Toyota Forklift 7FBE10-20 Series

Repair Manual CE327_CE328

To download the complete and correct content, please visit:

https://manualpost.com/download/toyota-forklift-7fbe10-20-series-repair-manual-c
e327_ce328

Toyota Forklift 7FBE10-20 Series Repair Manual CE327_CE328Size: 45.5

MBFomat: PDFlanguage: EnglishBrand: ToyotaType of machine: Toyota
ForkliftType of document: Service Repair Manual & Parts ManualModel: Toyota
Forklift 7FBE10-20 SeriesPart No: CE327_CE328Number of page: 513 pages
Download all on: manualpost.com.
 [Unrelated content]
Another random document on
Internet:
any to consent or give their suffrage to such a deed; but the former
is true, therefore the latter: and consequently, to give our consent to
the erection of the duke of York, by owning his authority, was our
sin. 3. If it be a sin to own the manner of the king there described,
then it is a sin to own the pretended authority, which is the exact
transumpt of it; but it is a sin to own the manner of the king there
described, or else it would never have been used as a dissuasive
from seeking such a king. 4. To bring ourselves under such a
burden, which the Lord will not remove, and involve ourselves under
such a misery, wherein the Lord will not hear us, is certainly a sin,
ver. 18. But to own or choose such a king, whose manner is there
described, would bring ourselves under such a burden and misery,
wherein the Lord would not hear us: therefore it were our sin.

4. We may add the necessary qualifications of magistrates, which

the Lord requires to be in all, both superior and inferior: and thence
it may be inferred, that such pretended rulers, who neither have nor
can have these qualifications, and are not to be owned as ministers,
who have no qualifications for such a function. We find their
essentially necessary qualifications particularly described. Jethro's
counsel was God's counsel and command; that rulers must be able
men such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness, Exod.
xviii. 21. Tyrants and usurpers have none, nor can have any of these
qualifications, except that they may have ability of force, which is
not here meant: but that they be morally able for the discharge of
their duty: surely they cannot fear God, nor be men of truth; for
then they would not be tyrants. It is God's direction, that the man to
be advanced and assumed to rule, must be a man in whom is the
spirit, Numb. xxvii. 18. as is said of Joshua; what spirit this was,
Deut. xxxiv. 9. explains, he was full of the spirit of wisdom, that is,
the spirit of government; not the spirit of infernal Jesuitical policy,
which tyrants may have, but they cannot have the true regal spirit,
but such a spirit as Saul had when he turned tyrant, an evil spirit
from the Lord. Moses saith, They must be wise men, and
understanding, and known among the tribes, Deut. i. 13. for if they
be children or fools, they are plagues and punishments, Isa. iii. 2, 3,
4. &c. not magistrates, who are always blessings. And they must be
known men of integrity, not known to be knaves or fools, as all
tyrants are always. The law of the king is, Deut. xvii. 15. he must be
one of the Lord's chusing. Can tyrants and usurpers be such? No,
they are set up, but not by him, Hos. viii. 4. He must be a brother,
and not a stranger, that is, of the same nation, and of the same
religion: for though infidelity does not make void a magistrate's
authority; yet both by the law of God and man, he ought not to be
chosen, who is an enemy to religion and liberty. Now it were almost
treason, to call the tyrant a brother; and I am sure it is no reason,
for he disdains it, being absolute above all. That good king's
testament confirms this, the God of Israel said, the rock of Israel
spake, he that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of
God, 2 Sam. xxiii. 3. But tyrants and usurpers cannot be just: for if
they should render every one their right, they would keep none to
themselves, but behoved to resign their robberies in the first place,
and then also they must give the law its course, and that against
themselves. These scriptures indeed do not prove, that all
magistrates are in all their administrations so qualified, nor that none
ought to be owned, but such as are so qualified in all respects. But
as they demonstrate what they ought to be, so they prove, that they
cannot be magistrates of God's ordaining, who have none of these
qualifications: but tyrants and usurpers have none of these
qualifications. Much more do they prove, that they cannot be owned
to be magistrates who are not capable of any of these qualifications:
but usurpers are not capable of any or these qualifications. At least
they conclude, in so far as they are not so qualified, they ought not
to be owned, but disowned; but tyrants and usurpers are not so
qualified in any thing: therefore in any thing they are not be owned,
but disowned. For in nothing are they so qualified as the Lord
prescribes.

Secondly, I shall offer some reasons from scripture assertions.

1. It is strongly asserted in Elihu's speech to Job, that he that

hateth right should not govern, where he is charging Job with
blasphemy, in accusing God of injustice; of which he vindicates the
almighty, in asserting his sovereignty and absolute dominion, which
is inconsistent with injustice, and shews both that if he be sovereign,
he cannot be unjust: and if he be unjust, he could not be sovereign:
which were horrid blasphemy to deny. And in the demonstration of
this, he gives one maxim in a question, which is equivalent to an
universal negative, Job xxxiv. 17, 18. Shall even he that hateth right
govern? And wilt thou condemn him that is most just? Is it fit to say
to a king, thou art wicked; and to princes ye are ungodly? In which
words, the scope makes it clear, that if Job made God a hater of
right, he should then deny his government; and if he took upon him
to condemn him of injustice, he should blasphemously deny him to
be king of the world. For it is not fit to say to any king, that he is
wicked, or so ungodly, as to be a hater of right; for that were
treason, lese majesty, and in effect a denying him to be king; much
less is it fit to say to him that is King of kings. Here then it is
affirmed, and supposed to hold good of all governors, that he that
hateth right should not govern, or bind, as it is in the margin; for
Habash signifies both to bind and to govern, but all to one sense; for
governors only can bind subjects authoratively, with the bonds of
laws and punishments. I know the following words are alledged to
favour the uncontroulableness and absoluteness of princes, that it is
not fit to say to them, they are wicked. But plain it is, the words do
import treason against lawful kings, whom to call haters of right
were to call their kingship in question; as the scope shews, in that
these words are adduced to justify the sovereignty of God by his
justice, and to confute any indirect charging him with injustice,
because that would derogate from his kingly glory, it being
impossible he could be king, and unjust too. So in some analogy,
though every and of injustice do not unking a prince; yet to call him
wicked, that is habitually unjust, and a hater of justice, were as
much as to say, he is no king, which were intolerable treason against
lawful kings. But this is no treason against tyrants; for truth and law
can be no treason: now this is the language of truth and law, that
wicked kings are wicked; and they that are wicked and ungodly
ought to be called so, as Samuel called Saul, and Elijah, Ahab, &c.
However it will hold to be a true maxim, whether we express it by
way of negation or interrogation.
 Shall even he that hateth right govern? But are not tyrants and
usurpers haters of right? Shall therefore they govern? I think it must
be answered, they should not govern. If then they should not
govern, I infer, they should not be owned as governors. For if it be
their sin to govern (right or wrong, it is all one case, for they should
not govern at all) then it is our sin to own them in their government:
for it is always a sin to own a man in his sinning.

The royal prophet, or whoever was the penman of that appeal for
justice against tyranny, Psal. xciv. 20. does tacitly assert the same
truth, in that expostulation, shall the throne of iniquity have
fellowship with thee, that frameth mischief by a law? Which is as
much as if he had said, the throne of iniquity shall not, no, cannot
have fellowship with God; that is, it cannot be the throne of God that
he hath any interest in, or concern with, by way of approbation: he
hath nothing to do with it, except it be to suffer it a while, till he
take vengeance on it in the end. And shall we have fellowship with
that throne, that God hath no fellowship with, and that is not his
throne, but the devil's, as it must be, if God doth not own it? Much
may be argued from hence; but in a word, a throne which is not of
God, nor ordained of God, but rather of the devil, cannot be owned
(for that is the reason of our subjection to any power, because it is
of God, and ordained of God, Rom. xiii. 1. And that is the great
dignity of magistracy, that its throne, is the throne of God, 1 Chron.
xxix. 23.) But a throne of tyranny and usurpation, is a throne which
is not of God, nor ordained of God, but rather of the devil: Ergo——.
The minor is proved: a throne of iniquity, &c. is a throne which is not
of God, nor ordained of God, but rather of the devil; but a throne of
tyranny and usurpation is a throne of iniquity: Ergo, it is not of God,
and so not to be owned.
 3. The Lord charges it upon Israel as a transgression of his
covenant, and trespass against his law, that they had set up kings,
and not by him, and had made princes and he knew it not, Hos. viii.
4. and then taxes them with idolatry, which ordinarily is the
consequent of it, as we have reason to fear will be in our case. He
shews there the apostasy of that people, in changing both the
ordinances of the magistracy and of the ministry, both of the
kingdom and of the priesthood, in which two the safety of that
people was founded: so they overturned all the order of God, and
openly declared they would not be governed by the hand of God, as
Calvin upon the place expounds it. Whereas, the Lord had
commanded, if they would set up kings, they should set none up but
whom he choosed, Deut. xvii. 15. yet they had no regard to this, nor
consulted him in their admission of kings, but set them up, and
never let him to wit of it, without his knowledge; that is, without
consulting him, and without his approbation, for it can have no other
sense. I know, it is alledged by several interpreters, that here is
meant the tribes secession from the house of David, and their
setting up Jeroboam. I shall confess that the ten tribes did sin in
that erection of Jeroboam, without respect to the counsel or
command of God, without waiting on the vocation of God, as to the
times and manner, and without covenanting with him for security for
their religion and liberty; but that their secession from David's line,
which by no precept or promise of God they were astricted to, but
only conditionally, if his children should walk in the ways of God, or
that their erecting of Jeroboam was materially their sin, I must deny;
and assert, that if Jeroboam had not turned tyrant and apostate
from God (for which they should have rejected him afterwards, and
returned to the good kings of David's line) he would have been as
lawful a king as any in Judah, for he got the kingdom from the Lord
the same way, and upon the same terms that David did, as may be
seen expressly in 1 Kings xi. 38. It must be therefore meant, either
generally of all tyrants whom they would set up without the Lord's
mind, as at first they would have kings on any terms though they
should prove tyrants, as we have seen in Saul's case. Or particularly
Omri whom they set up, but not by the Lord; 1 Kings xvi. 16. And
Ahab his son, and Shallum, Menaham, Pekah, &c. who were all set
up by blood and treachery, the same way that our popish duke is
now set up, but not by the Lord, that is by his approbation. Hence I
argue, those kings that are not owned of God, nor set up by him,
must not be owned by us (for we can own none for kings but those
that reign by him, Prov. viii. 15. and are ordained of him, Rom. xiii.
1.) But tyrants and usurpers are not owned of God as kings, nor are
set up by him: Ergo——Again, if it be a sin to set up kings, and not
by God, then it is a sin to own them when set up: for, that is a
partaking of, and continuing in the sin of that erection, and hath as
much affinity with it, as resetting hath with theft; for if they be the
thieves, they are the resetters who receive them and own them.

4. The prophet Habakkuk, in his complaint to God of the Chaldean

tyranny, asserts that God hath made righteous, as the fishes of the
sea, as the creeping things, that have no ruler over them, Habak. i.
14. Now how were they said to be without a ruler, when the
Chaldean actually commanded, and absolutely ruled over them? yea,
how can the fishes and reptiles have no ruler over them? If
domineering be ruling, they want not that; when the weaker are
over-mastered by the stronger, and by them made either to be
subject, or to become their prey. But the meaning is, these creatures
have no ruler over them by order of nature: and the Jews had then
no ruler over them by order of law, or ordination from God, or any
that was properly their magistrate by divine institution, or human
orderly constitution.

We see then it is one thing for a people to have an arbitrary or

enthralling tyranny; another to have true magistracy or authority to
be owned over them; without which kingdoms are but as mountains
of prey, and seas of confusion. Hence I argue, if the Jews having the
Chaldean monarch tyrannizing over them, had really no ruler over
them, then is a tyrant and usurper not to be owned for a ruler: but
the former is true: therefore also the latter.

5. Our Saviour Christ delivers this as a commonly received, and a

true maxim, John viii. 54. "He that honoureth himself, his honour is
nothing." The Jews had objected that he had only made himself
Messias, ver. 53. To whom he answers, by way of concession, if it
were so indeed, then his claims were void, if I honour my self, my
honour is nothing: and then claims an undubitable title to his dignity,
It is my father that honoureth me. Here is a twofold honour
distinguished, the one real, the other suppositious and null, the one
renounced, the other owned by Christ, self-honour, and honour
which is from God. Hence I argue, a selfcreated dignity is not to be
owned; the authority of tyrants and usurpers is a self created
dignity: Ergo——. This was confirmed above.

Thirdly, I shall offer some other considerations confirming this

truth, from those scriptures which I class among precepts. And these
I find of divers sorts touching this subject.

1. I shew before that the greatest of men, even kings, are not
exempted from punishment, if guilty of capital crimes; for where the
law distinguisheth not, we ought not to distinguish. There is one
special and very peremptory law, given before the law for regulating
kings, which, by that posterior law, was neither abrogated nor
limited even as to kings, Deut. xiii. 6-9. If thy brother (and a king
must be a brother, Deut. xvii. 15.)—entice thee secretly, saying, let
us go and serve other gods—Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor
hearken unto him, neither shall thine eye pity him. How famous Mr.
Knox improved this argument, is shewed in the third period. That
which I take notice of here is only, that kings are not excepted from
this law; but if they be open enticers to idolatry, by force or fraud,
persecution or toleration, as this idolater now reigning is palpably
doing, they are obnoxious to a legal animadversion. As it cannot be
supposed, that secret enticers should be liable to punishment, and
not open avouchers of a desire and design to pervert all the nation
to idolatry: that a private perverter of one man, though never so
nearly and dearly related, should be pursued and brought to condign
punishment, and a public subverter of whole nations, and introducer
of a false and blasphemous idolatrous religion, should escape scot
free. Let the punishment inflicted be in a judicial way, and of what
measures it pleases the judge to determine, I shall not controvert
here; only I plead, that idolatrous tyrants are not excepted from this
law: and infer, that if they ought to be punished, they ought to be
deposed; and if they ought to be deposed, they cannot be owned,
when undeniably guilty of this capital crime, as was urged above.

To this I may add that part of that prophetical king's testament;

who, being about to leave the world, under some challenges of
maladministration in his own government, (for which he took himself
to the well ordered everlasting covenant, for pardon and
encouragement,) after he had shewn what rulers should be, he
threatens, by antithesis, tyrannical pretenders, in these severe
words, which do also imply a precept, and a direction how to deal
with them, 2 Sam. xxiii. 6, 7. "But they of Belial shall be all of them
as thorns thrust away, because they cannot be taken with hands,
but the man that shall touch them must be fenced with iron, and the
staff of a spear, and they shall be utterly burnt with fire in the same
place." Let these words be understood as a threatning against all the
wicked in general, who are to be quenched as the fire of thorns; or
particularly of the promoters of antichrist's kingdom, in opposition to
Christ's, as some interpreters judge; it will not weaken, but confirm
my argument, if kings who are ringleaders of that gang be not
excepted.

I know some do understand this of rebels against righteous rulers:

which though indeed it be a truth, that they that are such should be
so served, and roughly handled with iron, and the staff of a spear;
yet it is not so consonant to the scope and connexion of this place,
shewing the characters of righteous rulers, and of usurping tyrants,
making an opposition between rulers that are just, ruling in the fear
of God, and those that are rulers of Belial, promising blessing upon
the government of the one, and contempt and rejection to the other,
and shewing how both should be carried towards: neither does it
agree with the words themselves, where the supplement in our
translation is redundant; for it is not in the Hebrew. The sons of
Belial, only they of Belial, clearly relative to the rulers of whom he
was speaking before. And indeed the word Belial, in its etymology is
not more applicable to any than to tyrants; for it comes from beli
not, and Hhall above, because they will have none above them, or
from beli not, and Hhol a yoke, because they cannot suffer a yoke,
but cast away the yoke of laws and the yoke of Christ, saying, Let us
burst his bands, &c. Nor is it always agreeable to truth, to
understand it only of rebels against righteous rulers, that they can
never be taken with hands: For as very rarely righteous rulers have
any rebels to be the objects of their rigour and rage; so when there
are any, discreet and wise rulers will find many ways to take and
touch them, and quath or quiet them. But it is always true of
tyrants, for they can never be taken with hands, neither in a friendly
manner, taken by the hand and transacted within any bargain as
other men, for they that would do so, will find them like pricking and
jagging briers, which a man cannot handle without hurt to himself:
nor can they be any other way repressed or restrained, or touched,
but by hands fenced with iron, that is, with the sword of necessity,
or axe of justice. And this is insinuated as duty, so to endeavour to
extirpate and eradicate such thorns, as pester the commonwealth;
but if it cannot be done, it must be duty and wisdom both not to
meddle with them, nor own them, no more than Jotham, who would
not subject himself, nor come under the shadow of the bastard
bramble. I confess it is commonly taken as a threatning of the Lord's
judgment against these sons of Belial: And so it is. But it teacheth
also what men are called to, when they have to do with such, to wit,
to take the same course with them as they would to clear the
ground of thorns and briers. And that it is restricted to the Lord's
immediate way of taking them off, is not credible: for, it can have no
tolerable sense to say, they shall be thrust away, because they
cannot be taken with the Lord's hands: neither is there need, that he
should be fenced with iron, &c. And let iron, &c. be taken tropically
for the Lord's sword of vengeance; yet how can it be understood,
that he must be fenced therewith? or that he will thrust them away,
as a man must be fenced against thorns? What defence needs the
Lord against tyrants! It is only then intelligible, that the Lord, in his
righteous judgment, will make use of men and legal means, and of
those who cannot take them with hands, in his judicial procedure
against them. Hence I argue, if tyrants are to be dealt with as
thorns, that cannot be taken with hands, but to be thrust away by
violence, then, when we are not in case to thrust them away, we
must let them alone, and not meddle nor make with them, and so
must not own them, for we cannot own them without meddling, and
without being pricked to our hurt; but the former is true: therefore,
—Of this same nature, another threatning confuting the pretence of
the prince's impunity, may be subjoined out of Psal. lxxxii. 6, 7. "I
have said, ye are gods, and all of you are children of the most high,
but ye shall die like men, and fall as one of the princes." From which
words the learned author of the history of the Douglasses, Mr. David
Hume of Godscraft, in his discourse upon Mr. Craig's sermon, upon
the words, doth strongly prove, that the scope is to beat off all
kings, princes and rulers, from the conceit of impunity for their
tyrannical dominations; that they must not think to domineer and do
what they list, and overturn the foundations or fundamental laws of
kingdoms, because they are gods; as if they were thereby
uncontroulable, and above all law and punishment: no, they must
know, that if they be guilty of the same transgressions of the law, as
other capital offenders, they shall die like other men, and fall as
princes, who have been formerly punished. It is not to be restricted
to a threatning of mortality; for that is unavoidable, whether they
judge justly or unjustly, and the fear thereof usually hath little
efficacy to deter men from crimes punishable by law: neither can it
be understood only of the Lord's immediate hand taking them away,
exclusive of men's legal punishment; for expressly they are
threatned to die like common men, and to be liable to the like
punishment with them: now, common men are not only liable to the
Lord's immediate judgment, but also to men's punishment. Hence, if
tyrants and overturners of the foundations of the earth must be
punished as other men, then when they are such, they cannot be
looked upon as righteous rulers, for righteous rulers must not be
punished; but the former is true: therefore,—According to these
scriptures, which either express or imply a precept to have no
respect to princes in judgment, when turning criminals, we find
examples of the people's punishing Amaziah, &c. which is recorded
without a challenge, and likewise Athaliah.

2. There is a precept given to a humbled people, that have

groaned long under the yoke of tyranny and oppression, enjoining
them, as a proof of their sincerity in humiliation, to bestir themselves
in shaking off those evils they had procured by their sin, Isa. lviii. 6.
"Is not this the fast that I have chosen, to loose the bands of
wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go
free, and that ye break every yoke?" which are all good works of
justice and mercy, and more acceptable to God, than high flown
pretences of humiliation, under a stupid submission, and hanging
down the head as a bulrush. We see it then a duty to relieve the
oppressed, and to repress tyranny, and break its yoke. If it be
objected, (1.) That these are spiritual bonds and yokes, that are
here commanded to be loosed and broken; or if any external be
meant, they are only the yokes, of their exactions and usuries. For
Answ. I grant, that it is the great duty of a people humbling
themselves before the Lord, "to break off their sins by
righteousness, and their iniquity, by shewing mercy to the poor,"
Dan. iv. 27. but that this is the genuine and only sense of this place,
cannot be proved, or approved by the scope; which is, to press them
to those duties they omitted, whereby the poor oppressed people of
God might be freed from the yokes of them that made them to howl,
and to bring them to the conviction of those sins for which the Lord
was contending with them, whereof this was one, that they exacted
all their labours, or things wherewith others were grieved (as the
margin reads) or suffered the poor to be oppressed. (2.) If it be
alledged, that this is the duty proper to rulers to relieve the
oppressed, &c. I answer, it is so; but not peculiar to them: yet most
commonly they are the oppressors themselves, and cast out the
poor, which others must take into their houses. But the duty here is
pressed upon all the people, whose sins are here cried out against
(ver. 1.) upon all who professed the service of God, and asked the
ordinances of justice (ver. 2.) upon all who were fasting and
humbling themselves, and complained they had no success (ver 3.)
the reasons whereof the Lord discovers (ver. 4, 5.) whereof this was
one, that they did not loose those bands, nor break these yokes, nor
relieved the oppressed; and those works of justice (ver. 6) are
pressed upon the same grounds, that the works of mercy are
pressed upon (ver. 7.) sure these are not all, nor only rulers. Hence I
argue, if it be a duty to break every yoke of oppression and tyranny,
then it is a duty to come out from under their subjection; but the
former is true: therefore also the latter.

3. In answer to that grand objection of the Jews subjection to

Nebuchadnezzar, I shewed what little weight or force there is in it.
And here I shall take an argument from that same passage. The
Lord commands his people there, to desert and disown Zedekiah,
who was the possessor of the government at present, and says, it
was the way of life to fall to the Chaldeans, Jer. xxi. 8, 9. which was
a falling away from the present king. Either this commanded
subjection to the Chaldeans is an universal precept; or it is only
particular at that time. If it be universal, obliging people to subject
themselves to every conqueror, then it is also universal, obliging
people to renounce and disown every covenant-breaking tyrant, as
here they were to fall away from Zedekiah: if it be only particular,
then the owners of tyranny have no advantage from this passage.
And I have advantage, so far as the ground of the precept is as
moral, as the reason of that punishment of Zedekiah, which was his
perfidy and perjury. Hence, if the Lord hath commanded to disown a
king breaking covenant, then at least it is not insolent or
unprecedented to do so; but here the Lord hath commanded to
disown a king: therefore,—

Fourthly, We may have many confirmations of this truth from

scripture practices approven.

1. I was but hinting before, how that after the death of that brave
captain and judge Gideon, when Abimelech, the son of his whore,
did first aspire into a monarchy, which he persuaded the silly
Shechemites to consent to, by the same argument, which royalists
make so much of, for asserting the necessity of an hereditary
monarchy, (whether it is better for you, either that all the sons of
Jerubbaal——reign over you, or that one reign over you?) and by
bloody cruelty did usurp a monarchical or rather tyrannical throne of
domination, founded upon the blood of his seventy brethren, (as we
know, whose throne is founded upon the blood of all the brethren he
had,) Jotham, who escaped, scorned to put his trust under the
shadow of such a bramble, and they that did submit, found his
parable verified, a mutual fire reciprocally consuming both the
usurping king and his traiterous subjects; neither did all the godly in
Israel submit to him. See Pool's Synopsis Critic. on the place, Jud. ix.
Here is one express example of disowning a tyrant and usurper.

2. I shewed before, how, after the period of that theocracy, which

the Lord had maintained and managed for some time in great mercy
and majesty in and over his people, they itching after novelties, and
affecting to be neighbour-like, rejected the Lord in desiring a king;
and the Lord permitting it, gave them a king in wrath, (the true
original and only sanction of tyrannical monarchy,) when the
characters of his tyranny, presaged by Samuel, were verified in his
aspiring into a great deal of absoluteness especially in his cruel
persecuting of David, not only the 600 men that were David's
followers stood out in opposition to him, but, in the end, being
weary of his government, many brave and valiant men, whom the
Spirit of God commends and describes very honourably, fell off from
Saul, even when he was actually tyrannizing, before he was dead, 1
Chron. xii. 1. &c. They came to David to Ziklag, while he yet kept
himself close, because of Saul the son of Kish, (N.B. now he is not
honoured with the name of king,) they were armed with bows, and
could use both the right hand and the left. And of the Gadites, there
separated themselves unto David men of might, fit for the battle,
that could handle shield and buckler, whose faces were as the faces
of lions, ver. 8. And the Spirit came upon Amasai chief of the
captains, saying, thine are we David, and on thy side, thou son of
Jesse. Here was a formed revolt from Saul unto David before he was
king; for after this he was made king in Hebron, and there could not
be two kings at once. Hence I argue, if people may separate
themselves from, and take part with the resister, against a tyrant;
then they may disown him, (for if they own him still to be the
minister of God, they must not resist him, Rom. xiii. 2.) But here is
an example that many people did separate themselves from Saul,
and took part with the resister David: therefore——Here two of the
first monarchs of Israel were disowned, Abimelech and Saul.

3. The first hereditary successor was likewise disowned, as was

hinted above likewise. The ten tribes offer to covenant with
Rehoboam, in terms securing their rights and liberties. They desired
nothing on the matter, but that he would engage to rule over them
according to the law of God; to which, when he answered most
tyrannically, and avowed he would tyrannize over them, and oppress
them more than any of his predecessors, they fell away from, and
erected themselves into a new commonwealth, 1. Kings xii. 16. So
when Israel saw that the king hearkened not unto them, they
answered, what portion have we in David? Neither have we
inheritance in the son of Jesse; to your tents, O Israel; now see to
thine own house David, 2 Chron. x. 16. Now, however the event of
this declared revolt proved sorrowful, when they and their new king
made defection unto idolatry, yet if they had stated and managed it
right, the cause was good, justifiable, and commendable. For, (1.)
We find nothing in all the text condemning this. (2.) On the contrary,
it is expressly said, the cause was from the Lord, that he might
perform his saying, which he spake by Ahijah, 1 Kings xii. 15. 2
Chron. x. 15. And (3.) When Rehoboam was preparing to pursue his
pretended right, he was reproved and discharged by Shemaiah, ye
shall not go up, nor fight against your brethren, for this thing is from
me, 1 Kings xii. 24. 2 Chron. xi. 4. (4.) Whereas it is alledged by
some, that this was of God only by his providence, and not by his
ordinance; the contrary will appear, if we consider how formally and
covenant-wise the Lord gave ten tribes to Jeroboam, 1. Kings xi. 35,
37, 38. "I will take the kingdom out of his son's hand, and I will give
it unto thee, even ten tribes; and I will take thee, and thou shalt
reign according to all that thy soul desireth, and shalt be king over
Israel; and it shall be, if thou wilt hearken unto all that I command
thee, and wilt walk in my ways, and do that which is right in my
sight, to keep my statutes and commandments, as David my servant
did, that I will be with thee, and build thee a sure house, as I built
for David, and will give Israel unto thee."

Where we see the kingdom was given unto him on the same
terms and conditions, that it was given to David. He may indeed give
kingdoms to whom he will, by providential grant, as unto
Nebuchadnezzar, and others; but he never gave them a kingdom
upon these conditions, and, by way of covenant, that does always
imply and import his word, warrant, and ordinance. (5.) If we
consider the cause of the revolt, we will find it very just: for after the
decease of the former king, they enter upon terms of a compact
with the successor, upon a suspensive condition, to engage into
fealty and allegiance to him as subjects, if he would give them
security for their liberties and privileges. A very lawful, laudable and
necessary transaction, founded upon moral equity, and upon the
fundamental constitutions of that government, and suitable to the
constant practice of their predecessors, in their covenanting with
Saul and David. As for that word, 1 Kings xii. 19. So Israel rebelled
against the house of David: it is no more than in the margin, they
fell away or revolted; and no more to be condemned than Hezekiah's
rebellion, 2 Kings xviii. 7. The Lord was with him, and he rebelled
against the king of Assyria. That was a good rebellion. Hence if it be
lawful for a part of the people to shake off the king, refuse
subjection to him, and set up a new king of their own, when he
resolveth to play the tyrant, and rule them after his own absolute
power; then it is a duty, when he actually plays the tyrant, and by
his absolute power overturns laws and religion, and claims by law
such a prerogative; but the former is true: Ergo——See Jus populi
vindic. chap. 3. page 52.

4. This same Jeroboam, when he turned tyrant and idolater, was

revolted from and deserted by the priests and the levites, and after
them out of all the tribes of Israel, by all such as set their heart to
seek the Lord God of Israel; because that king, degenerating into
tyranny and idolatry, had put them from the exercise of their office
and religion (as our Charles did,) and ordained him priests for the
devils, and for the calves: so they returned to Rehoboam, being
induced by his administration of the government, which for a time
was better than he promised, for three years he walked in the ways
of David and Solomon, 2 Chron. xi. 13,—17. Hence I argue, if
idolatrous tyrants may be deserted, then they may be disowned
abroad, it is the same duty at home, though may be not the same
policy or prudence.

5. Another example of the like nature we have in the reign of

Baasha, who succeeded to Nadab, Jeroboam's son, whom he slew,
and reigned in his stead, (the same way that the duke came to the
throne) for he could not keep his subjects within his kingdom, but
behoved to build Ramah, that he might not suffer any to go out or
come in to Asa, king of Judah, a good prince, 1 Kings xv. 17. yet that
could not hinder them, but many strangers out of Ephraim, and
Manasseh, and Simeon, fell to him in abundance, when they saw
that the Lord his God was with him, 2 Chron. xv. 9. Hence, if people
may choose another king, when they see the Lord is with him, then
they may disown their country king, when they see the devil is with
him.

9. When Jeroboam, the son of Ahab, reigned over Israel, we have

an express example of Elisha's disowning him, 2 Kings iii. 14, 15.
And Elisha said unto the king of Israel, what have I to do with thee?
——As the Lord of hosts liveth, before whom I stand, surely were it
not that I regard the presence of Jehoshaphat the king of Judah, I
would not look towards thee, nor see thee. Here he declares so
much contempt of him, and so little regard, that he disdains him a
look.
 And if he would not regard him, nor give him honour, then he did
not own him as king; for all kings are to be honoured, that are
owned to be kings really. It may be alledged by some, that Elisha
was an extraordinary man, and this was an extraordinary action, and
therefore not imitable. I shall grant it so far extraordinary, that it is
not usual to carry so to persons of that figure, and that indeed there
are few Elishas now, not only for his prophetic spirit which now is
ceased, but even in respect of his gracious spirit of zeal, which in a
great measure is now extinguished: he was indeed an extraordinary
man, and this action did demonstrate much of the spirit of Elias to
have been abiding with him. But that this was was inimitable, these
reasons induce me to deny, (1.) Prophets were subjects to kings, as
well as others, as Nathan was to David (1 Kings i 32, 33.) every soul
must be subject to the higher powers that are of God. (2.) All the
actions of prophets were not extraordinary, nor did they every thing
by extraordinary inspiration; that was peculiar to Christ, that he
could prophesy, and do extraordinary acts when he pleased, because
he received the spirit not by measure, and it rested upon him. (3.)
This particular action and carriage was before he called for the
minstrel, and before the hand of the Lord came upon him, ver. 15.
Ergo, this was not by inspiration. (4.) The ground of this was moral
and ordinary, for hereby he only shewed himself to be a person fit to
abide in the Lord's tabernacle, and an upright walker, in whose eyes
a vile person is contemned, Psal. xv. 4. And a just man, to whom the
unjust is an abomination, Prov. xxix. 29. What further can be
alledged against this instance, I see not. And I need draw no
argument by consequence, it is so plain.

7. This same Jehoram, after many signal demonstrations of the

power of God exerted in the ministry of his servant Elisha, which
sometimes did extort his acknowledgement, and made him call the