Chapter XXII: Part III: The Present testimony stated and vindicated in its principal heads (11)

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 title 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 God. 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 class 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 gods--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 antithesis, 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 God, 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 pricking 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 bastard 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 pricked 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. lxxxii. 6, 7. "I have said, ye are gods, 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 Douglasses, Mr. David Hume of Godscraft, 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 gods; 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 punishing 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 God, 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 God 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 God, 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 passage. 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 passage. 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 whore, 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 asserting 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 bloody 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 godly 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 God 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 shield 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 God, 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 God; 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 God 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 constitutions 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 Assyria. 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 God 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 Manasseh, and Simeon, fell to him in abundance, when they saw that the Lord his God 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 God. (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 God 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, God 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 God 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 God 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 God, 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 circumstances 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 association 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 nobles 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 assassination: therefore they are called murderers by Amaziah his son, 2 Kings xiv. 5, 6. but upon the matter it was the justice of God, 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 God 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 punishing 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 assassination and conspiracy, therefore the people of the land punished them for it, 2 Kings xxi. 23, 24. But the repressing and punishing 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 God, if it had been a transgression. The famous and faithful Mr. Knox doth clear this passage 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 punishing 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 God, 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 God, 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 God 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 Assyrian monarch, 2 Kings xvi. 7. yet Hezekiah his son, when the Lord was with him, and he prospered--rebelled against the king of Assyria, 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 vassal, 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 Assyrian 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 God, 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 God 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 nobles and people, Pool's synopsis critic. in locum. Thus he was unkinged for a time, both by the just judgment of God, 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 asses, 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 restitution of good rulers, as a great blessing from God 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 restitution 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 God, 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 pass in providence, that these duties procured tyrants.

There are many other promises to the same purpose: from whence may be concluded, the Lord will not always leave his people to howl under uneluctable tyranny, but will accomplish their deliverance in his own time and way, though we are not to look to miracles. Whence I argue, 1. Since all the ordinances of God, and rulers in a special manner, are appointed and promised as blessings, these cannot be owned for his ordinance, which are not blessings, but curses. 2. That which would vacate and evacuate all the promises of magistracy, cannot be a doctrine of God; but this that obliges to own tyrants and usurpers, as long as they are up, would vacate and evacuate all the promises of magistracy: for except the Lord work miracles, (which are not in the promise) and do all without means, they cannot be accomplished. For if any means be used, they must be such as will infer disowning of tyrants; for magistrates cannot be restored, except tyrants be removed; and whatever way they be removed without miracles, by others or their own subjects, they must still be disowned, and that before they be removed: for if they be to be owned before their removal, if they exist, cannot make them to be disowned: dispossession cannot take away their right, if they have it before.

2. There are many promises of breaking the yoke of tyrants, Isa. x. 27. "His burden shall be taken away from off thy shoulder, and his yoke from off thy neck." And in that promise of the church's deliverance and enlargement, wherein they are prophetically urged and stirred up to some activity in co-operating with the providence, Isa. lii. 1, 2. "They are called to awake, and put on strength and their beautiful garments--and to shake themselves from the dust--and to rise and to loose themselves from the bands of their neck," that were captives. Here is not only a promise of deliverance or a ground of encouragement what the church may expect, but a promise of, and direction for their being active in delivering themselves, as men, from the encroachments that were made on their human liberties, that they should loose themselves from these bands. Whose bands? from their bands that ruled over them, and made them to howl, and the Lord's name to be blasphemed, (ver. 5) Here is a promise of breaking the bands of rulers, by them who howled under their subjection. And it also includes a precept, that people should not stay any longer under these yokes, than they can shake them off, or slip from under them. Hence we see we are not to ly stupidly sleeping, or sinking in the ditch, expecting the accomplishment of the promise of deliverance; but are to endeavour actively, in dependence upon the Lord's assistance, to deliver ourselves. Hence we may argue, 1. A promise by way of command, that a people under bands of oppressing rulers shall rouse themselves up to loose themselves from them, implies and infers a promise and a duty of disowning those rulers (for otherwise they cannot be loosed from their subjection.) But here is a promise by way of command, that a people under bands of oppressing rulers shall rouse themselves up to loose themselves from them: Ergo----2. If the removal of tyranny and usurpation be promised as a blessing, then those can never be owned to be the ordinance of God; for the removal of that can never be a blessing; but in these promises we see the removal of those is promised as a blessing: therefore they can never be owned.

Sixthly, To the same purpose we may cite some threatnings, that will confirm the same truth.

1. There are many threatnings against tyrants themselves. There are two mentioned, Jer. xxii. that seem partly to quadrate, and near of a piece with our misrulers; both because of the demerit of the threatning, and the likeness of the judgment threatned. The ground of it was "building their house by unrighteousness, and their chambers by wrong," ver. 13. And severally threatned: "Jehoiakim with the burial of an ass unlamented," ver. 18, 19. Coniah with a life without prosperity, and a death without issue to succeed, ver. 30. The first of these is verified in the elder of our royal brothers, the last is like to be of both. But that which I take notice of is, first, the demerit, building their house by unrighteousness, on which Whitehall is built with a witness: and particularly it is noted of Jehoiakim, as his crimson sin (to which his son Jehoiachin or Coniah served himself heir) that he burnt Jeremiah's roll, or causes of wrath; so did our dominators burn the causes of wrath (a book written by the commission of the general assembly) and the covenants. Then I note these words, ver. 15. "Shalt thou reign because thou closest thyself in cedar, &c." It is certainly not fit for us to say, He shall reign, of whom the Lord says, He shall not reign; but when we own the authority of those whom the Lord threatens they shall not reign, we say, they shall reign; for we say, they have a right to reign, and own ourselves obliged to do all that is required in our capacity to perpetuate their reign. There is a terrible threatning against Zedekiah, Ezek xx. 25,--27. "Thou profane," or as some translate it, "thou worthy to be killed," (Pool. synops. crit. in locum.) "wicked prince of Israel--Thus saith the Lord God, remove the diadem, take off the crown, this shall not be the same, exalt him that is low, and abase him that is high; I will overturn, overturn, overturn it, and it shall be no more until he come whose right it is, and I will give it him." Than which nothing can be more applicable to our princes, who are profane, and the patterns and patrons of it, whose diadem the Lord will remove; and if he threaten it, wo to them that contribute to hold it on. We see here a profane and wicked prince threatned to be overturned must not be owned, because he hath no right; but our excommunicate tyrant is a profane and wicked prince, threatned to be overturned: Ergo--There is another dreadful threatning against tyrants, Amos iv. 1, 2. "Hear this word ye kine of Bashan, which oppress the poor, which crush the needy--The Lord God hath sworn by his holiness, that lo the days shall come upon you, that he will take you away with hooks, and your posterity with fishhooks." Shall we own these, against whom the Lord hath engaged his holiness by oath so solemnly, that he will fish them with hooks? we may fear if there be such a tie as allegiance between them and us, that that same hook which fishes them may also catch us; as it is said of Pharaoh and his subjects, when he is hooked, then his fish stick unto his scales, and he and they are left in the wilderness, Ezek. xxix. 4, 5. that is, as Grotius expounds it, whoever are of his community shall be consorts in his calamity, Pool. Critic. in locum. If we then own them, we must be of their community, and so partake of their judgments.

2. There are many threatnings against illimited loyalty, and those who had more of that than religion: for this Ephraim was broken in judgment, because he walked willingly after the commandment, Hos. v. 11. And because the statutes of Omri were kept, and the works of the house of Ahab, therefore the Lord threatens to make them a desolation, Mic. vi. ult. And among other threatnings against the men of such universal loyalty, that is notable, Hos. x. 3. "Now ye shall say, we have no king, because we feared not the Lord, what then should a king do to us?" It is the just punishment of wicked loyalty, that prefers the fear and favour of kings to the fear and favour of God, that at length they are brought to that pass, that either they have no kings at all to look to, or else they have such of whom it may be said, they are no kings in effect; for they cannot act the part of kings to them that trust in them. Hence, 1. If to have really no kings be a punishment. 2. If those that have the name of kings, that can do no good, be no kings; then tyrants that can do no good, but a great deal of hurt, must be reckoned no kings also; but here it is threatned, people that had kings, that had the name, but could do no good, should reckon they had no kings: therefore much more may tyrants be reckoned to be no kings, who can do no good, but a great deal of hurt.

Seventhly, This truth is confirmed from scripture-prayers; whereof there are many against tyrants, none for them. Hence we argue, If we are not to pray for tyrants, then we are not to own them; for we are to pray for all that are in authority, 1 Tim. ii. 2. But we are not to pray for tyrants; Ergo, we are not to own them. The minor now must be proved. And this leads me to another subordinate question, which hath also been a head of suffering to some serious seekers of God in our land of late.

The profane emissaries of this and the late tyrant, sent out with bloody commissions to hunt after the Lord's hidden ones, in order to murder all whom they might meet with, that made conscience of adhering to every part of the present testimony; among other trapping questions to discover their prey, they used to put this to them as a discriminating Shibboleth, and tessera of owning the present tyranny, will you say, God save the king? and for refusing this, many have been cruelly murdered in the fields; and many before their bloody judicatories, have for this been arraigned and condemned, and executed to the death. Wherefore to this somewhat must be said, 1. By way of concession. 2. By way of vindication, of scrupling it, and suffering upon it.