that disowned, and those that still continued to own the authority of unlawful rulers, be justified?  It could not by the divine law, which never condemns that as sin in one, which it approves as duty in others in the same circumstances.  Seeing therefore these, in the instances above, are justified, the practice of those who continued to acknowledge the lawfulness of these wicked rulers, must be regarded as condemned, both by the divine law, and also by the practices of the above persons, which do all jointly concur in witnessing, that they viewed it the duty of all the rest of the nation, to have done as they did.  And from the whole, it appears a commendable duty for the Lord’s people to disown the right and lawfulness of rulers set up in contradiction to the divine law.

9.  The iniquity of attempting to destroy the necessary distinction between the providential and preceptive will of God in the matter of magistracy, appears from God’s express disallowance of some whom providence had actually exalted to the supreme command over a people; Ezek. xxi, 27:  “I will overturn, &c.”  Although this may have an ultimate respect to Christ, yet it has also a reference to the rightful governors of Judah, when disposessed of their right by the providential will of God.  And here the Lord threatens the execution of his judgments upon the unjust possessor.  See also Amos vi, 13; Hab. ii, 5, 6; Nah. iii, 4, 5; and Matth. xxvi, 52.  By all which it appears, that the supreme lawgiver states a real difference between those who are only exalted by the providential will of GOD, and not authorized by his preceptive will; and therefore it is impossible that the office and authority of them both can equally arise from, and agree to the precept.  Again, in Hos. viii, 4, “They have set up kings, but not by me; they have made princes, and I knew it not,” is this distinction showed, as with the brightness of a sun-beam, so that he that runs may read it.  The LORD by his prophet here charges this people with horrid apostasy, in changing both the ordinances of the magistracy and the ministry, particularly, although the LORD commanded, if they would set up kings, they should set up none but whom he chose; Deut. xvii, 15.  Yet they had no regard to his law.  This charge seems to have respect to the civil constitution among the ten tribes after their revolt from the house of David; not simply charging their revolt on them, but that after their secession, they did not consult GOD, nor act according to his precept, in their setting up of kings.  As nothing can happen in the world, but by the course of providence; and as all things are known unto GOD, in respect of his omniscience, the text cannot respect either of these.  The true import of the charge then is, they have set up kings, but not according to the law and preceptive will of GOD; and therefore he neither did nor would approve either them or their kings.  Hence the prophet charges this as one cause