Cotton Mather and the Sea Monsters

In 1726, a slave ship en route from Jamaica to West Africa, the "Elizabeth," was overtaken by mutineers, led by one William Fly. Under the Jolly Rogers flag, and renamed the "Fames' Revenge," Fly and his men sailed north and terrorized the Eastern Seaboard of the American colonies, capturing about five ships during a two month period, before the pirates were captured by sailors on a ship they were attempting to seize. Brought to Boston, sixteen pirates were tried, twelve being released, and four were convicted of the capital crime of piracy. While they were in chains, Cotton Mather famously met with the pirates and implored them to repent before they were hanged. Three of the men did so publicly -- Samuel Cole, Henry Greenville and George Condick -- but William Fly remained impenitent to the end. Whereas the others attended a sermon by Mather and at their own hangings confessed their sins and warned others to avoid their path, Fly instead warned ship captains not to mistreat their sailors. He claimed that he had mutinied because of ill treatment that he had received from his captain, and his two month rampage was an act of revenge against cruel captains like his own. He was, according to Mather, determined to die as "a brave fellow." He even protested that the knot of his noose was prepared poorly, reproaching the hangman for his inexpertise, and finally retying the knot himself. Ultimately, while all four pirates were hanged, Fly's alone was gibbeted in Boston Harbor as a warning to other pirates. Mather told the story of this episode in The Vial Poured out upon the Sea. A Remarkable Relation of CertainPirates Brought unto a Tragical End (1726), in which he wrote:

The Ministers of Boston...[bestowed] all possible Instructions upon the Condemned Criminals; Often Pray’d with them; Often Preached to them; Often Examined them, and Exhorted them; and presented them with Books of Piety, suitable to their Condition…. [P]erhaps, there is not that Place upon the face of the Earth, where more pains are taken for the Spiritual and Eternal Good of Condemned Prisoners.

Mather referred to pirates as "Sea-Monsters who have been the Terror of them that haunt the sea." Yet, as much as he loathed their conduct, he cared deeply for their souls. Partly because the port of Boston was a major center of both piracy and the legal efforts to stop it, and partly because Mather had such a heart full of concern for those wayward "Sea-Monsters," this witness to pirates was a thread that ran through his life-long ministry, as we see in extracts from his Diary, as well as in sermons and pamphlets that he wrote from time to time.

Mather's Diary (April 1699):

After the other public Services of the Day were over, I visited the Prison. A great Number of Pyrates being there committed, besides other Malefactors, I went and pray’d with them, and preach’d to them. The Text, in which the Lord helped mee to Discourse, was Jer. 2. 26. The Thief is ashamed, when hee is found. I hope, I shall have some good Fruit of these Endeavours.

Faithful Warnings to Prevent Fearful Judgments (April 22, 1704):

There has been a Time, when some have come and Seduced and Enchanted several of our Young Men, to Piratical Courses; and there were some Unhappy Advantages, which the Sinners took to shelter themselves in the Prosecution of their Piracies. But the Government of New England will by a severe Procedure of Justice, forever make it an Unjust thing, to Reflect on the Countrey, as if such dangerous Criminals might hope ever to be lately Nested here.

An Account of the Behaviours and Last Dying Speeches of the Six Pirates (1704) tells the story of John Quelch (executed following the first admiralty trial held outside of England) in which Mather writes:

God know the Prayers, the Pains, the Tears, and the Agonies that have been Employ’d for them.

Samuel Sewall was one of the judges who participated in his trial, and like Mather, wrote about Quelch's execution in his diary.

In 1717, nine crewman of pirate Samuel Bellamy were the sole survivors (out of a crew of 149) of a nor'easter which sank Bellamy's two ships. Possibly due to Mather's intervention, two crewman were spared, while six were convicted of piracy, and one, a Miskito Indian named John Julian, was sold into slavery to John Adams, Sr. (father of President John Adams and grandfather of President John Quincy Adams). Mather's final sermon to the six convicted pirates at the gallows was published as Instructions to the Living from the Condition of the Dead: a Brief Relation of Remarkables in the Shipwreck of above One Hundred Pirates (1717). Bellamy's ship, the Whydah Gally, was recovered in 1984, along with a massive treasure haul, and remains to this day the only fully-verified pirate shipwreck ever discovered.

Useful Remarks: An Essay upon Remarkables in the Way of Wicked Men (1724) tells the story of the crew of Ned Low, one of the most infamous pirates of all time, whose tale (along with that of Bellamy) is also recounted by the author of A General History of the Robberies and Murders of the most notorious Pyrates (1724) [thought by some to be Daniel Defoe]. In this sermon, based on Job 22.15 ("Hast thou marked the old way which wicked men have trodden?"), Mather gave nine propositions marking the way of sinful men, as warnings to his auditors and readers, and pointing out God's justice in the judgments rendered against such.

Charles Chauncy, president of Harvard College, relates an interesting anecdote, which is retold in the Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society (For the Year 1800, Vol. VIII of the First Series, pp. 252-253):

At a time when the famous Low and other pirates infested the American coast, they proved very troublesome to the fishermen at the Shoals, though they could obtain but little booty from them. One of these fishermen, (Charles Randall) with others, were taken by them, and having no property, these barbarous pirates whipped them with much severity; after which they said to them, "You know old Dr. Cotton Mather, do you?" -- "Yes," they replied, "we have heard of him as a very good man." "Well, then," said the pirates, "our orders are to make each of you jump up three times, and to say each time, "Curse Parson Mather," otherwise you are all to be hanged." To save their lives they all complied.

Abijah Perkins Marvin, The Life and Times of Cotton Mather, pp. 429-430:

Pirates infested commerce on our coast as well as other portions of the sea in those times, and it is stated by Dr. Mather that the pirates sometimes made the captive sailors whom they forced into service show their consent by cursing Cotton Mather. To be cursed by pirates was an honor to the sin-hating minister. But these same pirates, when in prison and facing death and the judgment, made choice of this minister for their religious guide. He visited them in prison, set before them their wickedness with uncompromising fidelity to the truth and to their souls, showed them an all-mighty Saviour to the penitent, and went with them to the scaffold as a friend.

When pirate John Phillips and his crew were caught in Boston, Mather recorded in his diary (May 31, 1724) how they besought him for both prayers and sermons:

The Pyrates now strangely fallen into the Hands of Justice here, make me the first Man, whose Visits and Counsils and Prayers they beg for. Some of them under Sentence of Death, chuse to hear from me, the last Sermon they hear in the World.

Thus in Mather's ministry to the pirates of New England, we find a remarkable example of one in whom "[m]ercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other (Ps. 85.10) and in whom "mercy rejoiceth against judgment" (James 2.13). It is a lesson to all of us in how we are relate to those who may be monstrous yet whose souls are precious.

Note: Reference and grateful acknowledgment is made to the most fascinating article "Cotton Mather, Preacher to the Pirates," by Cindy Vallar.

Samuel Adams, Psalm-Singer

Samuel Adams, colonial patriot and statesman, had many nicknames: "Sam the Maltster," Sam the Publican," "the Puritan Patriot," "Brain of the Revolution," "Father of the Revolution," "Palinarus of the Revolution," "Cromwell of America," "Apostle of Liberty," "Father of America," "Last of the Puritans," to name a few. One other was "the Psalm-Singer." His biographer, Ira Stoll, wrote that "One of Adams’s nicknames, 'the psalm-singer,' refers to the joy he took in singing texts that are part of the Jewish Bible."

When he was not inciting "rebellion" against British tyranny, he often assisted the choir of the New South Church in Boston. John Adams, his second cousin, referred to the "exquisite for music and...charming voice" of his relative, "when he pleased to use it" (letter to William Tudor, April 15, 1817). Judge Peter Oliver, a Tory opponent of Adams, said that "He had a good Voice, & was a Master in vocal Musick. This Genius he improved, by instituting singing Societies of Mechanicks, where he presided; & embraced such Opportunities to ye inculcating Sedition, 'till it had ripened into Rebellion."

Adams was the close friend of William Billings, author of The New England Psalm-Singer (1770), "the first tune book compiled by a single American composer, as well as the first published collection of exclusively American music." Billings embraced the hymnody of Isaac Watts; however, although Adams' church, now a member of the United Church of Christ has long since departed from both doctrinal orthodoxy and purity of worship, today it owns two copies of the 1640 Bay Psalm Book and provides an interactive feature enabling the website visitor to access the great American Psalm Book, so largely forgotten today, but once employed by American colonists in centuries gone by.

Treaty of Tripoli

Piracy is an age-old scourge which has re-asserted itself in the 21st century. In the late 18th century, the young United States of America found itself in conflict with pirates on the Barbary Coast of the Mediterranean from the Muslim states of (what is now) Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Libya. These pirates were also slave traders who sold Christians into slavery with particular relish. Under George Washington's administration, U.S. Consul-General to the Barbary States Joel Barlow was designated to negotiate a series of peace treaties. One of them, the 1796-1797 Treaty of Tripoli (Tripoli, Libya) stands out for its notorious Article 11.

Article 11 of the English translation of the document reads:

ARTICLE 11.

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

This article has been the source of much discussion as to the views of America's Founding Fathers concerning whether America was founded constitutionally as a Christian nation. Several points must be noted:

1) The English translation of the document by Joel Barlow varies considerably from the wording of the Arabic original. There is some question as to whether Article 11 in fact exists in the Arabic original at all.

2) A copy of the treaty bearing George Washington's signature is clearly a fraud, since it was negotiated during his administration but not ratified and signed until John Adams was in office.

3) Gary DeMar points out that treaties involving the United States and Great Britain were signed in 1783 and 1822 which refer to a Trinitarian God in the preface, which would indicate some measure of profession of Christianity by our nation.

4) The 1796-1797 Treaty of Tripoli was read aloud to the U.S. Senate prior to a recorded vote which was unanimous in its approval and ratification of the document -- in its form as an English translation, the third such unanimous recorded vote by Congress in American history.

5) The 1796-1797 Treaty of Tripoli was broken by continued pirate attacks, and had to be renegotiated under Thomas Jefferson's administration; the 1805 Treaty of Tripoli omits the aforementioned language that America "is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion," it does include the following statement:

ARTICLE 14^th

As the Government of the United States of America, has in itself no character of enmity against the Laws, Religion or Tranquility of Musselmen, and as the said States never have entered into any voluntary war or act of hostility against any Mahometan Nation, except in the defence of their just rights to freely navigate the High Seas: It is declared by the contracting parties that no pretext arising from Religious Opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the Harmony existing between the two Nations; And the Consuls and Agents of both Nations respectively, shall have liberty to exercise his Religion in his own house; all slaves of the same Religion shall not be Impeded in going to said Consuls house at hours of Prayer.

What can be said about these facts? John Eidsmoe has an appendix on the subject in Christianity and the Constitution: The Faith of Our Founding Fathers, pp. 413-415, and he also addresses the issue in response to William Edgar argument for National Confessionalism in Gary Scott Smith, ed., God and Politics: Four Views of the Reformation of Civil Government (Theonomy, Principled Pluralism, Christian America, National Confessionalism), p. 226. He considers Edgar's reference to this treaty to be "grasp[ing] at straws in order to debunk America's Christian heritage." David Barton in Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution and Religion, pp. 126-130, and Gary DeMar in America's Christian History, pp. 131-144, are equally dismissive of the relevance of this treaty.

DeMar's theory is that to the extent Article 11 is worth addressing it may reflect an effort to smooth over the negotiation process by alleviating fears that America would engage in a Crusade against the Dey of Tripoli.

A survey of the state constitutions, charterse, national pronouncements, and official declarations of the thirteen state governments would convince any representative from Tripoli that America was a Christian nation by law. The American consul in Algiers, Joel Barlow, had to construct a treaty that would assure the Dey of Tripoli that troops would not be used to impose Christianity on a Muslim people.
...
Tripoli may have feared a crusade-like invasion from the American navy. (Muslims well remembered the Crusades and the expulsion of Muslims from Grenada by Ferdinand and Isabella.) America was not founded as a Christian nation in the same way that Libya was founded as a Muslim nation. "Christianity was not an American state religion and therefore the United States government bore no official hostility toward Mohammadanism." The Dey of Tripoli had to be convinced that America would not impose its Christianity on the Muslim people by force. "Could it have been that in Article 11, America was assuring Tripoli and all of the Barbary states that the United States did not have a state church system and would therefore not attack Tripoli for religious reasons of forced conversion?" This seems to be the best explanation of the phrase found in Article 11 of the Treaty (ibid, pp. 137-138).

There is a significant problem with this theory, however; if Article 11 exists only in the English translation and not in the Arabic, one wonders how it would serve to reassure the Dey of Tripoli of anything.

The concession by DeMar that America is not a Christian nation in the official sense of that term is consistent with U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Brewer's proclamation in the case of Holy Trinity Church v. United States (1892) that (after listing a series of references and allusions to Christianity in official U.S. documents) "these and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation." (See also David J. Brewer, The United States: A Christian Nation, with an introduction by Gary DeMar.) It is also consistent with the understanding of Article 11 that the United States is in fact, as it plainly states, "not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; [and] it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen." America, it is admitted by "Christian America" proponents is not constitutionally and officially Christian; to be described as Christian, one must reach for a volume of unofficial utterances to substantiate that conclusion. If this be granted, then let it be granted also that the 1796-1797 Treaty of Tripoli simply affirms this too, that America is officially not a Christian nation, and as such has no official enmity grounded in religion with Muslim nations.

The heart of the matter is how one understands a nation to be "Christian." Brewer, for example, makes all sorts of acknowledgments that America is not Christian as understood in the conventional sense of the word, yet concludes that it is in some way actually Christian.

But in what sense can it be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or that the people are in any manner compelled to support it....Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or in name Christian. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in the public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions.

Nevertheless, we constantly speak of this republic as a Christian nation -- in fact, as the leading Christian nation of the world. (ibid, pp. 13-14).

What follows is a catalogue of references to Christianity in the colonial history of the United States and allusions to Christianity in connection with its birth as a nation through the Declaration of Independence and Constitution which are increasingly obscure as the effort to prove that the "Sundays excepted" within the constitutional requirements for legislation to become statutory law helps demonstrate somehow that America is a Christian nation shows (ibid, pp. 13-30).

To return to the Treaty of Tripoli specifically, the historical record of this treaty's negotiations and translation, it is to be admitted, is murky, and clouded unnecessarily by George Washington's alleged signature, but the fact remains -- a fact not addressed head-on by Eidsmoe or DeMar or Barton -- regardless of what the original Arabic document said, it was the English translation that was read aloud (it is a relatively short document), and unanimously approved and ratified, which included Article 11 as we see it here today. In fact, upon signing the treaty in 1797, John Adams issued the following statement:

Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may be observed and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all other citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfill the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof.

So, again, what inferences can we draw from all of this? Clearly, it is the English translation of the treaty that must be reckoned with, and it was approved two branches of the United States government without any dissent being recorded, only full approbation. The faith of George Washington and John Adams and Joel Barlow aside (I will aim, Lord willing to address Washington and Adams' religious views in the future on this blog), William Edgar well notes the following:

This treaty clause does not by itself prove that the Founding Fathers had adopted a clearly defined secularist philosophy of government. It does show, though, that the first leaders of our country were ready to exploit the Constitution's silence regarding Christianity to smooth the way to peace with a Muslim state.

In our day, for reasons of political expediency we have forged alliances with Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and so many others such nations, and even helped to rebuild Iraq as a Muslim nation constitutionally speaking. We have even recently resumed normal diplomatic relations with Libya following the state-sponsored bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988. There is nothing in our national charter to prohibit this, nothing to hold us back from aligning ourselves with those nations who have raged, conspired and taken counsel against the Lord and his anointed (Ps. 2.1-3). But ought we to bind ourselves to aid the ungodly, as Jehoshaphat joined in affinity with Ahab (2 Chron. 18.1)? How much greater by far would it be for America to take the path of wisdom and kiss the Son (Ps. 2.12)? "This is the great duty of the Christian religion; it is that which is required of all, even kings and judges, and it is our wisdom and interest to do it" (Matthew Henry). It is a duty not only of individual persons to confess Christ as King, but also magistrates in their official capacity, and nations, which are political and moral bodies of persons who are subject to the King, to confess with a kiss their allegiance to Him. A nation that is truly Christian is, or ought to be, at enmity with nations that openly fight against God and not to seek peace with such at the expense of kissing the Son. Huguenot minister Matthieu de Larroque (1619-1684), quoted by Rene Voeltzel, Vraie et Fausse Eglise en les theologiens protestants francais du dix-septieme siecle:

It is much more advantageous for the Christian to be sometimes at war with man in order to have peace with God than to always be at peace with man and thus be continually at war with God.

Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God (Part 2)

This is a continuation in a study of sources upon which the U.S. Declaration of Independence was drawn from, extracted for consideration as the Fourth of July commemorations draw near.

* 1558 -- Christopher Goodman published How superior Powers ought to be obeyed of their subjects, and wherein they may lawfully be by God's word disobeyed and resisted.

Chapter VIII. The conclusion of these two parts with a further declaration of the same, that it is both lawful and necessary some times to disobey and also to resist ungodly magistrates and wherein.

Wherefore (dear brethren in the Lord) to return to our purpose, you may well understand these things which have been hitherto mentioned, not only the cause of all our misery in England this day, to have been for that we neither taught, knew, nor used true obedience: but also what obedience God requires of all men, and what He condemns for disobedience. Obedience is to hear God rather then man, and to resist man rather then God, as by the answer and doings of the Apostles, and examples of others you have been instructed. Wherein you may see how little the commandments, threatening, power, authority, or punishments of any king, prince or emperor, ought to prevail with us against the commandment of God, where with we are charged.

* 1573 -- François Hotman published Franco-Gallia.

Translator's Preface:

Tis certainly as much a Treason and Rebellion against this Constitution, and the known Laws, in a Prince to endeavour to break thro them, as 'tis in the People to rise against him, whilst he keeps within their Bounds and does his Duty. Our Constitution is a Government of Laws, not of Persons. Allegiance and Protection are Obligations that cannot subsist separately; when one fails, the other falls of Course. The true Etymology of the word Loyalty (which has been so strangely wrested in the late Reigns ) is an entire Obedience to the Prince in all his Commands according to Law; that is, to the Laws themselves, to which we owe both an active and passive Obedience.

By the old and true Maxim, that the King can do no Wrong, no body is so foolish as to conclude, that he has not Strength to murder, to offer Violence to Women, or Power enough to dispossess a Man wrongfully of his Estate, or that whatever he does (how wicked soever) is just: but the Meaning is, he has no lawful Power to do such Things; and our Constitution considers no Power as irresistible, but what is lawful.

Chapter 1

...

Now concerning the Extent of their Power and Jurisdiction, he brings in Ambiorix, King of the Eburones, giving an account of it, lib. 5. cap 8. "The Constitution of our Government is such (says he) that the People have no less Power and Authority over me than I have over the People. Non minus habet in me juris multitudo, quam ipse in multidinem. Which Form of Government, Plato, Aristotle, Polybius and Cicero have for this Reason determined to be the best and most Excellent: "Because (says Plato) shou'd Kingly Government be left without a Bridle, when it has attained to supreme Power, as if it stood upon a slippery Place, it easily falls into Tyranny: And therefore it ought to be restrained as with a Curb, by the Authority of the Nobles; and such chosen Men as the People have empower'd to that End and Purpose.

* 1574 -- Theodore Beza published De jure magistratuum (On the Rights of Magistrates Over Their Subjects).

Chapter 5. Whether Manifest Tyrants Can Lawfully Be Checked By Armed Force.

To give a clearer answer to this question I must first lay down certain principles constituting as it were the foundations of the whole question. Assuredly, (it is clear) that peoples did not in the first instance originate from rulers, but whatever peoples desired to be ruled by a single monarch or by chief men elected by them were anterior to their rulers. Hence it follows that peoples were not created for the sake of rulers, but on the contrary the rulers for the sake of the people, even as the guardian is appointed for the ward, not the ward for the guardian, and the shepherd on account of the flock, not the flock on account of the shepherd. This proposition is not merely obvious in itself but may be corroborated by the history of nearly all nations, So much so that God Himself, although he had elected Saul to substitute him for Samuel in accordance with the desires of the people, yet willed that he should be chosen and accepted as King by the suffrages of the people. Thus David, although he had first been chosen as king by God Himself, yet would not undertake the administration of the Kingdom except he had first been confirmed by the suffrages and unfettered concord of the tribes of Israel.

...

In short, if we would investigate the histories of ancient times recorded by profane writers also, it will be established — as indeed Nature herself seems to proclaim with a loud voice — that rulers by whose authority their inferiors might be guided were elected for this reason that either the whole human race must needs perish or some intermediate class must be instituted so that by it one or more (rulers) might be able to command the others, (and) protect good men but restrain the wicked by means of punishments....Here we are doubtless on dangerous ground; I would therefore once again beseech my readers to bear in mind my remarks immediately preceding lest they draw inadmissible conclusions from what must be said in the sequel. I admit that I most strongly approve of Christian patience as laudable beyond all the other virtues and never sufficiently commended; I admit that men should be zealously exhorted to it because it contributes largely to the attainment of eternal bliss: rebellions and all disorder I detest as awful abominations; in affliction especially I am of opinion that we should depend upon God alone; prayer accompanied by a serious recognition of our error I recognize as the true and necessary remedies for the overthrow of tyranny since this evil is rightly counted among the scourges sent by God for the chastisement of the people. But I deny that all these considerations deprive nations crushed by manifest tyranny of their right to safeguard themselves against it by means of prayers and repentance as well as other just remedies; and this I corroborate whilst I reply on the following powerful arguments.

* 1579 -- Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos (A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants, or, A Vindication Against Tyrants) was published by Stephen Junius Brutus, nom de plume for (most likely) Philippe Duplessis-Mornay (1549-1623) or Hubert Languet (1518-1581), and republished in 1660 (read it online here). John Adams credited this treatise with being widely read and influential on the eve of the American War of Independence.

THE FIRST QUESTION.
Whether subjects are obligated to obey rulers who issue commands contrary to the law of God.

At first, the answer to this question may seem to be obvious, for it seems to question an axiom held by all Christians, confirmed in many places in Holy Scripture, various examples throughout history, and by the deaths of all the holy martyrs. For it may be well asked why Christians have endured so many afflictions if it weren't true they were always persuaded that God must be obeyed simply and absolutely, and kings with this exception, that they command not that which is repugnant to the law of God. Otherwise, why should the apostles have answered that God must rather be obeyed than men? (Acts 5:29) Also, seeing that the will of God is always just, while the will of men may be, and often is, unjust, who can doubt that we must always obey God's commandments without any exception, and men's ever with limitation?

But there are many rulers in these days who call themselves "Christian", who arrogantly assume that their power is limited by no one, not even by God, and they surround themselves with flatterers who adore them as gods upon earth.
...
Everyone knows that if a man disobeys a prince who commands that which is wicked and unlawful, he shall immediately be accused of being a rebel, a traitor, and guilty of high treason. Our Savior Christ, the apostles, and all the Christians of the early church were accused with these false charges.
...
There are no rulers which ought to be considered as firm and stable, except for those in whom the temple of God is built, and which are indeed the temple itself. These we may truly call Kings. For they reign with God, seeing that it is by Him only that kings reign. On the contrary, what beastly foolishness it is to think that the state and kingdom can be maintained if God Almighty is excluded, and His temple demolished. From this view comes so many tyrannous enterprises, unhappy and tragic deaths of kings, and ruinations of people. If these sycophants knew what difference there is between God and Caesar, between the King of Kings and a simple king, between the lord and the vassal, and what tributes this Lord requires of His subjects, and what authority he gives to kings over those his subjects, certainly so many rulers would not strive to trouble the kingdom of God. And we should not see some of them cast down from their thrones by the just instigation of the Almighty, revenging himself of them, in the midst of their greatest strength, and the people should not be sacked and pillaged and trodden down.
...
Accordingly, rulers need to know how far they are permitted to extend their authority over their subjects, and their subjects need to know in what ways they are to obey, lest should the one encroach on that jurisdiction, which no way belongs to them, and the others obey him which commands further than he ought, they be both chastised when they shall give an account of themselves before another Judge. Now the end and scope of this question in which the Holy Scripture shall principally give the resolution, is that which follows. The question is, whether subjects are bound to obey kings, in case they command that which is against the law of God: that is to say, to which of the two (God or king) must we rather obey? When the question is resolved concerning the king, to whom is attributed the fullest power, the question concerning other magistrates will be also determined. First, the Holy Scripture teach that God reigns by His own proper authority, and kings rule by derivation, God from Himself, kings from God. God has a jurisdiction proper and kings are his delegates. It follows then that the jurisdiction of God has no limits, but that of kings is finite, that the power of God is infinite, but that of kings is confined, that the kingdom of God extends itself to all places, but that of kings is restrained within the confines of certain countries. In like manner God has created out of nothing both heaven and earth, therefore, by good right He is lord and master of both. All the inhabitants of the earth have received from Him everything they have, and are, essentially, His tenants and lease-holders. All the rulers and governors of the world are but His hirelings and vassals, and are obligated to take and acknowledge their investitures from Him. God alone is the owner and lord, and all men, whatever their station in life, are His tenants, agents, officers and vassals. All without exception owe fealty to Him, according to that which He has committed to their dispensation. The higher their place is, the greater their responsibility to God must be, and according to the rank where God has raised them, must they make their reckoning before His divine majesty. This is what the Holy Scriptures teach in innumerable places, and all the faithful (and even the wisest heathens) have ever acknowledged: that "the earth is the Lord's, and all it contains" (Psalm 24:1). And to the end that men should not falsely worship their own labor and enterprise, the earth yields no increase without the dew of heaven. This is why God commanded that His people should offer to Him the first of their fruits, and the heathens themselves have consecrated the same to their gods, that is, that God might be acknowledged lord, and they his farmers and field workers. The heaven is the throne of the Lord, and the earth His footstool. And, therefore, since all the kings of the world are under His feet, it is no marvel, if God be called the King of Kings and Lord of Lords; all kings he termed His ministers established to judge rightly, and govern justly the world in the quality of lieutenants. By me (says the divine wisdom) kings reign, and the princes judge the earth. If they do it not "He takes off the shackles put on by kings and ties a loincloth around their waist" (Job 12:18). As if He should say, it is in my power to establish kings in their thrones, or to thrust them out, and for that reason, the throne of kings is called the throne of God. As the Queen of Sheba said to King Solomon: "Blessed be the Lord your God who delighted in you to set you on his throne to be king for the Lord thy God, to do judgment and justice." (2 Chron. 9:8) In like manner we read in another place, that Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord, or on the throne of the Lord's kingdom.