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.