Treatise of Civil Policy, Treatise · Question 32
QUEST. XXXII. Whether or no the lawfulneſſe of defenſive warres hath its warrant in Gods word, from the example of David, Eliſha, the eighty Prieſts who reſiſted Uzziah, &c?
DAvid defended himſelfe againſt King Saul, 1. by taking Goliahs The lawfulneſs of violent reſiſtance of Kings cleare from Scripture proofes.ſword with him, 2. by being Captaine to ſix hundred men, yea, it is more then cleare, 1 Chron. 12. that there came to David a hoaſt like the hoaſt of God, v. 22. to help againſt Saul, exceeding foure thouſand, v. 36. Now that this hoaſt came warrantably to help him againſt Saul, I prove, 1. becauſe it is ſaid, ver. 1. Now theſe are they that came to David to Ziglag, while he kept himſelfe cloſe, becauſe of Saul the ſon of Kiſh; and they were amongst the mighty men, helpers of the warre: and then ſo many mighty Captains are reckoned out, v. 16. There came of the children of Benjamin and Iudah to the hold of David, v. 19. And there fell ſome of Manaſſeh to David. 20. As he went to Ziglag there fell to him of Manaſſeh; Ke…h, and Jozabad, Jedi…l and Michael, and Elihu, and Zilthai Captaines of the thouſands that were of Manaſſeh. 21. And they helped David againſt the band (of the rovers.) 22. At that time day by day there came to David, untill it was a great hoaſt, like the hoaſt of God. Now the ſame expreſſion that is ver. 1. where it is ſaid, they came to help David againſt Saul, which ver. 1. is repeated, ver. 16. ver. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23. 2. That they wartantably came, is evident; becauſe, 1. the Spirit of God commendeth them for their valor and skill in war, ver. 2. ver. 8. ver. 15. ver. 21. which the Spirit of God doth not in unlawfull wars. 2. Becauſe Amaſai, v. 18. The Spirit of the Lord comming on him, ſaith, Thine are we, David, and on thy ſide, thou ſon of Jeſſe; peace, peace unto thee, and peace to thy helpers, for thy God helpeth thee. The Spirit of God inſpireth no man to pray peace, to thoſe who are in an unlawfull warre. 3. That they came to Davids ſide onelyonly to be ſufferers, and to flee with David, and not to purſue and offend, is ridiculous. 1. It is ſaid, ver. 1. They came to David to Ziglag, while he kept himſelfe cloſe, becauſe of Saul the ſon of Kiſh. And they were amongst the mighty men, helpers of the warre. It is a ſcorne to ſay, that their might, and their helping in warre, conſiſted in being meere patients with David, and ſuch as fled from Saul: for they had beene on Sauls ſide before; and to come with armour to flee, is a mocking of the word of God. 2. It is cleare, the ſcope of the Spirit of God is to ſhew how God helped his innocent ſervant David againſt his perſecuting Prince and Maſter King Saul, in moving ſo many mighty men of warre to come in ſuch multitudes, all in Armes, to help him in warre. Now to what end would the Lord commend them, as fit for Warre, men of might, fit to handle ſhield & buckler, whoſe faces are as the faces of Lyons, as ſwift as the Roes on the Mountaines, ver. 8. and commend them as helpers of David, if it were unlawfull for David, and all thoſe mighty men, to carry Armes to purſue Saul and his followers, and to doe nothing with their armour but flee? Judge if the Spirit of God in reaſon could ſay, All theſe men came armed with bowes, ver. 2. and could handle both the right hand and the left in ſlinging ſtones, and ſhooting of arrowes, and that ver. 22. all theſe came to David, being mighty men of valour, and they came as Captains over hundreds and thouſands, & they put to flight all them of the valleyes, both toward the Eaſt, and toward the Weſt, ver. 14, 15. and that David received them, and made them Captains of the band, if they did not come in a poſture of warre, and for hoſtile invaſion, if need were? For if they came on…ly to ſuffer and to ſlee, not to purſue, Bowes, Captaines, and Captaines of Bands made by David and Davids helpers in the warre, came not to help David by flying, that was a hurt to David, not a help. It is true, M. Symmons ſai…h, 1 Sam. 22. 2. Thoſe that came out to David, ſtrengthened him, but Symmons Loyall ſubject. §▪ 10. pag▪ 31.he ſtrengthened not them; and David might eaſily have revenged himſelfe on the Ziphites, who did good will to betray him to the hands of Saul, if his conſcience had ſerved him.
Anſw. 1. This would inferre that theſe armed men came to help David againſt his conſcience, and that David was a patient in the buſineſſe, the contrary is in the Text, 1 Sam. 26. 2. David became a Captaine over them: and 1 Chron. 12. 17. If ye come peaceably to help me, my heart ſhall be knit to you. ver. 18. Then David received them, and made them Captains of the band. 2. David might have revenged himſelfe upon the Ziphites: True, but that Conſcience hindred him, cannot be proved. To purſue an enemie is an act of a Councell of Warre; and he ſaw it would create more enemies, not help his Cauſe. 3. To David to kill Saul ſleeping, and the people who out of a miſ-informed conſcience came out, many of them to help their lawfull Prince againſt a Traitor (as was ſuppoſed) ſeeking to kill their King, and to uſurp the throne, had not been wiſdome nor juſtice, becauſe to kill the enemie in a juſt ſelf-defence, muſt be, when the enemie actually doth invade, and the life of the defendant cannot be otherwiſe ſaved. A ſleeping enemie is not in the act of unjuſt purſuit of the innocent; but if an Armie of Papiſts, Philiſtims were in the fields ſleeping, purſuing not one ſingle David onelyonly for a ſuppoſed perſonall wrong to the King, but lying in the fields and campe againſt the whole Kingdome and Religion, &Davids not invading Saul and his men, a caſe far contrary to the condition of England and Scotland now. labouring to introduce arbitary Government, Popery, Idolatry, and to deſtroy Lawes and Liberties, and Parliaments, then David were obliged to kill theſe murtherers in their ſleep.
If any ſay, The caſe is all one in a naturall ſelf-defence, what ever be the cauſe, and who ever be the enemy, becauſe the ſelf-defender is not to offend, except the unjuſt Invader be in actuall purſuit, now Armies in their ſleep are not in actuall purſuit.
Anſw. When one man with a multitude invadeth one man, that one man may purſue, as he ſeeth moſt conducible for ſelf-defence. Now the Law ſaith, Threatnings and terror of Armour maketh imminent danger, and the caſe of purſuit in ſelf-defence lawfull; if therefore an Armie of Iriſh Rebels and Spanyards were ſleeping in their Camp, and our King in a deep ſleep in the midſt of them, and theſe Rebels actually in the Camp beſieging the Parliament, and the Citie of London, moſt unjuſtly to take away Parliament, Laws, and Liberties of Religion, it ſhould follow that Generall Eſſex ought not to kill the Kings Majeſty in his ſleep, for he is the Lords Anointed, but 1. will it follow that Generall Eſſex may not kill the Iriſh Rebels ſleeping about the King? and that he may not reſcue the Kings Perſon out of the hands of the Papiſts and Rebels, enſnaring the King, and leading him on to Popery, and to employ his Authority to defend Popery, and trample upon Proteſtant Parliaments, and Lawes? Certainly from this example this cannot be concluded. For Armies in actuall purſuit of a whole Parliament, Kingdome, Lawes, and Religion, (though ſleeping in the Camp) becauſe in actuall purſuit, may be invaded, and killed, though ſleeping. And David uſeth no argument from conſcience, why hee might not kill Sauls Armie, (I conceive he had not Armes to doe that) and ſhould have created more enemies to himſelfe, and hazard his owne life, and the life of all his men, if he had of purpoſe killed ſo many ſleeping men; yea the inexpedience of that, for a private wrong to kill Gods miſ-led people, ſhould have made all Iſrael enemies to David. But David uſeth an Argument from Conſcience onelyonly, to prove it was not lawfull for him to ſtretch forth his hand It is not lawfull to kill the King as Jeſuits teach.againſt the King; and for my part, ſo long as he remaineth King, and is not dethroned by thoſe who made him King at Hebron, to put hands on his perſon, I judge utterly unlawfull: one man ſleeping cannot be in actuall purſuit of another man; ſo that the ſelfdefender may lawfully kill him in his ſleep; but the caſe is farre otherwiſe in lawfull wars, the Iſraelites might lawfully kill the Philiſtims encamping about Jeruſalem to deſtroy it, and Religion, and the Church of God, though they were all ſleeping; even though we ſuppoſe King Saul had brought them in by his Authority, & though he were ſleeping in the midſt of the uncircumciſed Armies; and it is evident, that an hoaſt of armed enemies, though ſleeping, by the law of ſelf-defence may be killed, left they awake and kill us; whereas one ſingle man, and that a King, cannot be killed. 2. I think certainly, David had not done unwiſely, but hazarded his owne life, and all his mens, if he, and Ahimel…ch, and Abiſhai ſhould have killed an hoſt of their enemies ſleeping, that had been a work, as impoſſible to three, ſo hazard ſome to all his men.
D. Ferne, as Arniſaeus did before him, ſaith, The example of David D. Ferne his reſolving of conſcience. Sect. 2. Arniſaeus de authorit. prin… ▪ c. 2. n. 15. Davids example not extraordinary▪was extraordinary, becauſe he was anointed and deſigned by God as ſucceſſor to Saul, and ſo he muſt uſe an extraordinary way of guarding himſelfe. Arniſaeus citeth Alberic. Gentilis, that David was now exempted from amongst the number of Subjects.
Anſw. There were not two Kings in Iſrael now, both David and Saul. 2. David acknowledgeth his ſubjection in naming Saul the Lords Anointed, & his Maſter, Lord & King; and therefore David was yet a ſubject. 3. If David would have proved his title to the Crowne by extraordinary wayes, he who killed Goliah extraordinarily, might have killed Saul by a miracle; but David goeth a moſt ordinary way to work, for ſelf-defence, and his comming to the Kingdom was through perſecution, want, eating ſhewbread in caſe of neceſſity, defending himſelf with Goliahs ſword. 4. How was any thing extraordinary, and above a Law, ſeeing David might have killed his enemie Saul, and according to Gods Law he ſpared him? and hee argueth from a morall duty, he is the Lords annoynted, therefore I will not kill him? was this extraoardinary above a law? then according to Gods law he might have killed him. Royaliſts cannot ſay ſo, what ground to ſay one of Davids acts in his deportment toward Saul was extraordinary, and not all? was it extraordinary that David fl…d? no: or that David conſulted the oracle of God, what to do when Saul was coming againſt him? 5. in an ordinary fact ſomething may be extraordinary, as the dead ſleep from the Lord upon Saul, and his men. 1. Sam. 26. and yet the fact according to its ſubſtance ordinary. 6. Nor is this extraordinary, that a diſtreſſed man, being an excellent warriour as David was, may uſe the help of ſix hundred men, who by the law of charity are to help to deliver the innocent from death; yea, all Iſrael were obliged to defend him, who killed Goliah. 7. Royaliſts make Davids act of not putting hands on the Lords annointed an ordinary morall reaſon againſt reſiſtance, but his putting on of armour, they will have extraordinary, and this is (I confeſſe) a ſhort way to an adverſary to cull out ſomething that is for his cauſe, and make it ordinary, and ſomething that is againſt his cauſe, muſt be extraordinary. 8. Theſe men by the law of nature were obliged to joyne in armes with David, ergo the non-helping of an oppreſſed man, muſt be Gods ordinary law: a blaſphemous tenet. 9. If David by an extraordinary ſpirit killed not King Saul, then the Jeſuits way of killing muſt be Gods ordinary Law.
2. David certainly intended to keep Keilah againſt King Saul, for the Lord would not have anſwered David in an unlawfull fact, for that were all one, as if God ſhould teach David how to play the Traitor to his King; for if God had anſwered, They will not deliver thee up, but they ſhall ſave thee from the hand of Saul, As David beleeved he might ſay this, as well as its contradicent, then David behoved to keep the city, for certainly Davids queſtion pre-ſuppoſeth he was to keep the city.
The example of Eliſha the Prophet is conſiderable, 2 KingsEliſha's fact proveth the lawfulneſſe of defenſive wars. 6. 32. But Eliſha ſate in his houſe, and the Elders with him: And the King ſent a man before him; but ere the meſſengers came to him, he ſaid to the Elders, See now the ſonne of a murtherer, hath ſent to take away mine head. Here is unjuſt violence offered by King Ioram to an innocent man. Eliſha keepeth the houſe violently againſt the Kings Meſſenger, as we did keep Caſtles againſt King Charles his unlawfull meſſengers. Look (ſaith he) when the meſſenger commeth, ſhut the doore. 2. There is violence alſo commanded, and reſiſtence to be made, Hold him faſt at the doore. In the Hebrew it is, foreign Arias Montan. Claudite …ſtium, & opprimetis eum in oſtio: Violently preſſe him at the doore: And ſo the Chaldee Paraphraſe, Ierom. Ne ſinatis eum introire. The LXX. Interpreters, foreign, illidite eum in oſtio, Preſſe him betwixt the doore and the wall. It is a word of bodily violence, according to Vatablus. Yea Theodoret will have King Ioram himſelfe holden at the doore. And 3. It is no Anſwer that D. Ferne and other Royaliſts give, that Eliſha made no perſonall reſiſtance to the King himſelfe, but onelyonly to the Kings cut-throat, ſent to take away his head. Yea they ſay, It is lawfull to reſiſt the Kings cut-throats. But the text is cleere, that the violent reſiſtance is made to the King himſelfe alſo, for he addeth, Is not the ſound of his Maſters feet behinde him? And by this anſwer, it is lawfull to keep Townes with iron gates and barres, and violently to oppoſe the Kings cutthroats, comming to take away the heads of the Parliaments of both Kingdomes, and of Proteſtants in the three Kingdomes.
Some Royaliſts are ſo impudent, as to ſay that there was no violence here, and that Eliſha was an extraordinary man, and that it is not lawfull for us to call a King the ſon of a murtherer, as the Prophet Eliſha did: but Ferne ſect. 2. pag. 9. forgetting himſelfe, ſaith from hence, It is lawfull to reſiſt the Prince himſelfe, thus farre, as to ward his blowes, and hold his hands: But let Ferne anſwer, if the violent binding of the Princes hands, that he ſhall not be able to kill, be a greater violence done to his Royall perſon, then Davids cutting off the lap of Sauls garment; for certainly, the Royall body of a Prince is of more worth then his cloathes. Now it was a ſinne, I judge, that ſmote Davids conſcience, that he being a ſubject, and not in the act of naturall ſelf-defence, did cut the garment of the Lords Annointed. Let Ferne ſee then how he will ſave his owne principles, for certainly hee yeeldeth the cauſe for me; I judge that the perſon of the King, or any Judge, who is the Lords Deputy, as is the King, is ſacred, and that remaining in that honourable caſe, no ſubject can without guiltineſſe before God, put hands in his perſon, the caſe of naturall ſelf-defence being excepted: for becauſe the Royall dignity doth not advance a King above the common condition of men, and the Throne maketh him not leave off to bee a man, and a man that can do wrong; and therefore as one that doth manifeſt violence to the life of a man, though his ſubject, he may be reſiſted with bodily reſiſtance in the caſe of unjuſt and violent invaſion. It is a vaine thing to ſay, Who ſhall be judge betweene the King and his ſubjects? The ſubject cannot judge the King, becauſe none can be judge in his owne cauſe, and an inferiour or equall cannot judge a ſuperiour or equall. But I anſwer, 1. This is the Kings owne cauſe alſo, and he doth unjuſt violence as a man, and not as a King, and ſo he cannot be judge more then the ſubject. 2. Every one that doth unjuſt violence as he is ſuch, is inferiour to the innocent, and ſo ought to be judged by ſome. 3. There is no need of the formality of a judge in things evident to natures eye, ſuch as are manifeſtly unjuſt violences: Nature in acts naturall of ſelf-defence, is judge, party, accuſer, witneſſe, and all; for it is ſuppoſed the Judge is abſent, when the Judge doth wrong. And for the plea of Eliſha's extraordinary ſpirit; it is no thing extraordinary toEliſha by no extraordinary ſpirit reſiſted Joram. the Prophet to call the King the ſonne of a murtherer, when hee complaineth to the Elders for juſtice of his oppreſſion, no more then it is for a plaintiffe to libell a true crime againſt a wicked perſon; and if Eliſha's reſiſtance came from an extraordinary ſpirit, then it is not naturall for an oppreſſed man to cloſe the doore upon a murtherer, then the taking away of the innocent Prophets head muſt be extraordinary, for this was but an ordinary and moſt naturall remedy againſt this oppreſſion; and though to name the King the ſonne of a murtherer, be extraordinary, (and I ſhould grant it without any hurt to this cauſe) it followeth no wayes that the ſelf-defence was extraordinary. 3. 2. Chron. 26. 17. Foure ſcore of Prieſts, with Azariah are commended as valiant men. LXX. foreign. Heb. foreign Arias Montan▪ filii virtutis, Men of courage and valour, for that they reſiſted Vzziah the King, who would take on him to burne Incenſe to the Lord, againſt the Law. M. Symmons pag. 34. ſect. 10. They withſtood Loyall ſubjects beliefe.him not with ſwords and weapons, but onelyonly by ſpeaking, and one but ſpake. I anſwer; It was a bodily reſiſtance: for beſide that,Reſiſtance made to King Vzziah proveth the ſame. Ierome turneth it, Viri fortiſſimi, Moſt valiant men; And it is a ſpeech in the Scripture, taken for men valorous for warre; As 1 Sam. 14. 25. 2 Sam. 17. 10. 1 Chron. 5. 18. And ſo doth the phraſe foreign Potent in valour. And the phraſe, foreign 2 Sam. 24. 9. 2 Sam. 11. 16. 1 Sam. 31. 12. and therefore all the 80. not onelyonly by words, but violently expelled the King out of the Temple. 2. foreign Arias Mont. & …ſ…t…runt contra Huzzi-Iahu. the LXX. ſay, foreign They reſiſted the King, ſoVa…ib. Deturba …nt eum ex illo l…co, compulſuſ que ut eg…de etur. in …. F…inanter eg …d… eum coe…e…unt, hoc eſt, extruſerunt eum. Dan. 11. 17. The armies of the ſouth ſhall not ſtand. Dan. 8. 25. It is a word of violence. 3. The text ſaith ver. 20. and, they thruſt him out. foreign Ar. Mont. & fecerunt eum feſtinare. Hyerony. feſtinatò expulerunt eum. The LXX. ſay, The Prieſt foreign, ſo Vatablus, they caſt him out. And 4. it is ſaid ver. 21. he was cut off from the houſe of the Lord. Doctor Ferne ſaith ſect. 4. pag. 50. They are valiant men who dare withſtand a King in an evil way, by a home reproofe, and by withdrawing the holy things from him, eſpecially ſince by the law the leper was to be put out of the congregation.
Anſ. 1. He contradicteth the text, it was not a reſiſtance by words, for the text ſaith they withſtood him, and they thruſt him out violently. 2. He yeeldeth the cauſe, for to withdraw the holy things of God, by corporall violence, and violently to pull the cenſer out of his hand, that he ſhould not provoke Gods wrath, by offering incenſe to the Lord is reſiſtance, and the like violence may, by this example, be uſed, when the King uſeth the ſword and the Militia to bring in an enemy to deſtroy the kingdom: it is no leſſe injuſtice againſt the ſecond table, that the King uſeth the ſword to deſtroy the innocent, then to uſurpe the c…nſor againſt the firſt table. But Doctor Ferne yeeldeth that the cenſor may be pulled out of his hand, leſt he provoke God to wrath. Ergo, by the ſame very reaſon, a fortiore, the Sword, the Caſtles, the Sea-ports, the Militia may be violently pulled out of his hand, for if there was an expreſſe Law that the leper ſhould be put out of the congregation, and therefore the King alſo ſhould be ſubject to his Church-cenſor, then he ſubjecteth the King to a puniſhment to be inflicted by the ſubjects, upon the King, Ergo the King is obnoxious to the coactive power of the law. 2. Ergo, ſubjects may judge him and puniſh him. 3. Ergo he is to be ſubject to all Church-cenſors, no leſſe then the people. 4. There is an expreſſe law that the leper ſhould be put out of the congregation. What then? flattering court Divines ſay the King is above all theſe lawes, for there is an expreſſe law of God as expreſſe as that ceremoniall on touching lepers, and a more binding law, that the murtherer ſhould die the death. Will Royaliſts put no exception upon a ceremoniall law of expelling the leper, and yet put an exception upon a Divine morall law, concerning the puniſhing of murtherers given before the law on Mount Sinai. Gen. 6. 9. They ſo declare that they accept the perſons of men. 5. If a leper King could not actually ſit upon the throne, but muſt be cut off from the houſe of the Lord, becauſe of an expreſſe law of God, theſe being inconſiſtent, that a King remaining amongſt Gods people, ruling and raigning, ſhould keep company with the Church of God, and yet be a leper who was to be cut off, by a Divine law from the Church, now I perſwade my ſelf that far leſſe can he actually raigne in the full uſe of the power of the ſword, if he uſe the ſword to cut off thouſands of innocent people, becauſe murthering the innocent and fatherles, and Royall governing in Righteouſneſſe and Godlineſſe are more inconſiſtent, by Gods law, being morally oppoſite, then remaining a governour of the people, and the diſeaſe of leproſie, are incompatible. 6. I think not much that Barcley ſaith cont. Monar. l 5. c. 11. Vzziah remained King, after he was removed from the congregation for leproſie. 1. Becauſe that toucheth the queſtion of dethroning Kings, this is an argument brought for violent reſiſting of Kings, and that the people did reſume all power from Vzziah, and put it in the hand of Iotham his ſon, who was over the Kings houſe, judging the people of the land. ver. 21. And by this ſame reaſon the Parliaments of both Kingdomes may reſume the power once given to the King, when he hath proved more unfit to governe morally, then Vzziah was ceremonially, that he ought not to judge the people of the land in this caſe. 2. If the prieſts did execute a ceremoniall law upon King Vzziah. Far more may the three eſtates of Scotland, and the two houſes of Parliament 1 Sam. 14. The peoples reſiſting of Saul in reſcuing Jonathan unjuſtly condemned to die, ſaith, that the Eſtates of the two Kingdomes may ſwear and covenant to reſcue thouſands of innocents from the unjuſt ſword of cu… throats of Ireland, & Papiſts in England.of England execute the morall law of God on their King.
If the people may covenant by oath to reſcue the innocent and unjuſtly condemned, from the ſentence of death notoriouſly known be to tyranous and cruel, then may the people reſiſt the King in his unlawfull practiſes. But this the people did in the matter of Ionathan. M. Symmons ſaith pag. 32. and Doctor Ferne §. 9. 49. That with no violence, but by prayers and teares the people ſaved Jonathan, as Peter was reſcued out of priſon by the prayers of the Church, King Saul might eaſily be intreated to break a raſh vow to ſave the life of his eldeſt ſon. Anſ 1. I ſay not the common people did it, but the people including proceres regni, the Princes of the land, and captaines of thouſands. 2. The text hath not one word or ſyllable of either prayers, ſupplications or teares, but by the contrary▪ They bound themſelves by an oath, contrary to the oath of Saul▪ 1 Sam. 14. 44. and ſwear. ver. 45. God forbid, as the Lord liveth, there ſhal not one hair of his head fall to the ground, ſo the people reſcued Chald. Par. Manifeſtum eſt quod Jonathan peccavit perignorantiam. P. Mart. ſaith with a doubt, Si iſta ſeditioſe fecerunt—nullo modo excuſari poſſun…. Yea he ſaith, they might ſuffragiis, with their ſuffrages free him. Jun. The people oppoſed a juſt oath to Sauls hypocriticall oath. Oſiander and Borhaius juſtifie the people. P. Mar. Com. in 2 Reg. c. 8. ſaith, Libnah revoltrd, Quia ſubditos nitebatur cogere ad Idololatriam, quod ipſi libnenſes pati noluerunt & merito: principibus enim parendum eſt, verum uſ que ad aras: The King would compell them to Idolatry, and they juſtly r…volt. d. Vatab. in no…. Impulit Judaeos ad Idololatriam, alioqui …am pronos ad cultum Idololorum.Ionathan. The Church prayed not to God for Peters deliverance with an oath, that they muſt have Peter ſaved whether God will or no.
2. Though we read of no violence uſed by the people, yet an oath upon ſo reaſonable a ground. 1. without the Kings conſent. 2. contrary to a ſtanding law, that they had agreed unto, ver. 24. 3. contradictory to the Kings ſentence and unjuſt oath. 4. ſpoken to the King in his face, all theſe prove that the people meaned, and that the oath ex conditione operis, tended to a violent reſiſting of the King in a manifeſtly unjuſt ſentence. Chryſoſtom. hom. 14. ad Pop. Antioch. accuſeth Saul as a murtherer in this ſentence, and praiſeth the people. So Iunius, Peter Martyr, (whom Royaliſts impudently cite) ſo Cor. à lap. Zanch. Lyra, and Hug. Cardinalis ſay it was Tyranny in Saul, and laudable that the people reſiſted Saul, and the ſame is aſſerted by Ioſephus l. 6. antiquit. c. 7. ſo Althuſ. Polyt. c. 38. n. 109.
We ſee alſo 2 Chron. 21. 10. That Libnah revolted from under Iehoram, becauſe he had forſaken the Lord God of his fathers. It hath no ground in the text that Royaliſts ſay, that the defection of Lybnah is not juſtified in the text, but the cauſe is from the demerit of wicked Iehoram, becauſe he made defection from God, Libnah made defection from him, as the ten tribes revolted from Rehoboam for Solomons idolatry, which before the Lord procured this defection, yet the ten tribes make defection for oppreſſion. I anſwer, where the literall meaning is ſimple and obvious, we are not to go from it. The text ſheweth what cauſe moved Libnah to revolt, it was a town of the Levites, and we know they were longer ſound in the truth then the ten tribes, 2. Chron. 13. 8 9, 10. Hoſ. 11. 12. Lavater ſaith Iehoram hath preſſed them to idolatry, and therefore they revolted. Zanch. Cor. à Lap. ſaith, this was the cauſe that moved them to revolt, and it is cleare ver. 13. he cauſed Judah and the inhabitants of Jeruſalem to go a whoring from God, and no doubt tempted Libnah to the like.
Yea the city of Abel 2 Sam. 20. did well to reſiſt Ioab, Davids Generall, for he came to deſtroy a whole city for a traitors ſake, for Sheba, they reſiſted and defended themſelves, the wiſe woman calleth the city a mother in Iſrael, and the inheritance of the Lord. ver. 19. and Ioab profeſſeth ver. 20. far be it from him to ſwallow up and deſtroy Abel. The woman ſaith ver. 18. They ſaid of old, they ſhall ſurely ask counſell at Abel, and ſo they ended the matter, that is,The Citie of Abels revolting, a proof for the lawfulneſſe of reſiſtance. the city of Abel was a place of Prophets and Oracles of old where they asked reſponſes of their doubts, and therefore peace ſhould be firſt offered to the City before Ioab ſhould deſtroy it; as the law ſaith, Deut. 20. 10. from all which it is evident, that the city, in defending it ſelf did nothing againſt peace, ſo they ſhould deliver Sheba the traitour to Ioabs hand, which accordingly they did: and Ioab purſued them not as traitors for keeping the city againſt the King, but profeſſeth in that they did no wrong.