elapsed before he was actually acknowledged by all Israel, before providence put him in the actual possession of all that extensive power.  There is another known example, applicable to the present purpose, in the instance of David, during the rebellion of his unnatural son Absalom.  According to the sacred story, 2 Sam. chap, xv, xvi, xvii, xviii, xix, it appears, that he was wholly ejected, both out of the hearts and territories of Israel, and not only the throne, but the will and consent of the people given up to Absalom.  But was David therefore divested of his right and title?  Though it is most contrary to scripture to suppose it; yet, according to Seceders, seeing Absalom was king, by possession of the throne, and had not only the power providentially put into his hand, but had it also by the consent of the people; it necessarily follows that Absalom, being a providential magistrate, his office and authority did equally arise from, and agree to the preceptive will of God, and subjection and obedience, for conscience sake, was equally due to him, as to David, by the Israelitish tribes.  And so it was a damnable sin in David to fight against him, as it could be no less than a resisting the ordinance of God.  The same may be said with respect to that other revolt, by the instigation, and under the conduct of Sheba; 2 Sam. chap. xx.  But although, according to Seceders, he must also have been their lawful magistrate, the Spirit of God discovers the reverse, still acknowledging the right of government in all these changes to be in David.  Another example is in the case of Solomon, who was ordained or designed by God expressly for the kingdom of Israel. Adonijah had obtained the ascendancy, both in respect of actual possession, and the inclinations and consent of the majority of the nation; the consent was general; 1 Kings, i, 5, 7, 9, 11, 18, 25, and ii, 15.  He had all to plead for himself, which Seceders make essential to the constitution of a lawful king.  He had got to the throne by providence, and had full admission and possession, by the inclinations of the people.  If then there is no distinction to be made of those who are acknowledged by civil society, into such as are so by the preceptive will of God, and such as are so by his providential will only—­then Solomon had no right nor title to the crown; and the enterprise of David and Nathan, &c., of setting him on the throne, was utterly unlawful.  Both they and Solomon ought to have acquiesced in the duty of subjection to Adonijah, as being the ordinance of God.  But this would have been opposite to the express direction of the Lord, appointing the kingdom to Solomon, “It was his from the Lord,” as Adonijah himself confessed.  To the same purpose might be adduced, the instance of Joash, the son of Akaziah, who was king de jure, even