They set up Kings, but not by me

Some think that this has reference to the chusing of Kings at first, because that they did it without Gods Warrant when they chose a King to themselves at first, and so they have set up Kings but not by me. But I rather think that this has reference to Jeroboam and his successors, they set up Jeroboam and his successors, and not by God. This you will say, is very strange, for it is cleer in Scripture that it was from God that Jeroboam should be King, and that the ten Tribes should be rent from Solomons posterity for the punishment of Solomons sin, it was prophesied of by Ahijah the Shilonite (1 Kings 11:29, 30, 31). The Prophet came to Jeroboam, and rent the Garment of Jeroboam in twelve pieces, and said to him, Take you ten pieces: for thus says the Lord the God of Israel; Behold, I will rent the Kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and will give ten Tribes to you. The Lord sent his Prophet to tell him expresly, that he would rent ten Tribes from the house of Solomon, to give them to him; and yet here it is said, That they have set up Kings, but not by me. Again in the 10th chapter and 15th verse, Rehoboam hearkened not to the people: for the cause was from the Lord, that he might perform his saying which the Lord spake by Ahijah the Shilonite to Jeroboam the Son of Nebat. It was from the Lord that Rehoboam gave such a churlish answer, was from the Lord that he was left to such a tyrannical, cruel spirit, that the Lord might fulfil the word that he had spoken by Ahijah the Shilonite.

Abulensis thinks that the ten Tribes for the matter of the thing did no more than they might do, and he gives this reason, for says he, the people, these Tribes were free Tribes, but Rehoboam would bring them into slavery, and he would reign over them as a Tyrant, therefore (says he) they might lawfully depart from him and leave him, and make to themselves a new King; and then he puts the cause, namely, for that a people or Common-wealth (says he) they first gave the power to Kings and Princes, but they did it upon certain conditions at first, therefore as they first gave power to them so says he they may diminish it if they abuse it and Tyrannize over them, for (he has this further expression) the people did not absolutely give themselves to him, when a people do chuse a chief Governor says he they do not give themselves to them as a man gives to his friend a piece of money, or a horse, so as they give all out of their own possession, and that he might do with them what he will, but upon certain conditions thus and thus: this Abulensis has.

Now though I do not altogether approve of what he has said, because at least the case between people and Princes now is different from what it was; then God chalenged a peculiar prerogative over them for tendering their government, yet thus far in divinity is true: there is more reason that people should now have more power to cast off Tyranny than there was, because now none comes to government over others but by agreement, therefore if the agreement and law of the Country be that they shall be elect and not hereditary, they are so: if that the males shall only inherit, he shall only inherit: and so if the law of the Country were for delivering themselves from tyranny, so far certainly God allows it in His Word.

But now to answer the case more cleerly, They set up Kings, but not by me; though God had foretold that the ten Tribes should be rent away from the house of David, and that Jeroboam should be set up, yet they did not do this thing in a lawful way as they ought, for they should have consulted with God about the time and manner of it when God would have it done; it was not enough that God did fortell it should be done, but when they did it they ought to have done it in a way of consulting with God, and they ought to have been ordered by God for the way and manner of it, and they did not do it in way of fulfilling the Prophesy, for the people generally knew no such thing but meerly minding their own passions and lusts, they look'd at no further, though God did over-rule it to fulfil his own counsels, yet they aimed at no such thing. From where we have these useful notes for our edification:

First, that we may do the thing that God would have done, and yet sin highly against God. God would have Jeroboam set up, but they only looking at the matter, and did not observe Gods way, God did reject them.

Secondly, to do that which God would have done, yet if we do not know that it is Gods mind, we sin against God: though we do the thing that God would have done in His secret will, yet we sin against God, if we know it not to be His revealed will. Now no action can be good, but that which is done; not only materially good, but formally also, that is which is done in obedience to God; and that shews the dangerous condition of ignorant people, all their actions are sin because they know not Gods mind in them.

Thirdly, to go about great businesses without consulting with God, it is sin. Even the Heathens were conscious of this, therefore Pullius Scipio would never go out about any great business but would go to the Capitol to pray to the gods.

Fourthly, alteration in civil government is a great business. God had need be much consulted withal, especially if there be any church-work mingled with it, there was never a time that England had the calling for such consulting with God as it has at this. Now England is about the greatest and weightiest business that ever it had since it was a nation: the very alteration but of an officer is a great matter and requires much consulting with God, and especially if it be in the Church. It is very observable of our Savior in Luke (6:12, and 13), when as Christ was to send out his twelve Apostles as officers for the Church, the text says, that he was at prayer all night before, then in the morning he calls his Disciples and so sends forth twelve of them and gives them his Commission. But he makes a preparation all night long in praying to God. Surely those that are about choosing Church officers, ministers of God to be their pastors and teachers, they had need spend days and nights in prayer. Here they did not consult with God in setting Jeroboam over them, and therefore says God, they have made them kings, but not by me.

Lastly, when we are about great businesses, we must look at God's ends; we must take heed of our passionate wills, and our own self ends, else we do it not by God. In civil affairs, a man that is a magistrate perhaps does that which is just, but he is carried on in his passion, but this is not by God; and so in Church affairs, the Church elders, the party does deserve it, yet if they be carried on in passion and self-ends, this is not done by God: they have set up kings, but not by me.

And then further: as the people sinned and God would not own what which they set up, so Jeroboam sinned too. Why Jeroboam might say, Lord, did you not send your Prophet to tell me that I should have the ten tribes, and yet will you not own me? No, God would not own him.

First, because Jeroboam did not seek God.

And secondly, Jeroboam did not stay God's time. As David, he was anointed by God, and though he had many opportunities for to have taken away Saul's life, he would not, and to come to the kingdom, but he did wait till he saw the time was come that he should be brought to the kingdom. But Jeroboam would not do so.

Thirdly, Jeroboam had not right ends in taking the kingdom.

Fourthly, Jeroboam did not administer the kingdom for God, and therefore God would not own him, and so some read the words; they have not administered the kingdom by me; but administering the kingdom by their own lusts therefore God would not own them. From where you may have these notes:

First, that when God promises a mercy, if we stay not God's time we can have no comfort of the mercy.

Secondly, when we have a mercy promised we must be brought into it by God, by lawful means; he that believes makes not haste says the Scripture: many they are so greedy of places, and preferments, and other things they desire, that they make so much haste as if they did fear that if they stay for the orderly coming into the place they desire, they fear they should go without it: what blessing then can there be in that which we would seek to get without God in making so much haste.

And again, when we have a mercy (that's the third note) when we have what we would have, yet if we do not improve it for God, we do thereby renounce our acknowledgment of it from God. God has given you an estate, or honors, or preferment: what do you do? Do you now abuse this for your own lusts? You do hereby renounce your acknowledgement that you had it from God. They have set up kings, but not by me, I will not own that; why? Because in the way of their administration they have indeed renounced any right I have to their government: and so the Seventy translate the words, they have reigned to themselves.

Yes, but it may be said, how were the people that were living now, guilty of this? This was a long time ago when the people did thus set up Jeroboam and rend themselves from the house of David, how came they to be guilty of this?

The answer is, that they continuing and retaining the government of Jeroboam upon the same ground their progenitors first raised it, are guilty of their sins. Children going on in the way of their parents, contract the guilt of their parents' sin upon them.

And Mercer upon this place quotes a Hebrew, David Kimchi: that the people now when they saw what Jeroboam and his successors did, that they would keep them from going to Jerusalem before the Lord, and when they saw that he made them idols, and so forsook God's true worship, they (says the Hebrew Doctor) should have driven him from the kingdom, that was his opinion: but merely for religion it cannot be, except the law of the country will bear them out in it; any farther than the law of a state, the civil law will bear men out in it: and therefore war, it is not merely undertaken for maintaining religion immediately, but for maintaining those laws by which religion is established, the civil right that men have to the practice of their religion: and so wars may be undertaken. If it were in a place indeed where the law of the kingdom were utterly against religion, could not there be justified, except those that had power likewise for the altering those laws, should alter them, and then take up arms.

But now, our taking up arms is justified in this, to maintain the civil right that we have to the practice of our religion; so that our case is not the case of the Christians among the Heathens: there is a law of nature (I confess) beyond the right of any law, and the right in that cannot be given away by any predecessors. But because the mischief would be infinitely great if it were left to every man to judge, when by this law of nature he might resist, and so to resist upon it, this would cause infinite mischief: therefore there is a necessity that men should for their particular suffer, rather than so to resist; it is necessary for us to stay till we be helped by some orderly legal way. I say, the God of Order never leaves people to such miserable inconveniences and mischiefs, and therefore for particulars they are rather to suffer, though they should be tyrannized over against the law of nature.

But certainly, for the state or country, they may judg when the law of nature is to be maintained, and right of a kingdom that the law of nature gives, besides that which is given by positive laws; the right of the law of nature is never taken away by positive laws. It follows.