The church or congregation of the people of Israel assembled
in a military manner, and had the result of the commonwealth, or
the power of confirming all their laws, though proposed even by
God himself; as where they make him king, and where they reject
or depose him as civil magistrate, and elect Saul. It is manifest
that he gives no such example to a legislator in a popular
government as to deny or evade the power of the people, which
were a contradiction; but though he deservedly blames the
ingratitude of the people in that action, he commands Samuel,
being next under himself supreme magistrate, "to hearken to their
voice" (for where the suffrage of the people goes for nothing, it
is no commonwealth), and comforts him, saying, "They have not
rejected thee, but they have rejected me that I should not reign
over them." But to reject him that he should not reign over them,
was as civil magistrate to depose him. The power therefore which
the people had to depose even God himself as he was civil
magistrate, leaves little doubt but that they had power to have
rejected any of those laws confirmed by them throughout the
Scripture, which, to omit the several parcels, are generally
contained under two heads: those that were made by covenant with
the people in the land of Moab, and those which were made by
covenant with the people in Horeb; which two, I think, amount to
the whole body of the Israelitish laws.

But if all and every one of the laws of Israel being proposed
by God, were no otherwise enacted than by covenant with the
people, then that only which was resolved by the people of Israel
was their law; and so the result of that commonwealth was in the
people. Nor had the people the result only in matter of law, but