Seceders, in consequence of their contradictory and self-inconsistent system of principles, declare they cannot swear allegiance to a lawful government.  They maintain the present to be lawful, yet (in Dec. of their principles, page 55th) they say, “The question is not whether it be lawful for us to swear the present allegiance to the civil government, which the Presbytery acknowledge they cannot do, seeing there are no oaths to the government in being, but what exclude the oath of our covenants, and homologate the united constitution.”  But seeing they acknowledge that every constitution of government, that comprehends the will and consent of civil society, were it as wicked and diabolical as can be imagined, is lawful—­yea, as lawful as any that is most consonant to the preceptive will of God, having all the essentials of his ordinance; and seeing, because of the will and consent of the people, they own the present to be lawful, it is most surprising why they cannot swear allegiance to it; their reasons cannot, in a consistency with their principle, be sustained as valid.  That the present oaths of allegiance and the oath of the covenants are inconsistent, is readily granted; but seeing the oaths of allegiance bind to nothing more than what they confess they are bound to for conscience sake, namely, to own the lawfulness of the government, and to maintain it according to the constitution thereof (which is a duty owed by subjects to every lawful sovereign); and seeing that whatever is in the oaths of allegiance contrary to the covenants, does not flow from them, abstractly considered, but from the constitution to which they bind (which constitution is sanctified by the people’s acknowledgement of it).  If, therefore, the covenants forbid a duty, to which they are bound for conscience sake, their authority in that ought not to be regarded.

But certainly Seceders, who have found it duty to alter and model the covenants, according to the circumstances of the times they live in, might have found it easy work to reconcile the oath of the covenants with allegiance to a lawful government.  The other part of their reason is no less ridiculous and self-contradictory, viz., “They cannot swear allegiance to the present government, because it homologates the united constitution.”  But is not this constitution according to the will, and by consent of, the body politic? and is it not ordained by the providential will of God? therefore, according to them, has all the essentials of a lawful constitution, which claims their protection, under pain of damnation.  How great the paradox! they cannot swear allegiance, because they would bind them to acknowledge and defend a lawful constitution.  Is not active obedience, is not professed subjection for conscience sake, an homologation of the constitution?  Certainly they are, and that not in word only, but in deed and in truth.  And what is the allegiance, but a promise to persevere in what they do daily, and what they hold as their indispensable duty to do?  To grant the one, then, and refuse the other, is, in effect, to homologate or acknowledge the constitution, and not to acknowledge it, at the same time, which is a glaring absurdity.