A treatise of civil policy: being a resolution of forty three questions concerning prerogative, right and priviledge, in reference to the supream prince and the people. / By Samuel Rutherford professor of divintiy of St Andrews in Scotland.

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* 1.1 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 spea∣keth for no such matter. 1. a 1.2 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 1.3 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* 1.4 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* 1.5 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 essen∣tiall to a King, that you cannot conceive a King, but he must have do∣mination, whereas the Iudges of Israel had no domination over the people. Hence I argue that, whereby a King is essentially distin∣guished from a Iudge, that must be from God; but by domination, which is a power to oppresse the subject, a King is essentially di∣stinguished 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 Bar∣clay: 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 Bar∣clay 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 1.6 Barclay saith expressely, That the kingly power is from God, and that same which is the specifice form, that con∣stituteth 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 law∣full power; by which you shall have this result of Barclayes in∣terpretation, 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the word cannot in∣force us to expone 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a law; our English rendreth, Shew them the manner of the King. e 1.7 Arri. Montanus turneth it ratio Regis.

I grant the Seventy render it, f 1.8 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Chalde Paraphrase saith, Statutum regis. g 1.9 Hieronimus tran∣slateth it jus regis; so Calvin: but I am sure the Hebrew both in words and sense beareth a consuetude; yea, and the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth not alwayes a law, as Josh. 6. 14. They compassed the citi•• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 seven times. 70. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 It cannot be according to the Law or right of the Heathen, except 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, be taken in an evill part. 70. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Vers. 34. Ʋntill this day they do after these manners, 1 Kings 18. 28. Baals Priests cut themselves with Knives 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 after their manner. 70. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Gen. 40. 13. Thou shalt give the cup to Pharaoh, according as thou wast wont to do. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Exod. 21. 19. He shall deal with her after the manner of daughters, 1 Sam. 27. 11. And Da∣vid saved neither man nor woman alive, to bring (tydings) to Gath, saying, So did David, and so will his manner be, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 This was a wicked custome, not a law, and the 70. turneth it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and there∣fore 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not alwayes taken in a good meaning: so h 1.10 P. Martyr, He meaneth here of an usurped law, saith he; Calvin l 1.11 Non jus a deo prescriptum, sed tyranidem. He speaketh not of Gods, law here (saith he) but of tyranny. k 1.12 And Rivetus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sig∣nifieth not ever jus, law. Sed aliquando morem sive modum & ratio∣nem agendi, The custome and manner of doing, so Junius l 1.13 and Tremellius. m 1.14 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 1.15 The interline glosse (to speak of Papists) exactionem & dominationem; The extortion and domina∣tion of King Saul is here meant. o 1.16 Lyra exponeth it tyranny. p 1.17 Tostatus Abulens. He meaneth here of Kings indefinitely, who oppressed the people with taxes and tributes, as Solomon and others. q 1.18 Cornelius a lapide: This was an unjust law. r 1.19 Cajetanus▪

calleth it, tyranny. s 1.20 Hugo Cardinal, nameth them, exactiones & servitutes, exactions and slaveries: And t 1.21 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 1.22 speaketh Tho. Aquinas: x 1.23 So also Mendoza, saith he, speak∣eth of the law of Tyrants: and y 1.24 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 1.25 Beda. And an excellent a 1.26 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 pre∣scribed 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 1.27 Rabbi Levi Ben. Gersom saith, Terrifying them from their pur∣pose 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. Be∣cause 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 exer∣cised in his time, as the story sheweth. 3. Because how uneffectu∣all 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,* 1.28 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 to∣gether, 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 Pro∣phet, then the Author of active and passive obedience doth, while he* 1.29 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 cast∣ing 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; 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 be∣have* 1.30 themselves under the unjust oppressions of their King, he sets

down no remedy but tears, crying to God, prayer, and patience; there∣fore resistance is not lawfull.

Answ. Though this be not the place due to the doctrine of Re∣sistance,* 1.31 yet to vindicate the place; I say, there is not one word of any lawfull remedy in the Text, onely it is said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 clamare faciunt, Isai. 15. 4. And Heshbon shall cry. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Deut. 22. 24. You shall stone the maide 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because she cryed not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; but she is not to be stoned, be∣cause 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 spi∣rit

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,* 1.32 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 fol∣low 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 un∣lawfull 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 fa∣mine, 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 Com∣monwealths, and yet these are all sorts of murthers, by the confession of Heathen: Ergo, (saith Barclaius) God may give a power for Tyran∣nous 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 Magi∣stracie may permit perjurie and lying in the Common-wealth, and* 1.33 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 o∣ther

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 Priest∣hood 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 per∣verting 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 per∣missive law, whereby the husband might give the wife a bill of di∣vorce, 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,* 1.34 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 distin∣guished 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 ei∣ther 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 Mo∣narch; 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 be∣fore 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 con∣temning 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 obedi∣ence and patience under evill Princes. Ioseph. Antiq. l. 6. c. 5. he wrote 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 Kings* 1.35 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 Taberna∣cle, and the booke of the Law was kept in the Arke. Cornelius a La∣pide 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 se∣cundum 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 super∣fluous, 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 no∣thing 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.

Notes

• * 1.1

  The place, 1 Sam. 8, 9, 11. discussed.
• a 1.2

  Grotius de ju. bel. & pacis, l. 1. c. 4. n. 3.
• b 1.3

  Barclaius contra Monar∣chom. l. 2. p. 64. Potostatem in∣telligit non ••a•• quae competit ex praecepto, neque etiam quae ex permissu est, quatenus liberat à peccato, sed quatenus paenis legalibus ••ximit operantem.
• * 1.4

  (c) Barclaius contra Monar∣cho. l. 2. p. 56, 57.
• * 1.5

  The power & office of the King, badly disterenced by Barclay.
• d 1.6

  Barclaius, l. 3▪ c. 2.
• e 1.7

  Arr. Mon. Haec erit ratio Regis.
• f 1.8

  70. Inter∣pret. Vatabul. judica ••is judicium & consuetudinem, i. mores & ib. bis moribus & hac consuetudine utentur erga vos reges.
• g 1.9

  Chald. Para. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 70. Interp. 70. Interp.
• h 1.10

  P. Mar∣tyr. coment. 1 Sam. 8. ve∣rum jus regium describit in Deut. apud Sa∣muelem autem usurpatum.
• l 1.11

  Calvin. conc. 1 Sam. 8.
• k 1.12

  Andr. Ri∣vetus in decal. ••. 20. Exod. in ••. mundat. p. 195.
• l 1.13

  Junius an∣not. in 1 Sam. 2 13.
• m 1.14

  Diodatus annot. 1 Sam. 8. 3.
• n 1.15

  Glossa interlinearis.
• o 1.16

  Lyra 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.
• p 1.17

  Tostatus Abulens. in 1 Reg. 8. q. 17. deq. 21.
• q 1.18

  Cornelius a Lapid. in locum.
• r 1.19

  Cajetan. in locum.
• s 1.20

  Hugo Car∣dinal. in loc.
• t 1.21

  Serrarius in locum.
• u 1.22

  Thom. A∣quin. l. 3. de Regni Prin∣cip. c. 11.
• x 1.23

  Mendoza, jus Tyranno∣rum.
• y 1.24

  Clemens Alexand. pag. 26.
• z 1.25

  Beda, l. 2. expo. in Samuel.
• a 1.26

  Petrus Re∣buffus tract. de 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 Ty∣ranny. Borhaius, Ty∣rants, not Kings.
• b 1.27

  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. c. 19. Breutius, homil. 27. in 1 Sam. 8. Mos regis non de jure, sed de vulga••â consuetudine.
• * 1.28

  Doct. Ferne, p. 2. sect. pag. 55.
• * 1.29

  Active and passive, Obed. pag. 24.
• * 1.30

  D. Ferne. 3. p. Sect. 2. pag. 10.
• * 1.31

  Learned Au∣thors teach that Gods Law, Deut. 17. and the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a manner of the King, 1 Sam. 8, 9. are opposite one to another, so Gerson in trin∣prin••. 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. Tho∣loss. 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.
• * 1.32

  Ferne par. 3. pag. 95. Resisting of tyrants, and patience not inconsistent.
• * 1.33

  The Law of the King not a permissive law as was the law of devorcement
• * 1.34

  Mal. 2.
• * 1.35

  The law of the King written in a booke, •• Sam. 11. not the law of Ty∣ranny.