(1876.)
the old theory of “the right divine of kings to govern wrong,” and the much-quoted text, “fear god and honor the king,” seem to have impressed many good people with the notion that the bible is in favor of monarchy. but “king” in the text plainly has the general meaning of “ruler,” and would be equally applicable to the president of a republic. in romans xiii. 1—3, we read: “let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. for there is no power but of god: the powers that be are ordained of god. whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of god: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. for rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.” without stopping to discuss the bold assertion in the last sentence, we may remark that the real teaching of this passage is that christians ought to be indifferent to politics, quietly accepting whatever government they find in power; for if the powers that be are ordained of god, or in other words, if might is right, all forms of government are equally entitled to obedience so long as they actually exist. of course christians are not now, and for the most part have not been for centuries, really indifferent to politics, because for the most part they now are and long have been christians only in name; but it is easy to understand from the new testament itself why the first christians naturally were thus indifferent, and why christianity has never afforded any political inspiration. nothing can be clearer to one who reads the new testament honestly and without prejudice than the fact that christ and his apostles believed that the end of the world was at hand. thus in matt, xxiv., jesus after foretelling the coming to judgment of the son of man in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory, when the angels shall gather the elect from the four winds, adds, v. 34, “verily i say unto you, this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” this is repeated in almost the same words in mark xiii., and luke xxi., and a careful reading of the epistles shows that their writers were profoundly influenced by this prophecy. but with the world coming to an end so soon, it would be as absurd to take any interest in its politics as for a traveller stopping two or three days in an inn to concern himself self with schemes for rebuilding it, when about to leave for a far country where he intends settling for life. if therefore we want any political guidance from the holy scriptures, we must go to the old testament, not to the new.
now the first lesson on monarchy, which we remember made us think even in childhood, is the fable of the trees electing a king, told by jotham, the son of gideon, in judges ix. the trees in the process of this election showed a judgment much superior to that which men usually show in such a business. it is true that they did not select first the most strong and stalwart of trees, the cedar or the oak, but they had the good sense to choose the most sweet-natured and bountiful, the olive, then the fig, then the vine. but the bountiful trees thus chosen had good sense too, and would not forsake the fatness and the sweetness and the wine which cheereth god and man, to rule over their fellow trees. then the poor trees, like a jilted girl who marries in spleen the first scamp she comes across, asked the bramble to be their king; and that barren good-for-nothing of course accepted eagerly the crown which the noble and generous had refused, and called upon the trees to put their trust in its scraggy shadow, “and if not, let fire come out of the bramble, and devour the cedars of lebanon.” young as we were when this fable first caught our attention, we mused a good deal over it, and even then began to learn that those most eager for supremacy, the most forward candidates in elections, are nearly always brambles, not olives or fig-trees or vines; and that the first thought of a bramble, when made ruler over its betters, is naturally to destroy with fire the cedars of lebanon.
but god himself in the case of the israelites has vouchsafed to us a very clear judgment on the question of monarchy. in the remarkable constitution for that people which he gave to moses, he did not include a king, and israel remained without a king for more years than it is worth while endeavoring to count here. we read, 1 samuel viii., how “all the elders of israel gathered themselves together, and came to samuel unto hamah, and said unto him, behold thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. but the thing displeased samuel, when they said, give us a king to judge us. and samuel prayed unto the lord. and the lord said unto samuel, hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that i should not reign over them.
“... now therefore hearken unto their voice: how-beit yet protest solemnly unto them, and show them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.” some students of the bible may have thought that god’s severe condemnation of the israelites for wanting a king arose chiefly from wounded pride, from the fact that they had rejected him, and we cannot affirm that this feeling did not inflame his anger, for he himself has said that he is a jealous god; but the protest which he orders samuel to make, and the exposition of the common evils of kingship, prove clearly that god did not (and therefore, of course, does not) approve this form of government. and, indeed, it is plain that if he had approved it, he would have given it to his chosen people at first. for although divines have termed the form of government under which the jews lived before the kings a theocracy, god did not then rule immediately, but always through the medium of a high-priest or judge, and could have governed through the medium of a king had he thought it well so to do. and he who reads the history of the jews under the judges, as contained in the book of judges, and especially the narratives in chapters xvii. to xxi. which illustrate the condition of jewish society in those days when “there was no king in israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes,” will see that god must have thought a monarchy very vile and odious indeed when he was angry at the request for it, and implied that it was actually worse than that government by judges alternated with bondage under neighboring tribes which the theologians call a theocracy. samuel warned the people of what a king would do, and doubtless thought he was warning them of the worst, but kings have far outstripped all that the prophet could foresee. the king, he said, will take your sons to be his warriors and servants; and will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and cooks, and bakers. this was the truth, and nothing but the truth, but it was not the whole truth; for the sons have been taken to be far worse than mere warriors and servants, and the daughters for much viler purposes than cooking and baking. samuel goes on: “and he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants”—when he does not keep them for himself might have been added. “and he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.” surely much more than a tenth, o samuel! we will not quote the remainder of this wise warning. like most wise warnings it was ineffectual; the foolish people insisted on having a king, and in the following chapters we read how saul the son of kish, going forth to seek his father’s asses, found his own subjects.
the condemnation of monarchy by god, as we read it in this instance, is so thorough and general that we feel bound to add a few words on an exceptional case in which a king is highly extolled in the scriptures, without any actions being recorded of him, as in the instances of david and solomon, to nullify the praise. the king in question was melchizedek, king of salem, and priest of the most high god, who met abram returning from the defeat of the four kings and blessed him, and to whom abram gave tithes of all, as we read in genesis xiv. but this short notice of melchizedek in genesis does not by any means suggest to us the full wonderfulness of his character, though we naturally conclude from it that he was indeed an important personage to whom abram gave tithes of all. the new testament, however, comes to our aid, and for once gives us a most valuable political lesson, though the inspired writer was far from thinking of political instruction when he wrote the passage. in hebrews vi., 20, and vii., 1 to 3, we read: “jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of melchisedec. for this melchisedec, king of salem, priest of the most high god, who met abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; to whom also abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation king of righteousness, and after that also king of salem, which is king of peace; without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days nor end of life; but made like unto the son of god; abideth a priest continually.” now he to whom jesus is compared, and who is like the son of god, is clearly the noblest of characters; and therefore, as the history in the first book of samuel teaches us that monarchy is generally to be avoided, these fine verses from the epistle to the hebrews delineate for us the exceptional king whose reign is to be desired.
the delineation is quite masterly, for a few lines give us characteristics which cannot be overlooked or mistaken. this model monarch must be a priest of the most high god—a king of righteousness and king of peace; without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days nor end of life; but made like unto the son of god. whenever and wherever such a gentleman is met with, we would advise even the most zealous republicans to put him forthwith upon the throne. but in the absence of such a gentleman we can hardly do wrong if we follow the good advice of samuel dictated by god almighty, and manage without any monarch.
