reject such, nor command to set up others in their room, nor approve of those who disowned and resisted them.  But all this is done in this instance, which of itself, is sufficient to overthrow their scheme.  Another instance is in 2 Chron. xi, 13, 16, where the authority of Jeroboam is rejected and cast off, even when acknowledged and submitted to by the nation of Israel, by the priests and Levites, and after them, by all such as did set their hearts to seek the Lord God of Israel, through all the ten tribes; and this, because of his abominable wickedness.  Whereby it appears a commendable duty to refuse the lawfulness of the authority of wicked occupants, though acknowledged by the majority of a nation.  A similar example there is in the reign of Baasha, who could not by all his vigilance prevent many from casting off his government; 2 Chron. xv, 9.  Again, there is an express example of Elisha’s disowning the king of Israel, even when the civil society owned him; 2 Kings, iii, 14, 15.  He did not regulate his conduct by providence, and the will of the people, but, in opposition to both, refused him that honor that is due to all that are really kings.  To these may be added that notable example of Libnah, a city of the priests, who could not but have knowledge by the law of their God what was their duty; 2 Chron. xxi, 10.  Here is an instance of a people’s casting off allegiance to a king, properly because of his apostasy and intolerable wickedness, whereby they bore testimony against him, and discovered what was the duty of the whole nation, on account of his apostasy from the Lord.  Their so doing was a most positive, actual and express condemnation, both of Jehoram for his wickedness, and of the people for concurring, joining with him, and strengthening his hands in it (even as Noah by his faith and obedience is said to have condemned the antediluvian world; Heb. ix, 7.) And this their conduct and testimony the Spirit of God justifies, and records to their honor.  These few of many that might be adduced, declare the impudence, as well as fallacy and imposture of Seceders in this matter, and also justify the principles which they maliciously nick-name the anti-government scheme; and that for no other reason, but because it establishes the ordinance of magistracy among a people favored by God with divine revelation, upon his preceptive will, in opposition to their anarchical notions of setting it wholly upon the tottering basis of the corrupt will of man.  And, to conclude this particular, how ridiculously absurd is it in them to insinuate, that, in the examples above, or others to be found in sacred history, those persons did, notwithstanding their own practice in rejecting the authority of wicked rulers, still view it as the duty of the rest of the nation, to acknowledge them?  This is pure jargon and nonsense, contrary both to reason and religion.  By what law could the opposite practices of those