A Hind Let Loose Part 9

They are leviathan, the piercing serpent and dragon, Isa. xxvii. 1. and have great affinity in name and nature with the apocalyptick dragon. So also, Isaiah li. 9. the Egyptian tyrant is called dragon and Nebuchadnezzar swallowed up the church like a dragon, Jer. li. 34. See also Ezek. xxix. 3. 6. They are wolves, ravening for the prey, Ezek.

xxii. 27. Evening wolves, that gnaw not the bones till the morrow, Zeph.

iii. 3. 7. They are leopards; so the Grecian tyrants are called, Dan.

vii. 6. and antichrist, Rev. xiii. 2. 8. They are foxes; so Christ calls Herod, Luke xiii. 32. 9. They are devils, who cast the Lord's people into prison, Rev. ii. 10, 13. Now, can we own all these abominable creatures to be magistrates? Can these be the fathers we are bound to honour in the fifth commandment? They must be esteemed sons of dogs and devils that believe so, and own themselves sons of such fathers.

If we further take notice, how the Spirit of G.o.d describes tyranny, as altogether contradistinct and opposite unto the magistracy he will have owned; we may infer hence, tyrants and usurpers are not to be owned.

What the government inst.i.tuted by G.o.d among his people was, the scripture doth both relate in matter of fact, and describes what it ought to be by right, viz. That according to the inst.i.tution of G.o.d, magistrates should be established by the const.i.tution of the people, who were to make them judges and officers in all their gates, that they might judge the people with just judgment, Deut. xvi. 18. But foreseeing that people would affect a change of that first form of government, and, in imitation of their neighbouring nations, would desire a king, and say, I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are about me, Deut. xvii. 14. The Lord, intending high and holy ends by it, chiefly the procreation of the Messias from a kingly race, did permit the change, and gave directions how he should be moulded and bounded, that was to be owned as the magistrate under a monarchical form; to wit, that he should be chosen of G.o.d, and set up by their suffrages, that he should be a brother, and not a stranger; that he should not multiply horses, nor wives, nor money, (which are cautions all calculated for the people's good, and the security of their religion and liberty, and for precluding and preventing his degeneration into tyranny) and that he should write a copy of the law in a book, according to that which he should govern, verse 15. to the end of the chapter, yet the Lord did not approve the change of the form, which that luxuriant people was long affecting, and at length obtained: for, long before Saul was made king, they proffered an hereditary monarchy to Gideon, without the boundaries G.o.d's law required: which that brave captain knowing how derogatory it was to the authority of G.o.d's inst.i.tution, not to be altered in form or frame without his order, generally refused, saying, I will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule over you; the Lord shall rule over you, Judges viii. 23. But his b.a.s.t.a.r.d, the first monarch and tyrant in Israel, Abimelech, by sinistrous means being advanced to be king by the traiterous Sechemites, Jotham, and other of the G.o.dly, disowned him; which, by the Spirit of G.o.d, Jotham describes parabolically significantly holding out the nature of that tyrannical usurpation, under the apologue of the trees itching after a king, and the offer being repudiate by the more generous sort, embraced by the bramble: signifying, that men of worth and virtue would never have taken upon them such an arrogant domination, and that such a tyrannical government, in its nature and tendency, was nothing but an useless, worthless, sapless, aspiring, scratching, and vexing shadow of a government, under subjection to which there could be no peace nor safety. But this was rather a tumultuary interruption than a change of the government; not being universally either desired or owned; therefore, after that the Lord restored the pristine form, which continued until, being much perverted by Samuel's sons, the people unanimously and peremptorily desired the change thereof, and, whether it were reason or not, would have a king; as we were fondly set upon one, after we had been delivered from his father's yoke: and the Lord gave them a king with a curse, and took him away with a vengeance, Hos. xiii. 11. as he did our Charles II.

Yet he permitted it, but with a protestation against and conviction of the sin, that thereby they had "rejected the Lord," 1 Sam. viii. 7. and with a demonstration from heaven, which extorted their own confession, that they "had added unto all their sins this evil to ask a king," 1 Sam. xii. 17, 18, 19. And to deter and dissuade from such a conclusion, he appoints the prophet to shew them the "manner of the king" that should reign over them, 1 Sam. viii. 9. to declare before hand, what sort of a ruler he would prove, when they got him; to wit, a mere tyrant, who would take their sons and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and for hors.e.m.e.n, and to run before his chariots, and make them his soldiers, and labourers of the ground, and instrument makers, and household servants, and he would take their fields and vineyards--the best of them, and give unto his servants. In a word, to make all slaves; and that in the end, when this should come to pa.s.s, they should cry out because of their king, but the Lord would not hear them, ver. 11-18. All which, as it is palpable in itself, so we have sensibly felt in our experience to be the natural description of tyranny, but more tolerable than any account of ours would amount to. It is both foolishly and falsely alledged by royalists or tyrannists, that here is a grant of uncontroulable absoluteness to kings to tyrannize over the people without resistance, and that this manner of the king is in the original Mishphat, which signifies right or law; so that here was a permissive law given to kings to tyrannize, and to oblige people to pa.s.sive obedience, without any remedy but tears; and therefore it was registered, and laid up before the Lord in a book, 1 Sam. x. 25. But I answer, 1. If any thing be here granted to kings, it is either by G.o.d's approbation, directing and instructing how they should govern; or it is only by permission and providential commission to them, to be a plague to the people for their sin of choosing them, to make them drink as they have brewed, as sometimes he gave a charge to the a.s.syrian rod to trample them down as the mire of the streets: if the first be said, then a king that does not govern after that manner, and so does not make people cry out for their oppression, would come short of his duty, and also behoved to tyrannize and make the people cry out; then a king may take what he will from his subjects, and be approved of G.o.d: this were blasphemy absurd, for G.o.d cannot approve of the sin of oppression. If the second be said, then it cannot be an universal grant, or otherwise all kings must be ordained for plagues; and if so, it were better we wanted such nursing fathers. 2. Though Mishphat signifies right or law, yet it signifies also, and perhaps no less frequently, manner, course, or custom: and here it cannot signify the law of G.o.d, for all these acts of tyranny are contrary to the law of G.o.d; for to make servants of subjects is contrary to the law of G.o.d, Deut. xvii. 20. Forbidding to lift up himself so far above his brethren; but this was to deal with them as a proud Pharaoh; to take so many for chariots and hors.e.m.e.n, is also contrary to the law, Deut. xvii. 15. "He shall not multiply horses;" to take their fields and vineyards is mere robbery, contrary to the moral and judicial law, whereof he was to have always a copy, ver.

18. And contrary to Ezek. xlvi. 18. "The prince shall not take of the peoples inheritance," &c. This would justify Ahab's taking Naboth's vineyard, which yet the Lord accounted robbery, and for which tyrants are called "companions of thieves," Isa. i. 23. and "robbers," Isa.

xlii. 24. into whose hands the Lord sometimes may give his people for a spoil in judicial providence; but never with his approbation and grant of right: to make them cry out, is oppression, which the Lord abhors, Isa. v. 7, 8. And if this be all the remedy, it is none; for it is such a cry, as the Lord threatens he will not hear. 3. It is false, that this manner of the Lord was registred in that book mentioned, 1 Sam. x. 25.

for that was the law of the kingdom, accordingly the copy of which the king was to have for his instruction containing the fundamental laws, point blank contrary to this which was the manner of the king; there is a great difference between the manner of the kingdom, which ought to be observed as law, and the manner of the king, what he would have as l.u.s.t.

Would Samuel write in a book the rules of tyranny, to teach to oppress, contrary to the law of G.o.d? He says himself, he would only teach both king and people "the good and the right way," 1 Sam. xii. 23, 25. 4.

Nothing can be more plain, than that this was a mere dissuasive against seeking; for he protests against this course, and then lays before them what sort of a king he should be, in a description of many acts of tyranny; and yet in the end it is said, 1 Sam. vii. 19. "Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel, and said, Nay, but we will have a king."

Now, what else was the voice of Samuel, than a dissuasion? I am not here levelling this argument against monarchy in the abstract, that does not ly in my road; but I infer from thence, 1. If G.o.d was displeased with this people for asking and owning a king, who was only to become a tyrant and dissuades from the choice, by a description of his future tyranny; then certainly he was displeased with them, when they continued owning, when he was a tyrant indeed, according to that description; but the former is true, therefore also the latter. The consequence is clear: for continuing in sin is sin; but continuing in owning that tyrant, which was their sin at first, was a continuing in sin; therefore----The minor is confirmed thus: continuing is counteracting the motives of G.o.d's dissuasion, especially when they are sensibly visible, is a continuing in sin; but their continuing in owning Saul after he became a tyrant, was a continuing in counteracting the motives of G.o.d's dissuasion, when they were sensibly visible. I do not say, because it was their sin to ask Saul, therefore it was not lawful to own him, while he ruled as a magistrate: and so if Charles II. had ruled righteously, it would not have been sin to own him; but after the Lord uses dissuasives from a choice of such an one, and these are signally verified, if it was to make the choice, then it must be sin to keep it.

2. If it was their sin to seek and set up such an one before he was tyrant, who yet was admitted upon covenant terms, and the manner of it registred; then much more is it a sin to seek and set up one, after he declared himself a tyrant, and to admit him without any terms at all, or for any to consent or give their suffrage to such a deed; but the former is true, therefore the latter: and consequently, to give our consent to the erection of the duke of York, by owning his authority, was our sin.

3. If it be a sin to own the manner of the king there described, then it is a sin to own the pretended authority, which is the exact transumpt of it; but it is a sin to own the manner of the king there described, or else it would never have been used as a dissuasive from seeking such a king. 4. To bring ourselves under such a burden, which the Lord will not remove, and involve ourselves under such a misery, wherein the Lord will not hear us, is certainly a sin, ver. 18. But to own or choose such a king, whose manner is there described, would bring ourselves under such a burden and misery, wherein the Lord would not hear us: therefore it were our sin.

4. We may add the necessary qualifications of magistrates, which the Lord requires to be in all, both superior and inferior: and thence it may be inferred, that such pretended rulers, who neither have nor can have these qualifications, and are not to be owned as ministers, who have no qualifications for such a function. We find their essentially necessary qualifications particularly described. Jethro's counsel was G.o.d's counsel and command; that rulers must be able men such as fear G.o.d, men of truth, hating covetousness, Exod. xviii. 21. Tyrants and usurpers have none, nor can have any of these qualifications, except that they may have ability of force, which is not here meant: but that they be morally able for the discharge of their duty: surely they cannot fear G.o.d, nor be men of truth; for then they would not be tyrants. It is G.o.d's direction, that the man to be advanced and a.s.sumed to rule, must be a man in whom is the spirit, Numb. xxvii. 18. as is said of Joshua; what spirit this was, Deut. x.x.xiv. 9. explains, he was full of the spirit of wisdom, that is, the spirit of government; not the spirit of infernal Jesuitical policy, which tyrants may have, but they cannot have the true regal spirit, but such a spirit as Saul had when he turned tyrant, an evil spirit from the Lord. Moses saith, They must be wise men, and understanding, and known among the tribes, Deut. i. 13. for if they be children or fools, they are plagues and punishments, Isa. iii.

2, 3, 4. &c. not magistrates, who are always blessings. And they must be known men of integrity, not known to be knaves or fools, as all tyrants are always. The law of the king is, Deut. xvii. 15. he must be one of the Lord's chusing. Can tyrants and usurpers be such? No, they are set up, but not by him, Hos. viii. 4. He must be a brother, and not a stranger, that is, of the same nation, and of the same religion: for though infidelity does not make void a magistrate's authority; yet both by the law of G.o.d and man, he ought not to be chosen, who is an enemy to religion and liberty. Now it were almost treason, to call the tyrant a brother; and I am sure it is no reason, for he disdains it, being absolute above all. That good king's testament confirms this, the G.o.d of Israel said, the rock of Israel spake, he that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of G.o.d, 2 Sam. xxiii. 3. But tyrants and usurpers cannot be just: for if they should render every one their right, they would keep none to themselves, but behoved to resign their robberies in the first place, and then also they must give the law its course, and that against themselves. These scriptures indeed do not prove, that all magistrates are in all their administrations so qualified, nor that none ought to be owned, but such as are so qualified in all respects. But as they demonstrate what they ought to be, so they prove, that they cannot be magistrates of G.o.d's ordaining, who have none of these qualifications: but tyrants and usurpers have none of these qualifications. Much more do they prove, that they cannot be owned to be magistrates who are not capable of any of these qualifications: but usurpers are not capable of any or these qualifications. At least they conclude, in so far as they are not so qualified, they ought not to be owned, but disowned; but tyrants and usurpers are not so qualified in any thing: therefore in any thing they are not be owned, but disowned.

For in nothing are they so qualified as the Lord prescribes.

Secondly, I shall offer some reasons from scripture a.s.sertions.

1. It is strongly a.s.serted in Elihu's speech to Job, that he that hateth right should not govern, where he is charging Job with blasphemy, in accusing G.o.d of injustice; of which he vindicates the almighty, in a.s.serting his sovereignty and absolute dominion, which is inconsistent with injustice, and shews both that if he be sovereign, he cannot be unjust: and if he be unjust, he could not be sovereign: which were horrid blasphemy to deny. And in the demonstration of this, he gives one maxim in a question, which is equivalent to an universal negative, Job x.x.xiv. 17, 18. Shall even he that hateth right govern? And wilt thou condemn him that is most just? Is it fit to say to a king, thou art wicked; and to princes ye are unG.o.dly? In which words, the scope makes it clear, that if Job made G.o.d a hater of right, he should then deny his government; and if he took upon him to condemn him of injustice, he should blasphemously deny him to be king of the world. For it is not fit to say to any king, that he is wicked, or so unG.o.dly, as to be a hater of right; for that were treason, lese majesty, and in effect a denying him to be king; much less is it fit to say to him that is King of kings.

Here then it is affirmed, and supposed to hold good of all governors, that he that hateth right should not govern, or bind, as it is in the margin; for Habash signifies both to bind and to govern, but all to one sense; for governors only can bind subjects authoratively, with the bonds of laws and punishments. I know the following words are alledged to favour the uncontroulableness and absoluteness of princes, that it is not fit to say to them, they are wicked. But plain it is, the words do import treason against lawful kings, whom to call haters of right were to call their kings.h.i.+p in question; as the scope shews, in that these words are adduced to justify the sovereignty of G.o.d by his justice, and to confute any indirect charging him with injustice, because that would derogate from his kingly glory, it being impossible he could be king, and unjust too. So in some a.n.a.logy, though every and of injustice do not unking a prince; yet to call him wicked, that is habitually unjust, and a hater of justice, were as much as to say, he is no king, which were intolerable treason against lawful kings. But this is no treason against tyrants; for truth and law can be no treason: now this is the language of truth and law, that wicked kings are wicked; and they that are wicked and unG.o.dly ought to be called so, as Samuel called Saul, and Elijah, Ahab, &c. However it will hold to be a true maxim, whether we express it by way of negation or interrogation.

Shall even he that hateth right govern? But are not tyrants and usurpers haters of right? Shall therefore they govern? I think it must be answered, they should not govern. If then they should not govern, I infer, they should not be owned as governors. For if it be their sin to govern (right or wrong, it is all one case, for they should not govern at all) then it is our sin to own them in their government: for it is always a sin to own a man in his sinning.

The royal prophet, or whoever was the penman of that appeal for justice against tyranny, Psal. xciv. 20. does tacitly a.s.sert the same truth, in that expostulation, shall the throne of iniquity have fellows.h.i.+p with thee, that frameth mischief by a law? Which is as much as if he had said, the throne of iniquity shall not, no, cannot have fellows.h.i.+p with G.o.d; that is, it cannot be the throne of G.o.d that he hath any interest in, or concern with, by way of approbation: he hath nothing to do with it, except it be to suffer it a while, till he take vengeance on it in the end. And shall we have fellows.h.i.+p with that throne, that G.o.d hath no fellows.h.i.+p with, and that is not his throne, but the devil's, as it must be, if G.o.d doth not own it? Much may be argued from hence; but in a word, a throne which is not of G.o.d, nor ordained of G.o.d, but rather of the devil, cannot be owned (for that is the reason of our subjection to any power, because it is of G.o.d, and ordained of G.o.d, Rom. xiii. 1. And that is the great dignity of magistracy, that its throne, is the throne of G.o.d, 1 Chron. xxix. 23.) But a throne of tyranny and usurpation, is a throne which is not of G.o.d, nor ordained of G.o.d, but rather of the devil: Ergo----. The minor is proved: a throne of iniquity, &c. is a throne which is not of G.o.d, nor ordained of G.o.d, but rather of the devil; but a throne of tyranny and usurpation is a throne of iniquity: Ergo, it is not of G.o.d, and so not to be owned.

3. The Lord charges it upon Israel as a transgression of his covenant, and trespa.s.s against his law, that they had set up kings, and not by him, and had made princes and he knew it not, Hos. viii. 4. and then taxes them with idolatry, which ordinarily is the consequent of it, as we have reason to fear will be in our case. He shews there the apostasy of that people, in changing both the ordinances of the magistracy and of the ministry, both of the kingdom and of the priesthood, in which two the safety of that people was founded: so they overturned all the order of G.o.d, and openly declared they would not be governed by the hand of G.o.d, as Calvin upon the place expounds it. Whereas, the Lord had commanded, if they would set up kings, they should set none up but whom he choosed, Deut. xvii. 15. yet they had no regard to this, nor consulted him in their admission of kings, but set them up, and never let him to wit of it, without his knowledge; that is, without consulting him, and without his approbation, for it can have no other sense. I know, it is alledged by several interpreters, that here is meant the tribes secession from the house of David, and their setting up Jeroboam.

I shall confess that the ten tribes did sin in that erection of Jeroboam, without respect to the counsel or command of G.o.d, without waiting on the vocation of G.o.d, as to the times and manner, and without covenanting with him for security for their religion and liberty; but that their secession from David's line, which by no precept or promise of G.o.d they were astricted to, but only conditionally, if his children should walk in the ways of G.o.d, or that their erecting of Jeroboam was materially their sin, I must deny; and a.s.sert, that if Jeroboam had not turned tyrant and apostate from G.o.d (for which they should have rejected him afterwards, and returned to the good kings of David's line) he would have been as lawful a king as any in Judah, for he got the kingdom from the Lord the same way, and upon the same terms that David did, as may be seen expressly in 1 Kings xi. 38. It must be therefore meant, either generally of all tyrants whom they would set up without the Lord's mind, as at first they would have kings on any terms though they should prove tyrants, as we have seen in Saul's case. Or particularly Omri whom they set up, but not by the Lord; 1 Kings xvi. 16. And Ahab his son, and Shallum, Menaham, Pekah, &c. who were all set up by blood and treachery, the same way that our popish duke is now set up, but not by the Lord, that is by his approbation. Hence I argue, those kings that are not owned of G.o.d, nor set up by him, must not be owned by us (for we can own none for kings but those that reign by him, Prov. viii. 15. and are ordained of him, Rom. xiii. 1.) But tyrants and usurpers are not owned of G.o.d as kings, nor are set up by him: Ergo----Again, if it be a sin to set up kings, and not by G.o.d, then it is a sin to own them when set up: for, that is a partaking of, and continuing in the sin of that erection, and hath as much affinity with it, as resetting hath with theft; for if they be the thieves, they are the resetters who receive them and own them.

4. The prophet Habakkuk, in his complaint to G.o.d of the Chaldean tyranny, a.s.serts that G.o.d hath made righteous, as the fishes of the sea, as the creeping things, that have no ruler over them, Habak. i. 14. Now how were they said to be without a ruler, when the Chaldean actually commanded, and absolutely ruled over them? yea, how can the fishes and reptiles have no ruler over them? If domineering be ruling, they want not that; when the weaker are over-mastered by the stronger, and by them made either to be subject, or to become their prey. But the meaning is, these creatures have no ruler over them by order of nature: and the Jews had then no ruler over them by order of law, or ordination from G.o.d, or any that was properly their magistrate by divine inst.i.tution, or human orderly const.i.tution.

We see then it is one thing for a people to have an arbitrary or enthralling tyranny; another to have true magistracy or authority to be owned over them; without which kingdoms are but as mountains of prey, and seas of confusion. Hence I argue, if the Jews having the Chaldean monarch tyrannizing over them, had really no ruler over them, then is a tyrant and usurper not to be owned for a ruler: but the former is true: therefore also the latter.

5. Our Saviour Christ delivers this as a commonly received, and a true maxim, John viii. 54. "He that honoureth himself, his honour is nothing." The Jews had objected that he had only made himself Messias, ver. 53. To whom he answers, by way of concession, if it were so indeed, then his claims were void, if I honour my self, my honour is nothing: and then claims an undubitable t.i.tle to his dignity, It is my father that honoureth me. Here is a twofold honour distinguished, the one real, the other suppositious and null, the one renounced, the other owned by Christ, self-honour, and honour which is from G.o.d. Hence I argue, a selfcreated dignity is not to be owned; the authority of tyrants and usurpers is a self created dignity: Ergo----. This was confirmed above.

Thirdly, I shall offer some other considerations confirming this truth, from those scriptures which I cla.s.s among precepts. And these I find of divers sorts touching this subject.

1. I shew before that the greatest of men, even kings, are not exempted from punishment, if guilty of capital crimes; for where the law distinguisheth not, we ought not to distinguish. There is one special and very peremptory law, given before the law for regulating kings, which, by that posterior law, was neither abrogated nor limited even as to kings, Deut. xiii. 6-9. If thy brother (and a king must be a brother, Deut. xvii. 15.)--entice thee secretly, saying, let us go and serve other G.o.ds--Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him, neither shall thine eye pity him. How famous Mr. Knox improved this argument, is shewed in the third period. That which I take notice of here is only, that kings are not excepted from this law; but if they be open enticers to idolatry, by force or fraud, persecution or toleration, as this idolater now reigning is palpably doing, they are obnoxious to a legal animadversion. As it cannot be supposed, that secret enticers should be liable to punishment, and not open avouchers of a desire and design to pervert all the nation to idolatry: that a private perverter of one man, though never so nearly and dearly related, should be pursued and brought to condign punishment, and a public subverter of whole nations, and introducer of a false and blasphemous idolatrous religion, should escape scot free. Let the punishment inflicted be in a judicial way, and of what measures it pleases the judge to determine, I shall not controvert here; only I plead, that idolatrous tyrants are not excepted from this law: and infer, that if they ought to be punished, they ought to be deposed; and if they ought to be deposed, they cannot be owned, when undeniably guilty of this capital crime, as was urged above.

To this I may add that part of that prophetical king's testament; who, being about to leave the world, under some challenges of maladministration in his own government, (for which he took himself to the well ordered everlasting covenant, for pardon and encouragement,) after he had shewn what rulers should be, he threatens, by ant.i.thesis, tyrannical pretenders, in these severe words, which do also imply a precept, and a direction how to deal with them, 2 Sam. xxiii. 6, 7. "But they of Belial shall be all of them as thorns thrust away, because they cannot be taken with hands, but the man that shall touch them must be fenced with iron, and the staff of a spear, and they shall be utterly burnt with fire in the same place." Let these words be understood as a threatning against all the wicked in general, who are to be quenched as the fire of thorns; or particularly of the promoters of antichrist's kingdom, in opposition to Christ's, as some interpreters judge; it will not weaken, but confirm my argument, if kings who are ringleaders of that gang be not excepted.

I know some do understand this of rebels against righteous rulers: which though indeed it be a truth, that they that are such should be so served, and roughly handled with iron, and the staff of a spear; yet it is not so consonant to the scope and connexion of this place, shewing the characters of righteous rulers, and of usurping tyrants, making an opposition between rulers that are just, ruling in the fear of G.o.d, and those that are rulers of Belial, promising blessing upon the government of the one, and contempt and rejection to the other, and shewing how both should be carried towards: neither does it agree with the words themselves, where the supplement in our translation is redundant; for it is not in the Hebrew. The sons of Belial, only they of Belial, clearly relative to the rulers of whom he was speaking before. And indeed the word Belial, in its etymology is not more applicable to any than to tyrants; for it comes from beli not, and Hhall above, because they will have none above them, or from beli not, and Hhol a yoke, because they cannot suffer a yoke, but cast away the yoke of laws and the yoke of Christ, saying, Let us burst his bands, &c. Nor is it always agreeable to truth, to understand it only of rebels against righteous rulers, that they can never be taken with hands: For as very rarely righteous rulers have any rebels to be the objects of their rigour and rage; so when there are any, discreet and wise rulers will find many ways to take and touch them, and quath or quiet them. But it is always true of tyrants, for they can never be taken with hands, neither in a friendly manner, taken by the hand and transacted within any bargain as other men, for they that would do so, will find them like p.r.i.c.king and jagging briers, which a man cannot handle without hurt to himself: nor can they be any other way repressed or restrained, or touched, but by hands fenced with iron, that is, with the sword of necessity, or axe of justice. And this is insinuated as duty, so to endeavour to extirpate and eradicate such thorns, as pester the commonwealth; but if it cannot be done, it must be duty and wisdom both not to meddle with them, nor own them, no more than Jotham, who would not subject himself, nor come under the shadow of the b.a.s.t.a.r.d bramble. I confess it is commonly taken as a threatning of the Lord's judgment against these sons of Belial: And so it is. But it teacheth also what men are called to, when they have to do with such, to wit, to take the same course with them as they would to clear the ground of thorns and briers. And that it is restricted to the Lord's immediate way of taking them off, is not credible: for, it can have no tolerable sense to say, they shall be thrust away, because they cannot be taken with the Lord's hands: neither is there need, that he should be fenced with iron, &c. And let iron, &c. be taken tropically for the Lord's sword of vengeance; yet how can it be understood, that he must be fenced therewith? or that he will thrust them away, as a man must be fenced against thorns? What defence needs the Lord against tyrants! It is only then intelligible, that the Lord, in his righteous judgment, will make use of men and legal means, and of those who cannot take them with hands, in his judicial procedure against them. Hence I argue, if tyrants are to be dealt with as thorns, that cannot be taken with hands, but to be thrust away by violence, then, when we are not in case to thrust them away, we must let them alone, and not meddle nor make with them, and so must not own them, for we cannot own them without meddling, and without being p.r.i.c.ked to our hurt; but the former is true: therefore,--Of this same nature, another threatning confuting the pretence of the prince's impunity, may be subjoined out of Psal. lx.x.xii. 6, 7. "I have said, ye are G.o.ds, and all of you are children of the most high, but ye shall die like men, and fall as one of the princes." From which words the learned author of the history of the Dougla.s.ses, Mr. David Hume of G.o.dscraft, in his discourse upon Mr. Craig's sermon, upon the words, doth strongly prove, that the scope is to beat off all kings, princes and rulers, from the conceit of impunity for their tyrannical dominations; that they must not think to domineer and do what they list, and overturn the foundations or fundamental laws of kingdoms, because they are G.o.ds; as if they were thereby uncontroulable, and above all law and punishment: no, they must know, that if they be guilty of the same transgressions of the law, as other capital offenders, they shall die like other men, and fall as princes, who have been formerly punished. It is not to be restricted to a threatning of mortality; for that is unavoidable, whether they judge justly or unjustly, and the fear thereof usually hath little efficacy to deter men from crimes punishable by law: neither can it be understood only of the Lord's immediate hand taking them away, exclusive of men's legal punishment; for expressly they are threatned to die like common men, and to be liable to the like punishment with them: now, common men are not only liable to the Lord's immediate judgment, but also to men's punishment. Hence, if tyrants and overturners of the foundations of the earth must be punished as other men, then when they are such, they cannot be looked upon as righteous rulers, for righteous rulers must not be punished; but the former is true: therefore,--According to these scriptures, which either express or imply a precept to have no respect to princes in judgment, when turning criminals, we find examples of the people's punis.h.i.+ng Amaziah, &c.

which is recorded without a challenge, and likewise Athaliah.

2. There is a precept given to a humbled people, that have groaned long under the yoke of tyranny and oppression, enjoining them, as a proof of their sincerity in humiliation, to bestir themselves in shaking off those evils they had procured by their sin, Isa. lviii. 6. "Is not this the fast that I have chosen, to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke?" which are all good works of justice and mercy, and more acceptable to G.o.d, than high flown pretences of humiliation, under a stupid submission, and hanging down the head as a bulrush. We see it then a duty to relieve the oppressed, and to repress tyranny, and break its yoke. If it be objected, (1.) That these are spiritual bonds and yokes, that are here commanded to be loosed and broken; or if any external be meant, they are only the yokes, of their exactions and usuries. For Answ. I grant, that it is the great duty of a people humbling themselves before the Lord, "to break off their sins by righteousness, and their iniquity, by shewing mercy to the poor," Dan.

iv. 27. but that this is the genuine and only sense of this place, cannot be proved, or approved by the scope; which is, to press them to those duties they omitted, whereby the poor oppressed people of G.o.d might be freed from the yokes of them that made them to howl, and to bring them to the conviction of those sins for which the Lord was contending with them, whereof this was one, that they exacted all their labours, or things wherewith others were grieved (as the margin reads) or suffered the poor to be oppressed. (2.) If it be alledged, that this is the duty proper to rulers to relieve the oppressed, &c. I answer, it is so; but not peculiar to them: yet most commonly they are the oppressors themselves, and cast out the poor, which others must take into their houses. But the duty here is pressed upon all the people, whose sins are here cried out against (ver. 1.) upon all who professed the service of G.o.d, and asked the ordinances of justice (ver. 2.) upon all who were fasting and humbling themselves, and complained they had no success (ver 3.) the reasons whereof the Lord discovers (ver. 4, 5.) whereof this was one, that they did not loose those bands, nor break these yokes, nor relieved the oppressed; and those works of justice (ver. 6) are pressed upon the same grounds, that the works of mercy are pressed upon (ver. 7.) sure these are not all, nor only rulers. Hence I argue, if it be a duty to break every yoke of oppression and tyranny, then it is a duty to come out from under their subjection; but the former is true: therefore also the latter.

3. In answer to that grand objection of the Jews subjection to Nebuchadnezzar, I shewed what little weight or force there is in it. And here I shall take an argument from that same pa.s.sage. The Lord commands his people there, to desert and disown Zedekiah, who was the possessor of the government at present, and says, it was the way of life to fall to the Chaldeans, Jer. xxi. 8, 9. which was a falling away from the present king. Either this commanded subjection to the Chaldeans is an universal precept; or it is only particular at that time. If it be universal, obliging people to subject themselves to every conqueror, then it is also universal, obliging people to renounce and disown every covenant-breaking tyrant, as here they were to fall away from Zedekiah: if it be only particular, then the owners of tyranny have no advantage from this pa.s.sage. And I have advantage, so far as the ground of the precept is as moral, as the reason of that punishment of Zedekiah, which was his perfidy and perjury. Hence, if the Lord hath commanded to disown a king breaking covenant, then at least it is not insolent or unprecedented to do so; but here the Lord hath commanded to disown a king: therefore,--

Fourthly, We may have many confirmations of this truth from scripture practices approven.

1. I was but hinting before, how that after the death of that brave captain and judge Gideon, when Abimelech, the son of his wh.o.r.e, did first aspire into a monarchy, which he persuaded the silly Shechemites to consent to, by the same argument, which royalists make so much of, for a.s.serting the necessity of an hereditary monarchy, (whether it is better for you, either that all the sons of Jerubbaal----reign over you, or that one reign over you?) and by b.l.o.o.d.y cruelty did usurp a monarchical or rather tyrannical throne of domination, founded upon the blood of his seventy brethren, (as we know, whose throne is founded upon the blood of all the brethren he had,) Jotham, who escaped, scorned to put his trust under the shadow of such a bramble, and they that did submit, found his parable verified, a mutual fire reciprocally consuming both the usurping king and his traiterous subjects; neither did all the G.o.dly in Israel submit to him. See Pool's Synopsis Critic. on the place, Jud. ix. Here is one express example of disowning a tyrant and usurper.

2. I shewed before, how, after the period of that theocracy, which the Lord had maintained and managed for some time in great mercy and majesty in and over his people, they itching after novelties, and affecting to be neighbour-like, rejected the Lord in desiring a king; and the Lord permitting it, gave them a king in wrath, (the true original and only sanction of tyrannical monarchy,) when the characters of his tyranny, presaged by Samuel, were verified in his aspiring into a great deal of absoluteness especially in his cruel persecuting of David, not only the 600 men that were David's followers stood out in opposition to him, but, in the end, being weary of his government, many brave and valiant men, whom the Spirit of G.o.d commends and describes very honourably, fell off from Saul, even when he was actually tyrannizing, before he was dead, 1 Chron. xii. 1. &c. They came to David to Ziklag, while he yet kept himself close, because of Saul the son of Kish, (N.B. now he is not honoured with the name of king,) they were armed with bows, and could use both the right hand and the left. And of the Gadites, there separated themselves unto David men of might, fit for the battle, that could handle s.h.i.+eld and buckler, whose faces were as the faces of lions, ver. 8. And the Spirit came upon Amasai chief of the captains, saying, thine are we David, and on thy side, thou son of Jesse. Here was a formed revolt from Saul unto David before he was king; for after this he was made king in Hebron, and there could not be two kings at once. Hence I argue, if people may separate themselves from, and take part with the resister, against a tyrant; then they may disown him, (for if they own him still to be the minister of G.o.d, they must not resist him, Rom.

xiii. 2.) But here is an example that many people did separate themselves from Saul, and took part with the resister David: therefore----Here two of the first monarchs of Israel were disowned, Abimelech and Saul.

3. The first hereditary successor was likewise disowned, as was hinted above likewise. The ten tribes offer to covenant with Rehoboam, in terms securing their rights and liberties. They desired nothing on the matter, but that he would engage to rule over them according to the law of G.o.d; to which, when he answered most tyrannically, and avowed he would tyrannize over them, and oppress them more than any of his predecessors, they fell away from, and erected themselves into a new commonwealth, 1.

Kings xii. 16. So when Israel saw that the king hearkened not unto them, they answered, what portion have we in David? Neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse; to your tents, O Israel; now see to thine own house David, 2 Chron. x. 16. Now, however the event of this declared revolt proved sorrowful, when they and their new king made defection unto idolatry, yet if they had stated and managed it right, the cause was good, justifiable, and commendable. For, (1.) We find nothing in all the text condemning this. (2.) On the contrary, it is expressly said, the cause was from the Lord, that he might perform his saying, which he spake by Ahijah, 1 Kings xii. 15. 2 Chron. x. 15. And (3.) When Rehoboam was preparing to pursue his pretended right, he was reproved and discharged by Shemaiah, ye shall not go up, nor fight against your brethren, for this thing is from me, 1 Kings xii. 24. 2 Chron. xi. 4. (4.) Whereas it is alledged by some, that this was of G.o.d only by his providence, and not by his ordinance; the contrary will appear, if we consider how formally and covenant-wise the Lord gave ten tribes to Jeroboam, 1. Kings xi. 35, 37, 38. "I will take the kingdom out of his son's hand, and I will give it unto thee, even ten tribes; and I will take thee, and thou shalt reign according to all that thy soul desireth, and shalt be king over Israel; and it shall be, if thou wilt hearken unto all that I command thee, and wilt walk in my ways, and do that which is right in my sight, to keep my statutes and commandments, as David my servant did, that I will be with thee, and build thee a sure house, as I built for David, and will give Israel unto thee."

Where we see the kingdom was given unto him on the same terms and conditions, that it was given to David. He may indeed give kingdoms to whom he will, by providential grant, as unto Nebuchadnezzar, and others; but he never gave them a kingdom upon these conditions, and, by way of covenant, that does always imply and import his word, warrant, and ordinance. (5.) If we consider the cause of the revolt, we will find it very just: for after the decease of the former king, they enter upon terms of a compact with the successor, upon a suspensive condition, to engage into fealty and allegiance to him as subjects, if he would give them security for their liberties and privileges. A very lawful, laudable and necessary transaction, founded upon moral equity, and upon the fundamental const.i.tutions of that government, and suitable to the constant practice of their predecessors, in their covenanting with Saul and David. As for that word, 1 Kings xii. 19. So Israel rebelled against the house of David: it is no more than in the margin, they fell away or revolted; and no more to be condemned than Hezekiah's rebellion, 2 Kings xviii. 7. The Lord was with him, and he rebelled against the king of a.s.syria. That was a good rebellion. Hence if it be lawful for a part of the people to shake off the king, refuse subjection to him, and set up a new king of their own, when he resolveth to play the tyrant, and rule them after his own absolute power; then it is a duty, when he actually plays the tyrant, and by his absolute power overturns laws and religion, and claims by law such a prerogative; but the former is true: Ergo----See Jus populi vindic. chap. 3. page 52.

4. This same Jeroboam, when he turned tyrant and idolater, was revolted from and deserted by the priests and the levites, and after them out of all the tribes of Israel, by all such as set their heart to seek the Lord G.o.d of Israel; because that king, degenerating into tyranny and idolatry, had put them from the exercise of their office and religion (as our Charles did,) and ordained him priests for the devils, and for the calves: so they returned to Rehoboam, being induced by his administration of the government, which for a time was better than he promised, for three years he walked in the ways of David and Solomon, 2 Chron. xi. 13,--17. Hence I argue, if idolatrous tyrants may be deserted, then they may be disowned abroad, it is the same duty at home, though may be not the same policy or prudence.

5. Another example of the like nature we have in the reign of Baasha, who succeeded to Nadab, Jeroboam's son, whom he slew, and reigned in his stead, (the same way that the duke came to the throne) for he could not keep his subjects within his kingdom, but behoved to build Ramah, that he might not suffer any to go out or come in to Asa, king of Judah, a good prince, 1 Kings xv. 17. yet that could not hinder them, but many strangers out of Ephraim, and Mana.s.seh, and Simeon, fell to him in abundance, when they saw that the Lord his G.o.d was with him, 2 Chron.

xv. 9. Hence, if people may choose another king, when they see the Lord is with him, then they may disown their country king, when they see the devil is with him.

9. When Jeroboam, the son of Ahab, reigned over Israel, we have an express example of Elisha's disowning him, 2 Kings iii. 14, 15. And Elisha said unto the king of Israel, what have I to do with thee?----As the Lord of hosts liveth, before whom I stand, surely were it not that I regard the presence of Jehoshaphat the king of Judah, I would not look towards thee, nor see thee. Here he declares so much contempt of him, and so little regard, that he disdains him a look.

And if he would not regard him, nor give him honour, then he did not own him as king; for all kings are to be honoured, that are owned to be kings really. It may be alledged by some, that Elisha was an extraordinary man, and this was an extraordinary action, and therefore not imitable. I shall grant it so far extraordinary, that it is not usual to carry so to persons of that figure, and that indeed there are few Elishas now, not only for his prophetic spirit which now is ceased, but even in respect of his gracious spirit of zeal, which in a great measure is now extinguished: he was indeed an extraordinary man, and this action did demonstrate much of the spirit of Elias to have been abiding with him. But that this was was inimitable, these reasons induce me to deny, (1.) Prophets were subjects to kings, as well as others, as Nathan was to David (1 Kings i 32, 33.) every soul must be subject to the higher powers that are of G.o.d. (2.) All the actions of prophets were not extraordinary, nor did they every thing by extraordinary inspiration; that was peculiar to Christ, that he could prophesy, and do extraordinary acts when he pleased, because he received the spirit not by measure, and it rested upon him. (3.) This particular action and carriage was before he called for the minstrel, and before the hand of the Lord came upon him, ver. 15. Ergo, this was not by inspiration. (4.) The ground of this was moral and ordinary, for hereby he only shewed himself to be a person fit to abide in the Lord's tabernacle, and an upright walker, in whose eyes a vile person is contemned, Psal. xv. 4. And a just man, to whom the unjust is an abomination, Prov. xxix. 29. What further can be alledged against this instance, I see not. And I need draw no argument by consequence, it is so plain.

7. This same Jehoram, after many signal demonstrations of the power of G.o.d exerted in the ministry of his servant Elisha, which sometimes did extort his acknowledgement, and made him call the prophet his father, 2 Kings vi. 21. yet, when in the strait siege of Samaria, he was plagued with famine for his idolatry, insomuch that the pitiful mothers were made to eat their own tender children; became so insolent a tyrant, that being incensed into a madness of outragious malice against the prophet Elisha, that he sware, G.o.d do so to him, and more also, if the head of Elisha, the son of Shaphat, should stand on him that day, accordingly he sent a messenger to execute it. But the prophet, from a principle of nature, and reason, and law, as well as grace, and by the spirit of a man as well as of a prophet, stood upon his defence and encouraged those that were with him to keep out the house against him, saying, see ye how this son of a murderer (a proper stile for such a monster of a king) hath sent to take away mine head--2 Kings vi. 32. This is a strong argument for self defence; but I improve it thus; if tyrants may be opposed as sons of murderers, and murderers themselves, and no otherwise to be accounted than under such a vile character, then can they not be owned as kings; but here is an example for the first: Ergo.--

8. This man's brother in law, of the same name, Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat, who had the daughter of Ahab to wife, and therefore walked in the way of the house of Ahab, gives us another instance. He turned apostate and tyrant, and Abimelech-like (or if you will, York-like) slew his brethren, and divers also of the princes of Israel; moreover he made high places in the mountains of Judah and caused the inhabitants of Jerusalem to commit fornication, and compelled Judah thereto: for which cause of his intolerable insolency in wickedness, Libnah one of the cities of priests in Judah, revolted from him, 2 Kings viii. 22. because he had forsaken the Lord G.o.d of his fathers, 2 Chron. xxi. 10. which was the motive and impulsive cause of their disowning him, and is not to be detorted to that restricted cavil of royalists, understanding it only as the meritorious or procuring cause of his punishment, and loss sustained thereby; for it is not said of the Edomites, who revolted at the same time, as it is mentioned in another paragraph; neither of the Philistines and Arabians, and Ethiopians, whose spirit the Lord stirred up against him; these were also a punishment to him: nor would it sound very suitably to be said, that they opposed him, because he had forsaken the Lord G.o.d of his fathers: for that would insinuate some influence that his apostasy had on them, as certainly it could not but have on the Lord's priests that dwelt in Libnah, who understood by the law of G.o.d, what was their duty to do with enticers, or drawers or drivers to idolatry: and when they were not in capacity to execute the judgment of the Lord, this was the least they could, to revolt. Here then is an example of a peoples revolt from a prince, and disowning allegiance to him, because of apostasy and tyranny.

9. In this kingdom of Judah, after long experience of a succession of hereditary tyranny in many wicked kings, the people, after they had long smarted for their lazy loyalty, in their stupid abandoning, forgetting and foregoing this privilege of disowning tyrants, and keeping them in order, began at length to bestir themselves in their endeavours to recover their lost liberties, and repress tyrants insolencies on several occasions; wherein, though sometimes were extravagancies, when circ.u.mstances did mar the justice of the action, and some did go beyond their sphere in tumultuary precipitations; yet, upon the matter, it was justice, and in conformity to a moral command. One impregnable witness of this we have, in the pious plot of Jehoiada the priest, who being but a subject, as all priests were (as the deposition of Abiathar by king Solomon, 1 Kings ii. 27. proveth) entered into an a.s.sociation with the inferior rulers, to choose and make a new king: and notwithstanding that the idolatress and the tyrant Athaliah, who had the possession of the government, cried treason, treason at the fact, they had her forth without the ranges, and slew her, 2 Kings xi. 14, 16. This was according to the law, Deut. xiii. and approven by all interpreters, even Mr. Pool in his Synopsis Critic. though otherwise superlatively loyal, yet approves of this, and says, she was an incurable idolatress, and therefore deserved to be deposed by the n.o.bles of the kingdom, and quotes Grotius in loc. saying (she reigned by mere force; for the Hebrews were to have brethren for their kings, but not sisters, Deut.

xvii. 15.) Hence if tyrants may be forcibly repressed, then may they peaceably be disowned; but this example confirms that: therefore----

10. The sacred history proceeds in the relation, how this same Joash the son of Ahaziah, after he degenerated into murdering tyranny, was slain by Jozachar and Jehozabad, 2 Kings xii. 20, 21. but that was by his own servants in private a.s.sa.s.sination: therefore they are called murderers by Amaziah his son, 2 Kings xiv. 5, 6. but upon the matter it was the justice of G.o.d, which he deserved (if it had been duly execute) for the blood of the son of Jehoiada the priest, 2 Chron. xxiv. 25. So Amon the son of Manesseh, for his walking in the way of his father in idolatry and tyranny, and forsaking the Lord G.o.d of his fathers, was slain in his own house by his servants, who conspired against him; but though this was justice also upon the matter and consonant to the command for punis.h.i.+ng idolaters and murderers, yet because defective in the manner, and done by them that took too much upon them in a perfidious way of private a.s.sa.s.sination and conspiracy, therefore the people of the land punished them for it, 2 Kings xxi. 23, 24. But the repressing and punis.h.i.+ng of Amaziah is a more unexceptionable instance.

The people made a conspiracy against him in Jerusalem, and he fled to Lachish; but they sent after him to Lachish, and slew him there, 2 Kings xiv. 19. after the time that he turned away from following the Lord, 2 Chron. xxv. 27. which was according to the command, Deut. xiii. which hath no exception of kings in it. This action was not questioned either by the people or his successor, as the forementioned conspiracies were.

His son Uzziah succeeding, who did right, and consulted the Lord (2.

Chron. xxvi. 4, 5.) did not resent nor revenge his father's death; which certainly he would have done, by advice of Zechariah, who had understanding in the visions of G.o.d, if it had been a transgression. The famous and faithful Mr. Knox doth clear this pa.s.sage beyond contradiction in his conference with Lethington. Hence I take an argument a fortiori, if people may conspire and concur in executing judgment upon their king turning idolater and tyrant, then much more may they revolt from him; but this example clears the antecedent: therefore.

11. The fame power and privilege of people's punis.h.i.+ng their princes, was exemplified in the successor of him last mentioned, to wit, in Uzziah the son of Amaziah, called Azariah, 2 Kings xv. when he degenerated into the ambition of arrogating a supremacy in causes ecclesiastic and sacred, as well as civil, his heart was lifted up to his destruction, for he transgressed against the Lord his G.o.d, and went into the temple of the Lord to burn incense. In which usurpation he was resisted by Azariah the priest, and with him fourscore priests of the Lord, that were valiant men, who withstood him, and told him, it did not appertain to him to take upon him so much, and bade him go out of the sanctuary, or else it should not be for his honour. Which indeed he stomached at as an affront, to be controuled and resisted; but in thinking to resent it, he was plagued of the Lord with leprosy; which the priests looking upon, they thrust him out from thence: and thereafter sequestred him from all supremacy, both that which he had before in things civil, and that which he was affecting in matters sacred; for he was made to dwell in a several house, being a leper, (the law including, and here execute upon, the king as well as the beggar) and to resign the government into his son Jotham's hands, 2 Chron. xxvi.

16,--21. where it appears, he was not only excommunicated by a ceremonial punishment, but also deposed judicially. Whether he voluntarily demitted or not, it is to no purpose to contend; 'tis evident, that by the law of G.o.d, the actual exercise of his power was removed, whether with his will or against it, it is all one; and that he was punished both by G.o.d and by men is undeniable. Yea, in this, his punishment was very gentle, and far short of the severity of the law: for by the law he should have been put to death, for intermeddling with these holy things, interdicted to all but to the priests, under pain of death, Numb. iii. 10. Numb. xviii. 7. The stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death. All were strangers that were not priests. Whence I argue, if a prince, for his usurpation beyond his line in things sacred, may by the priests be excommunicated, and by the people deposed; then may a prince, not only usurping a supremacy (as Charles did) but an absolute power of overturning all things, sacred and civil (as James doth) and oppressing his subjects in all their liberties, be disowned, a fortiori, for that is less than deposing or dethroning; but this example clears the antecedent; therefore----. See Knox's discourse to Lethington. Lex Rex, quest. 44. sect. 15, p. 461. Jus popul. chap. 3. p.

56.

12. What if I should adduce the example of a king's rebellion against, and revolt from a superior king, to whom he and his fathers both acknowledged themselves subject? Surely our royalists and loyalists would not condemn this; and yet in justifying it, they should condemn their beloved principle of uncontrouled subjection to uncontroulable sovereigns possessing the government. Ahaz became servant to the a.s.syrian monarch, 2 Kings xvi. 7. yet Hezekiah his son, when the Lord was with him, and he prospered--rebelled against the king of a.s.syria, and he served him not, 2 Kings xviii. 7. Hezekiah was indeed a king; but he was not Sennacherib's king; he acknowledges himself his va.s.sal, and that he offended in disowning him, ver. 14. which certainly was his sin against the Lord, to make such an acknowledgment: for if his father's transaction with the a.s.syrian was sin, then it was duty to break the yoke; if the Lord was with him in that rebellion, then it was sin to acknowledge it to be his offence: and to make good this acknowledgment, it was certainly his sin to commit sacrilege, in robbing the house of G.o.d, to satisfy that tyrant. By way supplement, I shall add that instance of repressing a mad and furious tyrant, which all will acknowledge to be lawful. Nebuchadnezzar was both stricken of G.o.d with madness, and for that was depelled from the kingdom, according to the heavenly oracle, The kingdom is departed from thee, and they shall drive thee from men, Dan. iv. 31, 33. Calvin says upon the place, he was ejected, as usually is done to tyrants, by the combination of the n.o.bles and people, Pool's synopsis critic. in loc.u.m. Thus he was unkinged for a time, both by the just judgment of G.o.d, and by the intermediation of the just judgment of men; and could not be owned to be king at that time, when his nails were as birds claws, and he could not tell his own fingers: they could not own him to be the governor then of so many kingdoms, when he could not govern himself. Hence, though this is an instance of heathens, yet, because they acted upon a rational ground, it may be argued, If kings, because natural madness, when they cannot govern themselves, may not be owned; then also, because of moral madness, when they will not govern but to the destruction of kingdoms, may not be owned, but the former is true: therefore also the latter. The same reason against the government of a.s.ses, will also militate against the government of tygers, the first is more eligible than the last.

Fifthly, This may be confirmed from several promises in scripture.

1. There are many gracious and precious promises of reformation of the magistracy, and rest.i.tution of good rulers, as a great blessing from G.o.d to mankind, and to the church, Isa. i. 26. 'I will restore thy judges as at the first, and thy counsellors as at the beginning, afterward thou shalt be called the city of righteousness.' If judges must first be restored before the city can be a city of righteousness, then they must be restored before we can own the government thereof: for that government, under which it cannot be a city of righteousness, cannot be owned, since it is no government, but a rebellion and combination of thieves, see ver. 33. I do not here restrict the promise, as it is a prophecy, to its exact fulfilment, as if no government were to be owned but what answers this promise, of the rest.i.tution of the primitive order of magistrates; but I plead, that when the princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves, the government is not to be owned, till judges be so far restored, as to reduce righteousness in some measure, which cannot be under tyranny.

And in the general I may plead, that none is to be owned as a magistrate, but who some way is found in a promise; for there is no ordinance of G.o.d, no duty, no blessing, no good thing, either to be done or enjoyed, but what is in a promise; but tyranny, or owning of tyrants, or subjection to usurpers, is not, nor cannot be in a promise. We have many other promises about magistrates, as, that the Lord will be for a spirit of judgment to him that sitteth in judgment, Isa. xxviii. 6. A tyrant cannot be capable of this happiness, nor we under tyranny, nor any while they own them. Kings shall be the church's nursing fathers, and their queens her nursing mothers, Isa. xlix. 23. Kings are not always so, but all kings to be owned are such as can be so, at least they are never to be owned when they turn destroyers of what they should nourish; but tyrants can never be nourishers. It is promised to the Lord's people, if they will hearken diligently unto the Lord, and keep the sabbath, then shall there enter into their gates kings and princes, Jer. xxiii. 3, 4. But it is never promised, neither doth it come to pa.s.s in providence, that these duties procured tyrants.