10. The ten tribes revolted from the house of David, when Rehoboam claimed an absolute power, and would not acquiesce to the people's just conditions, 1 Kings xii. 2 Chron. x. which is before justified, Head 2. 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 one, when he but resolves to play the tyrant; then it must be duty to resist his violence, when he is tyrannizing; but the antecedent is clear from this example. This is vindicated at more length by Jus pop. ch. 3. p. 52.
11. The example of Elisha the prophet is considerable, 2 Kings vi. 32. "Elisha sat in his house, (and the elders sat with him) and the king sent a man before him; but ere the messenger came to him, he said to the elders, See how this son of a murderer hath sent to take away mine head; look when the messenger cometh, shut the door, and hold him fast at the door: is not the sound of his master's feet behind him?" Here was violent resistance resolved both against the man and the master, though the king of the land for the time. And this calling him the son of a murderer, and resisting him, is no more extraordinary (though it was an extraordinary man's act) than it is for a plaintiff to libel a true crime against a wicked person, and for an oppressed man to close the door upon a murderer, Lex Rex, quest. 32. p. 346. Hence, if a king or his messenger coming to use unjust violence, against an innocent subject, be no more to be regarded than a murderer's emissary, but may be resisted by that innocent subject; then must a community of such innocent subjects defend themselves against a tyrant or his emissaries, coming against them on such a wicked errand; the antecedent is here clear.
12. The city Libnah revolted from under Jehoram's tyranny, 2 Chron. xxi. 10. p. Martyr on the place saith, They revolted, because he endeavoured to compel them to idolatry. This is justified above, Head 2. Hence, if it be lawful for a part of the people to revolt from a tyrannical prince, making defection from the true religion; then it is duty to defend themselves against his force: the antecedent is here plain.
13. When Athaliah usurped the monarchy, Jehoiada the priest strengthened himself, and made a covenant with the captains, &c. to put her down, and set up Joash, 2 Kings xi. 2 Chron. xxiii. and when she came and cried, treason, treason, they regarded it not, but commanded to kill her and all that help her. Whence, if those that are not kings may lawfully kill an usurpress, and all her helpers, then may a people resist them; but Jehoiada, though no magistrate, did it.
14. The repressing and punishing Amaziah the son of Joash is an undeniable instance, vindicated by Mr. Knox. See above, per. 3. p. 54. After the time that he turned away from the following the Lord, the people made a conspiracy against him in Jerusalem, and he fled to Lachish, but they sent and slew him there, 1 Kings xiv. 19. 2 Chron. xxv. 27. Hence, a fortiori, if people may conspire and concur in executing judgment upon their king turning idolater and tyrant, then much more must they defend themselves against his violence.
15. The same power, of people's resisting princes, was exemplified in Uzziah or Azariah, when he would needs be supreme in things sacred as well as civil, 2 Kings xv. 2 Chron. xxvi. Fourscore priests, that were valiant men, withstood him, and thrust him out of the temple, they troubled him, saith Vatablus, they expelled him, saith Ar. Mont. vid. Pool's Synopsis. in Loc. See this vindicated by Mr. Knox. Per. 3. pag. 48, 49. above. Hence, if private subjects may, by force, resist and hinder the king from transgressing the law, then must they resist him when forcing them to transgress the law of God.
16. After the return from the Babylonish captivity, when the Jews were setting about the work of building the temple, which they would do by themselves, and not admit of any association with malignants (upon their sinister misinformation, and sycophantic accusation, that they were building the rebellious and bad city, and would refuse to pay the king toll, tribute, and custom) they were straitly discharged by Artaxerxes to proceed in their work, and the inhibition was execute by force and power, Ezra iv. But by the encouragement of the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, countermanding the king's decree, they would not be hindered, the eye of their God being upon them, though Tatnai the governor of those parts, Shetharboznai, and their companions, would have boasted them from it, with the usual arguments of malignants, who hath commanded you to do so and so? Ezra v. 3.—5. And yet this was before the decree of Darius was obtained in their favours, Ezra vi. Hence, if people may prosecute a duty without and against a king's command, and before an allowance by law can be obtained; then may a people resist their commands and force used to execute them: but here the antecedent is manifest.
17. When Nehemiah came to Jerusalem, and invited the Jews to build up the walls of the city, they strengthened their hands for that good work against very much opposition: and when challenged by Sanballat the Horonite, Tobiah the servant, the Ammonite, and Gesham the Arabian. Great king's-men all of them, who despised and boasted them, What is this that ye do? Will ye rebel against the king? Say they. He would not plead authority, though, in the general, he had the king's warrant for it; yet he would not give them any other satisfaction, than to intimate, whether they had that or not, having the call of God to the work, they would go on in the duty, and God would prosper them against their opposition, Neh. ii. 19, 20. and accordingly, notwithstanding of all scoffs, and plots, and conspiracies, to hinder the building, yet they went on, and were encouraged to remember the Lord, and fight for their brethren, &c. and to build with weapons in their hands, Neh. iv. and brought it to an end, notwithstanding of all their practices to fright them from it, chap, vi. Hence, If neither challenges of rebellion, nor practices of malignant enemies who pretend authority, nor any discouragements whatsoever, should deter people from a duty which they have a call and capacity from God to prosecute, and if they may promove it against all opposition by defensive arms; then, when a people are oppressed and treated as rebels, for a necessary duty, they may and must defend themselves, and maintain their duty, notwithstanding of all pretences of authority against them.
18. I shall add one instance more, which is vindicated by Jus Populi, from the history of Esther. Because Mordecai refused to do homage to a hangman, (Haman I should say) a cruel edict was procured from Ahasuerus to destroy all the Jews, written and sealed with the king's ring, according to the laws of the Medes and Persians, becoming a law irrevocable and irreversible, Esther iii. 12, 13. Yet the Lord's providence, always propitious to his people, brought it about so, that Haman being hanged, and Mordecai advanced, the Jews were called and capacitated, as well as necessitated, to resist that armed authority that decreed to massacre them, and that by the king's own allowance, Esther ix. When his former decree drew near to be put in execution, in the day that the enemies of the Jews hoped to have power over them, it was turned to the contrary, that no man could withstand them. Here they had the allowance of authority to resist authority: and this was not a gift of a new right by that grant, which they had not before; only it was corroborative of the irradical right to defend themselves, which is not the donative of princes, and which they had power to exercise and use without this, though may be not the same capacity; for the king's warrant could not make it lawful in point of conscience; if it had not been so before. Hence, if people may have the allowance of well advised authority, to resist the decree and force of unlawful authority; then may a people maintain right authority, in defending themselves against the injuries of pretended authority; but by this instance we see, the Jews had Ahasuerus's allowance to resist the decree and force of his own ill advised authority, though irreversible. And hence, we see, that distinction, in this point, is not groundless, between resisting the authority of supreme powers, and the abuses of the same.
2dly, We have in the scripture both tacit and express reproofs, for lying by from this duty in the season thereof,