Treatise of Civil Policy, Treatise · 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.
THis place, 1 Sam. 8, 9. and v. 11. The law or manner of the King The place, 1 Sam. 8, 9, 11. diſcuſſed.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. aGrotius 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. 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.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; for the power is either a power to rule according to(c) Barclaius contra Monarcho. l. 2. p. 56, 57. 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, andThe power & office of the King, badly diſterenced by Barclay. 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 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 dBarclaius, 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. eArr. Mon. Haec erit ratio Regis.Arri. Montanus turneth it ratio Regis. I grant the Seventy render it, f70. Interpret. Vatabul. judica …is judicium & conſuetudinem, i. mores & ib. bis 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 citi… 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 …n 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. Ʋntill 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 hP. 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 lCalvin. conc. 1 Sam. 8.Non jus a deo preſcriptum, ſed tyranidem. He ſpeaketh not of Gods, law here (ſaith he) but of tyranny. kAndr. Rivetus in decal. …. 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 lJunius annot. in 1 Sam. 2 13.and Tremellius. mDiodatus 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. nGloſſa interlinearis.The interline gloſſe (to ſpeak of Papiſts) exactionem & dominationem; The extortion and domination of King Saul is here meant. 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.Lyra exponeth it tyranny. pToſtatus 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. qCornelius a Lapid. in locum.Cornelius a lapide: This was an unjuſt law. rCajetan. in locum.Cajetanus▪ calleth it, tyranny. ſHugo Cardinal. in loc.Hugo Cardinal, nameth them, exactiones & ſervitutes, exactions and ſlaveries: And tSerrarius 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 uThom. Aquin. l. 3. de Regni Princip. c. 11.ſpeaketh Tho. Aquinas: xMendoza, jus Tyrannorum.So alſo Mendoza, ſaith he, ſpeaketh of the law of Tyrants: and yClemens 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 zBeda, l. 2. expo. in Samuel.Beda. And an excellent 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.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 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.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? 6. The ground of Barclay and Royaliſts, here is weak,Doct. Ferne, p. 2. ſect. pag. 55. 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 heActive and paſſive, Obed. pag. 24. 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 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.
Object. But it is evident, that God teaching the people how to behaveD. Ferne. 3. p. Sect. 2. pag. 10. 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. Though this be not the place due to the doctrine of Reſiſtance,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 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. yet to vindicate the place; I ſay, there is not one word of any lawfull remedy in the Text, onelyonly it is ſaid, foreign, 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, 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 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: 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 of God ſpeaketh of purpoſe of the meanes to be uſed againſt Tyranny) then violent reſiſting, is this text.
Barclay, Ferne, Grotius, Arniſaeus, the P. Prelate following them ſaith, An ill King is a puniſhment of God, for the ſins of the people, Ferne par. 3. pag. 95. Reſiſting of tyrants, and patience not inconſiſtent.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, andThe Law of the King not a permisſive law as was the law of devorcement 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,Mal. 2. that the Lord hateth putting away. 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 booke, 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, and teach Saul and all the KingsThe law of the King written in a booke, … Sam. 11. not the law of Tyranny. 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, inſpride 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 ou…, 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.