A Hind Let Loose / Or, An Historical Representation of the Testimonies of the Church of Scotland for the Interest of Christ. With the True State Thereof in All Its Periods

by Alexander Shields

First, I shall offer some arguments deduced by way of immediate inference, from the grounds laid before us in scripture about government: wherein I shall confine my self to these particulars.

1. Let us consider the characters of a magistrate, laid down in scripture; and we may infer, if tyrants and usurpers are not capable of these characters, then they cannot be owned for magistrates. For if they be not magistrates, they cannot be owned as magistrates; but if they be not capable of the characters of magistrates, they are not magistrates: Ergo, if they be not capable of the characters of magistrates, they cannot be owned as magistrates. To find out the characters of magistrates, we need seek no further than that full place, Rom. xiii. Which usually is made a magazine of objections against this truth; but I trust to find store of arguments for it from thence, not repeating many that have been already deduced therefrom. We find, in this place, many characters of a magistrate, that are all incompatible with a tyrant or usurper. 1. He is the higher power, verse 1. Authorities supereminent, signifying such a pre-excellency as draweth towards it a recognition of honour; but this is not competent to tyrants and usurpers; for they are the vilest of men, let them be never so high exalted, Psal. xii. last verse, and if they be vile then they are to be contemned, Psal. xv. 4. and no more to be regarded than Herod was by Christ, when he called him a fox, Luke xiii. 32. But more particularly, let us consider what is the highness, or dignity of magistrates, set forth in scripture. They are stiled gods, not to be reviled, Exod. xxii. 28. among whom God judgeth, Psal. lxxxii. 1. so called, because the word of God came unto them, John x. 35. But tyrants are rather devils, as one of them is called Lucifer, Isa. xiv. 12. and they that persecute and imprison the people of God, because actuated by the devil, and acting for him, do bear his name, Rev. ii. 10. They are devils that cast the Lord's witnesses into prison. The magistrate's judgment is God's judgment, Deut. i. 17. because it is not for man, but for the Lord, 2 Chron. xix. 6. and therefore Solomon is said to have sat on the throne of the Lord, 1 Chron. xxix. 23. But it were blasphemy to say, That tyrants judgment, usurping the place without his warrant, and giving forth judgment against his laws, and cause, and people, is the Lord's judgment, or for him, or that they sit on the throne of the Lord. A throne of iniquity is not the throne of the Lord, for he hath no fellowship with it; the tyrant's throne is a throne of iniquity, Psal. xciv. 20. Magistrates are truly to be subjected to and obeyed, as principalities and powers, Tit. iii. 1. it is a sin to speak evil of them, verse 2. for it is presumption to despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities, 2 Pet. ii. 10. Jude 8. But tyrants are very catechrestically and abusively principalities and powers, no otherwise then the devils are so termed, Eph. vi. 12. and there is no argument to own or obey the one more than the other: for if all principalities and powers are to be subjected to and owned, then also the devil must, who gets the same title. To speak truth of tyrants indignities, cannot be a speaking evil of dignities; for truth is no evil, nor is tyranny a dignity. Hence they that are not capable of the dignity of rulers, as these places prove: Ergo——Against this it is objected. That Paul did apply this character to the tyrannical high priest Ananias, whom, after he had objurated for manifest injustice, he honours with that apology, that he wist not that he was the high priest, for it is written, thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people, Acts xxiii. 5. Ans. Though all should be granted that is in this objection, yet our argument would not be enervated: for grant we should not speak evil of tyrants, that does not evince that we should hold them us rulers; for we should bless our persecutors, Rom. x. 14. and speak evil of no man, Tit. iii. 2. that does not say, We should hold every man, or our persecutors, to be rulers. The meaning must be, he knew not that he was the high-priest; that is, he did not acknowledge him to be either high priest or ruler, he could acknowledge or observe nothing like one of that character in him: for as the high-priest's office was now null and ceased, so this Ananias was only an usurper of the office, in place of Ismael and Joseph, who had purchased it by money: and Paul had learned from his master Gamaliel, Tit. Talmud. of the Sanhedrim. That a judge who hath given money for purchasing this honour, is neither a judge, nor to be honoured as such, but to be held in place of an ass. And it was common among the Jews to say, If such be gods, they are silver gods, not to be honoured, as is quoted by Pool's synopsis criticorum, &c. on the same place. And that this must be the sense of it is plain; for he could not be ignorant that he was there in place of a judge, being called before him, and smitten by him authoritatively, whom therefore he did threaten with the judgment of God; it were wicked to think, that he would retract that threatning which he pronounced by the Spirit of God. And therefore this place confirms my thesis: if a tyrannical judge, acting contrary to law, is not to be known or acknowledged to be a ruler, but upbraided as a whited wall; then a tyrant is not to be known or acknowledged as such; but the former is true, from this place: therefore also the latter. Paul knew well enough he was a judge, and knew well enough what was his duty to a judge, that he should not be reviled; but he would not acknowledge this priest to be a judge, or retract his threatning against him.

2. He is of God, and ordained of God; I proved before, tyrants are not capable of this; yea, it were blasphemy to say, They are authorized, or ordained of God, by his preceptive will. Hence, take only this argument. All rulers that we must own are ordained of God, do reign, and are set up by God, Prov. viii, 15. (for that and this place are parallel) but tyrants do not reign, nor are set up by God, Hos. viii. 4. They are set up (saith the Lord) but not by me: Ergo, we cannot own them to be ordained of God. 3. Whosoever resisteth this power ordained of God, resisteth the ordinance of God, and they that resist, shall receive to themselves damnation, verse 2. This cannot be owned of a tyrant, that it is a damnable sin to resist him, for it is duty to resist, and also repress him, as is proven already, and shall be afterwards. Hence, whatsoever authority we own subjection to, we must not resist it; but we cannot own that we must not resist this authority: therefore we cannot own it at all. Again, That cannot be the power not to be resisted, which is acquired and improved by resisting the ordinance or God; but the power of usurpers and tyrants is acquired and improved by resisting the ordinance of God: Ergo, their power cannot be the power not to be resisted. The major is manifest; for when the apostle says, The resisting of the power brings damnation to the resister, certainly that resistance cannot purchase dominion instead of damnation: and if he that resists in a lesser degree, be under the doom of damnation; then certainly he that does it in a greater degree, so as to complete it, in putting himself in place of that power which he resisted, cannot be free. The minor is also undeniable; for, if usurpers acquire their power without resistance forcible and sensible, it is because they that defend the power invaded, are wanting in their duty; but however morally the tyrant or usurper is always, or in contrary order to a lawful power. 4. Rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil, and they that do that which is good, shall have praise of the same, verse 3. This is the character and duty of righteous magistrates, though it be not always their administration; but an usurper and tyrant is not capable or susceptible of this character; but, on the contrary, is, and must be a terror to good works, and a praise to the evil: for he must be a terror to them that would secure their rights and liberties in opposition to his encroachments, which is a good work; and he must be a tutor, patron, and protector of such, as encourage and maintain him in his usurpation and tyranny, which is an evil work: and if he were a terror to the evil, then he would be a terror to himself and all his accomplices, which he cannot be. Therefore, that power which is not capable of the duties of magistrates, cannot be owned; but the power of tyrants and usurpers is such: Ergo—We find in scripture the best commentary on this character, where the duties of a magistrate are described; they must justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked, Deut. xxvii. 1. They must, as Job did, deliver the poor that cry, and put on righteousness as a clothing,——and be eyes to the blind, and feet to the lame, and a father to the poor——and break the jaws of the wicked, Job xxix. 12, 17. Their throne must be established by righteousness, Prov. xvi. 12. A king sitting on the throne of judgment must scatter away all evil with his eyes——then mercy and truth will preserve him, and his throne is upholden by mercy, Prov. xx. 8, 28. But tyrants have a quite contrary character; the throne of iniquity frames mischief by a law, and condemns the innocent blood, Psal. xciv. 20, 21. They judge not the fatherless, neither doth the cause of the widow come unto them, Isa. i. 23. They build their house by unrighteousness, and their chambers by wrong, and use their neighbours service without wages, Jer. xxii. 13. They oppress the poor, and crush the needy, Amos iv. 1. They turn judgment to gall, and the fruit of righteousness to hemlock, and say, have we not taken horns to us by our own strength, Amos vi. 12, 13. These contrary characters cannot consist together. 5. He is the minister of God for good, verse 4. not by providential commission, as Nebuchadnezzar was, and tyrants may be eventually, by the Lord making all things turn about for the good of the church; but he hath a moral commission from God, and is entrusted by the people, to procure their public and political good at least.

Now, then tyranny and usurpation, are together inconsistible; for if tyrants and usurpers were ministers for good, then they would restore the public and personal rights, and rectify all wrongs done by them; but then they must surrender their authority, and resign it, or else all rights cannot be restored, nor wrongs rectified. Hence, these that cannot be owned as magistrates of God for good, cannot be owned as magistrates; but tyrants and usurpers, (and in particular this man) are such as cannot be owned as ministers of God for good: Ergo——Again, if magistracy be always a blessing, and tyranny and usurpation always a curse, then they cannot be owned to be the same thing, and the one cannot be owned to be the other; but magistracy, or the rightful magistrate, is always a blessing; tyranny and usurpation, or the tyrant and usurper, always a curse: Ergo——That the former is true, these scriptures prove it. God provides him for the benefit of his people, 1 Sam. xvi. 1. A just ruler is compared to the light of the morning, when the sun riseth, even a morning without clouds, 2 Sam. xxiii. 4. So the Lord exalted David's kingdom, for his people Israel's sake, 2 Sam. v. 12. Because the Lord loved Israel for ever, therefore made he Solomon king, to do judgment and justice, 1 Kings x. 9. When the righteous are in authority the people rejoice——The king by judgment stablished the land,——Prov. xxix. 2, 4. The Lord promises magistrates as a special blessing, Isa. i. 26. Jer. xvii. 25. And therefore their continuance is to be prayed for, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, in all godliness and honesty, 1 Tim. ii. 2. And they must needs be a blessing, because to have no ruler is a misery: for when Israel had no king, every man did that which was right in his own eyes, Judges xvii. 6. And the Lord threatens it as a curse to take away the stay and the staff——the mighty man, and the man of war, the judge and the prophet, &c. Isa. iii. 1, 2. &c. And that the children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a prince, Hos. ii. 4. But on the other hand, tyrants and usurpers are always a curse, and given as such: it is threatened among the curses of the covenant, that the stranger shall get up above Israel very high——and that they shall serve their enemies, which the Lord shall send against them——and he shall put a yoke of iron upon their neck, until he hath destroyed them, Deut. xxviii. 43, 48. As a roaring lion and a ranging bear, so is a wicked ruler over the poor people, Prov. xxviii. 15. and therefore, when the wicked beareth rule the people mourn, Prov. xxix. 2. The Lord threatens it as a curse, that he will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them, Isa. iii. 4. And if unqualified rulers be a curse, much more tyrants. They are the rod of his anger, and the staff in their hand is his indignation, his axe, and sawe, and rod, Isa. x. 5, 15. It is one thing to call a man God's instrument, his rod, axe, sword, or hammer; another thing to call him God's minister; there is a wide difference betwixt the instruments of God's providence, and the ministers of his ordinance; those fulfil his promises only, these do his precepts. Such kings are given in the Lord's anger, Hos. xiii. 11. therefore they cannot be owned to be ministers of God for good. 6. He beareth not the sword in vain, for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil, verse 4. The apostle doth not say, He that beareth the sword is the ruler, but he is the ruler that beareth the sword. This is not every sword, for there is the sword of an enemy, the sword of a robber, the sword of a common traveller; but this as a faculty of political rule, and authoritative judgment. It is not said, He takes the sword (as the Lord expresses the usurpation of that power, Matth. xxvi. 52.) but he beareth the sword, hath it delivered him into his hand by God, by God's warrant and allowance, not in vain; to no end or without reason, or without a commission, as Paræus upon the place expounds it. He is a revenger to execute wrath, not by private revenge, for that is condemned by Paul before, Rom. xi. 19. not by providential recompense, for when a private person so revengeth, it is the providential repayment of God; but as God's minister, by him authorized, commissionated, and warranted to this work. Now this cannot agree with a tyrant or usurper, whose sword only legitimates his sceptre, and not his sceptre his sword, who takes the sword rather than bears, and uses it without reason or warrant from God, in the execution of his lustful rage upon him that doth well, and hath no right to it from God. Hence, he that beareth the sword no other way but as it may be said of a murderer, cannot be a magistrate bearing the sword; but a tyrant and usurper beareth the sword no other way but as it may be said of a murderer: Ergo.——So much for the characters of a magistrate, which are every way inapplicable to tyrants and usurpers, and as inapplicable to this of ours as to any in the world.

2. If we consider the scripture resemblances, importing the duty of magistrates, and the contrary comparisons, holding forth the sin, vileness, and villainy of tyrants and usurpers; we may infer, that we cannot own the last to be the first. First, From the benefit they bring to the commonwealth, magistrates are stiled, 1. Saviours, as Othniel the son of Kenaz is called, Judges iii. 9. and Jehoahaz in his younger years, 2 Kings xiii. 5. and all good judges and magistrates, Neh. ix. 27. But tyrants and usurpers cannot be such, for they are destroyers, whom the Lord promises to make go forth from his people, Isa. xlix. 17. The Chaldean tyrant is called the destroyer of the Gentiles, Jer. iv. 7. and the destroyer of the Lord's heritage, Jer. l. 11. where they can no more be owned to be magistrates, than Abaddon or Apollyon can be owned to be a saviour. 2. From their paternal love to the people, they are stiled fathers, and therefore to be honoured according to the fifth command. So Deborah was raised up a mother in Israel, Judges v. 7. Kings are nursing fathers by office, Isa. xlix. 23. But that tyrants cannot be such, I have proved already; for they can no more be accounted fathers, than he that abuseth or forceth our mother. 3. From the protection and shelter that people find under their conduct, they are called shields, Psal. xlvii. ult. The princes of the people, the shields of the earth, belong unto God. But tyrants cannot be such, because they are the subverters of the earth. 4. From the comfort that attends them, they are resembled to the morning light, and fruitful showers of rain, 2 Sam. xxiii. 4. They waited for me, as for the rain, saith Job xxix. 23. But tyrants cannot be resembled to these, but rather to darkness, and to the blast of the terrible ones, Isa. xxv. 4. as a storm against the wall. If darkness cannot be owned to be light, then cannot tyrants be owned to be magistrates. 5. From their pastoral care and conduct and duty, they are feeders. The judges of Israel are commanded to feed the Lord's people, 1 Chron. xvii. 6. David was brought to feed Jacob his people, and Israel his inheritance, Psal. lxxvii. 71. But tyrants are wolves, not shepherds. 6. By office they are physicians, or healers, Isa. iii. 7. That tyrants cannot be such, is proven above. Secondly, On the other hand, the vileness, villainy, and violence of tyrants and usurpers, are held forth by fit resemblances, being compared to these unclean creatures. 1. Tyrants are wicked dogs, as they who compass about Christ, Psal. xxii. 16, 20. Saul is called Dog there, and in that golden psalm, Psal. lix. 6. Saul and his accomplices watching the house to kill David, make a noise like a dog, and go round about the city. 2. They are pushing bulls, Psal. xxii. 12. and crushing kine of Bashan, that oppress the poor, Amos iv. 1. They have need then to have their horns cut short. 3. They are roaring lions, that are wicked rulers over the poor people, Prov. xxviii. 15. Zeph. iii. 3. So Paul calls Nero the lion, out of whose mouth he was delivered, 2 Tim. iv. 17. 4. They are ranging bears, Prov. xxvii. 15. So the Persian monarch is emblemized Dan. vii. 5. 5. 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 God 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 instituted by God 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 institution of God, magistrates should be established by the constitution 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 God, 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 God's law required: which that brave captain knowing how derogatory it was to the authority of God's institution, 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 bastard, 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 godly, disowned him; which, by the Spirit of God, 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 horsemen, 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 pass, 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 passive 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 God'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 Assyrian 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 God: this were blasphemy absurd, for God 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 God, for all these acts of tyranny are contrary to the law of God; for to make servants of subjects is contrary to the law of God, 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 horsemen, 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 lust. Would Samuel write in a book the rules of tyranny, to teach to oppress, contrary to the law of God? 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 God 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 God'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 God'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 God's counsel and command; that rulers must be able men such as fear God, 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 God, nor be men of truth; for then they would not be tyrants. It is God's direction, that the man to be advanced and assumed to rule, must be a man in whom is the spirit, Numb. xxvii. 18. as is said of Joshua; what spirit this was, Deut. xxxiv. 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 God 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 God of Israel said, the rock of Israel spake, he that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God, 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 God'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 assertions.

1. It is strongly asserted in Elihu's speech to Job, that he that hateth right should not govern, where he is charging Job with blasphemy, in accusing God of injustice; of which he vindicates the almighty, in asserting 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 xxxiv. 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 ungodly? In which words, the scope makes it clear, that if Job made God 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 ungodly, 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 kingship in question; as the scope shews, in that these words are adduced to justify the sovereignty of God 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 analogy, 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 ungodly 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.