So all the subjection, they contend, the sufferers gave, particularly in the beginning of the late persecution, to the then rulers, did not, nor could, pacify their wrath, because they would not give up with their conscience and all religion, which was the very foundation of the rising of his spirit against them; though, according to their explication of the text, this was what they should have done, and so have pacified the ruler’s wrath.  It is but a mere shift to tell the world, that it is only in lawful matters they are to yield; the yielding must surely correspond to the rising of the spirit spoken of.  But with such deceitful shifts are they forced to cover over a doctrine, which, if presented in its native dress, would not meet with such ready reception.  But in opposition to their strained interpretation of the text, the ruler must be understood a lawful ruler, who is the minister of God for good—­one who has not only moral abilities for government, but also a right to govern.  And as a subject may be keeping his place of subjection to a righteous ruler, and yet be guilty, in his private or public character, of what gives just offense, and occasions the ruler’s spirit justly, and so not sinfully, to rise against him—­thus, one may be guilty of many criminal mismanagements in the discharge of his public trust, guilty of profaning the name of God or his day, or of riot, excessive drinking, &c, without having any thought of casting off the authority of his ruler—­so, when a person has hereby provoked the spirit of his ruler, this divine precept teaches the party offending not to aggravate his offense, by attempting (though able) to make good his part, or rebel against his sovereign, but to yield, acknowledge his guilt and trespass, and submit to such punishments as the lawful ruler shall justly inflict, according to the degree and quality of the offense; whereby only, the ruler will be satisfied.  Agreeable to this, is that parallel text, Eccles. viii, 2, 3:  “I counsel thee to keep the king’s commandment, and that in regard of the oath of God:  Be not hasty to go out of his sight; stand not in an evil thing.”  On the whole, it must be a great abuse of Scripture, to wrest a divine precept, which directs subjects to submit to such punishments as their lawful ruler shall justly lay them under for their offenses, to the support of this anti-scriptural notion, viz., that every wicked person, whom the majority of a nation advances to the supreme rule, is the minister of God, to whom obedience is due, under pain of eternal damnation, as is done with this text.

A third scripture, perverted to support the above principle, is Luke xx, 25:  “Render therefore to Caesar the things which be Caesar’s, and unto God the things which be God’s.”  From this, Seceders imagine strongly to fortify their cause.  But, from a just view of the text, it will appear, that the answer given by Christ contains no acknowledgment of Caesar’s title to