in anywise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose:  one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee, thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, who is not thy brother.”  Here, though Christians have a right to set a king over them, yet, it is evident, they are not left at liberty to choose whom they please, but are, in the most express and positive terms, limited and circumscribed in their choice to him, whom the Lord their God shall choose:  and this divine choice must certainly be understood (in a large sense) of a person of such a character, temper of mind, and qualifications, as God pointed out to them in his law, particularly in the text before cited (for whatever God’s word approves of and chooses, that God himself chooses).  And in the text before, as the person is further described, both negatively and positively, he must be a brother; which relation is not to be confined to that of kindred or nation, but especially respects religion.  He must not be a stranger and enemy to the true religion, but a brother, in respect of a cordial embracing, and sincere profession (so far as men can judge) of the same cause of religion, and so one, of whom it may be expected that he will employ his power and interest to advance the kingdom of Jesus Christ.  This precept respects the office, and points at the very deed of constitution, and in the most positive manner, restricts not only the people of the Jews, but every nation blessed with the light of divine revelation, in their setting up of civil rulers, pointing forth on whom they may, and on whom they may not confer this honorable office.  The same truth is confirmed by 2 Sam. xxiii, 2, 3, 4:  “The spirit of the Lord spake by me—­the God of Israel said,—­he that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God.”—­So Job xxxiv, 17, 18:  “Shall even he that hateth right govern?—­Is it fit to say to a king, Thou art wicked? and to princes, Ye are ungodly?” In which words, while Elihu is charging Job with blasphemy, in accusing God of injustice, declaring that if he made God a hater of right and impeached him of injustice, he did, in effect, blasphemously deny his government, universal dominion and sovereignty in the world.  It is not only supposed, but strongly asserted and affirmed, that he that hateth right should not govern.  Again, 1 Cor. vi, 1, 4, 5:  “If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge—­Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that is able to judge between his brethren?” All these texts, which are plain, positive, moral precepts, whereby God hath set boundaries about his own ordinance; that it be not corrupted by men, as they demonstrate what magistrates ought to be, and prove that they cannot be of God’s ordaining who have not these qualifications:  so they evince, that scriptural qualifications are nothing less necessary and essential to the being of a lawful scriptural