to write to them a book of the wicked waies of a King, which nature teacheth without a Doctor? Sanctius saith on the place, These things which by mens fraud, and to the hurt of the publick may be corrupted, were kept in the Tabernacle, and the booke of the Law was kept in the Arke. Cornelius a Lapide saith, It was the Law common to King and people, which was commonly kept with the booke of the Law, in the Arke of the Covenant. Lyra contradicteth Barclay, he exponeth Legem, legem regni non secundum usurpationem supra positam, sed secundum ordinationem Dei positam, Deut. 17. Theodat. excellently exponeth it the fundamentall Lawes of the Kingdome, inspired by God to temper Monarchy, with a liberty befitting Gods people, and with equity toward a Nation—to withstand the abuse of an absolute power. 2. Can any beleeve Samuel would have written a Law of Tyranny, and put that booke in the Arke of the Covenant before the Lord, to be kept to the posterity, seeing he was to teach both King and people the good and the right way, 1 Sam. 12.23, 24, 25. 3. Where is the Law of the Kingdome called a Law of punishing innocent people? 4. To write the duty of the King in a booke, and apply it to the King, is no more superfluous, nor to teach the people the good and the right way out of the Law, and apply generalls to persons. 5. There is nothing in the Law, 1 Sam. 8.9.11.12. of the peoples patience, but rather of their impatient crying out, God not hearing nor helping; and nothing of that in this booke, for any thing that we know, and Iosephus speaketh of the Law, 1 Sam. 8. not of this Law, 1 Sam. 12.