close up this Head of Objections drawn from the Confession foresaid it is to be considered that the famous and â—earned Doctors of Aberdeen Anno 1638. in their Demands and Duplys do in Demand 11. declare and take God to witness that they and other people were willing to subscribe this very Confession of Faith And 11 Duply They assert that they are ready not only to subscribe but to swear this National Confession of Faith so they call it ratified and registred in Parliament To which Declaration they add the Oath sworn by them when they received the degree of Doctorat in Theology which Oath they solemnly again renew in the 7. Duply And this they judged necessary for them to do to satisfie the world that they were no favourers of Popery which as then so now is the Engine whereby to calumniate loyal Subjects and soundest Protestants as Papists in masquerade By which we understand that these learned loyal Divines and Orthodox the glory of the Reformed Church in their Age who well understood the Protestant Doctrine the unlawfulness of resisting the supreme Magistrate upon any pretence whatsoever the intrinsik power of the Church together with the Interests and Rights of Episcopal Government did not scruple to subscribe and swear this Confession of Faith and that as a Test against Popish Errors and Supersition So that they who shall now refuse to swear to own and believe the true Protestant Religion reformed from Popery contained in this Confession do occasion too much umbrage of suspicion and jealousie that they are not sound nor solid Protestants As to the second Head or Classis of Objections drawn from the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy which together with the maintenance of the Kings Prerogative is asserted and sworn in the Test the great stress of the Objections founded thereupon lies in these two Particulars That the Kings Supremacy as it is asserted by the Act of Parliament viz 16 Anno 1669. seems to deprive and devest the Church of all its intrinsick Power as if all Ecclesiastical Authority were derived not from Jesus Christ the alone Prince and Vital Head of his Church but from secular Princes and Magistrates And 2. That by the foresaid Act there seems to be a Power lodged in the King to alter and change the established Episcopal Government of the Church at his Royal pleasure which they can never swear to maintain as a Prerogative of the Crown who believe Episcopacy to be of Divine Right and Apostolical Institution and by consequence an oecumenick and unalterable Government by any power on earth For the more clear satisfaction of these Objections it will be convenient to read and consider that Act of Parliament November the 16th 1669 in which upon due perusal and examination nothing new or dangerous to the setlement of our National Church will be found comprehended Our Saviour was very unconcerned to regulate the bounds of Soveraign Powers he doth not examine Pilate's Power to judg of Blasphemy or Treason but acknowledgeth and submits unto it And so his Apostles neither enquire into the Rights of the Roman Emperors nor limit the exercise of their Power but seriously recommend to all good Subjects as their duty submission and obedience to the higher Powers and they leave the secular Powers of the world in possession of whatever Authority either over persons or matters they found them invested with The Magistrate doth not intitle himself to the Spiritual Function in preaching the Word administring the Sacraments exercising the Power of Ordination or the Keys c. Our gracious King never challenged these spiritual Powers which indeed belong to the Bishops and other Ministers of the Church The holiest and best Kings of Israel and Judah are famous for abolishing false Worship asserting and setling of the Truth Many excellent Ordinances concerning Religion were made by Moses Ioshua David Solomon Asa Iosiab c. which are recorded and applauded by the Spirit of God in the Scriptures These ordered and regulated divine worship Sacraments and Covenants with God they erected Altars Temples and Tabernacles and dedicated them to God They destroyed Idolatry reformed abuses in Gods House and service and both setled the standing worship and ordained Thanksgivings and Humiliations so that the ordering of matters of Religion was not exempted from the supreme secular Power under the Law nor did the Emperors and Sovereign Princes of the earth by imbracing Christianity lose their Power injoyed by all their Predecessors which if they had they should have been thereby inevitably exposed to the disturbances of their Government by Seditions and Rebellions upon every frantick eruption of religious Melancholy If Constantine had not interposed his Authority for suppressing the Arrian Heresie what had become either of Government or Religion The drawing up of Canons for regulating Religion our Lord committed to the Apostles and their Successors the Bishops with other Ecclesiastical persons but that these Canons should be inforced as Laws by temporal sanctions and penalties this flowed from the authority of the Civil Power And accordingly in the second oecumenical Council the Bishops and Fathers assembled at Constantinople beseech Theodosius the elder to ratifie the Decrees of that Synod Justinian established the main Canon or Codâ—x of the Universal Church consisting of the Canons of the first general and five Ancient provincial Councils commanding them to be keept as Laws As matters of Religion have not been exempted from the cognizance and regulation of the Supreme Civil Powers much less can the exemption of Ecclesiastical persons be pretended Under the Law we find Solomon judging an High Priest offending viz. Abiathar whom he turned out and placed Zadock in his Room and Office 1 King 2. 27 35. and as single persons so if we consider Church-Officers in their Ecclesiastical Meetings and Assemblies we find the Calling thereof lodged in the supreme Magistrate for Moses not Aaron David not Abiathar Solomon not Zadock summoned the Priests and Levites to the Meetings so under the Gospel in the pure and primitive times we find no Councils nor Synods called by the Bishop of Rome nor by any other Bishop or by any other Ministers forming themselves into Classical and Synodical Meetings against or without the Consent of the Christan Prince or Magistrate To any who will be at the pains to consult Antiquty or Ecclesiastical History it will evidently appear that the indiction of times and places the convocating of persons the precedency the ordering of debates the dismission of Assemblies the confirmation of Canons so as to enforce them as Laws in the General or Provincial Councils were all performed by the supreme Magistrate St. Paul himself appealed to Caesar when arraigned and called in question for his Religion and Athanasius appealed from the Synod at Tyre to Constantine to whom were two appeals made in the case of Cassianus and Donatus besides many other instances of the like nature And it were heartily to be wished that all Church-men and Ministers
whatsoever were throughly convinced of the doctrine and duty of their obedience to the Supreme Powers otherways as they grow popular they become dangerous Sacerdoces eo quidem sunt ingenio ut ni pareant territent St. Chrysostom comments excellently on Rom. 13 v. 1. 2. Let every soul be subject saying whether he be an Apostle or Evangelist a Prophet c. let him be subject to the higher Powers Our blessed Saviour and the Apostles were the most eminent Ecclesiastical persons yet did not think themselves exempted from the Authority and Jurisdiction of the Civil Powers and if the 24th Article of the Confession of Faith mentioned in the Test be considered it will be found to grant as much to the Civil Magistrate as here is asserted and yeelded Yet all this power belonging to the supreme Magistrate over religious persons and matters doth not interfer with nor suppress the intrinsik and essential Power and Authority of the Church for the Church's power is internal and spiritual and the power of the supreme Magistrate is external coercive and temporal which when duely weighed in a just balance will be found not only to be poised of just different kinds and natures but so far from interfering with or destroying one another that if duely and rightly managed they do mutually assist and support each other Beside the sense of the Oath of Supremacy asserted in a Speech delivered by B. James Usher then Bishop of Meath and afterwards Primate of Ireland at Dublin Novemb. 22. 1622. for which he received the thinks of King James the sixth the Solomon of his Age by a Letter from His Majesty dated the 11. day of January 1623. is so clear and plain that it leaves no place for any manner of scruple concerning the intrinsick power of the Church as if it were invaded and incroached upon by the foresaid Oath where it is said That the Kings Supremacy reacheth the outward man only but the spiritual and intrinsick power of the Church reacheth to the inward this binding or loosing the soul that laying hold only on the body and things belonging thereto Yea there is an Act of the Parliament of England 13. Eliz. declaring That by the supreme Government given to the Prince is understood that kind of Government only which is exercised with the Civil Sword So that there is nothing can be more evident than that by the Kings Supremacy as asserted by the Act November 16. 1669. no incroachment or invasion is made upon the spiritual intrinsick power of the Church Besides by the very express words of that assertory Act No more is declared to belong to the King save the ordering and disposal of the external Government and Policy of the Church And again The administration of the external Government of the Church where not a syllable can be found touching upon the internal spiritual and essential power and iurisdiction thereof And as to the word matters contained in that Act the Kings emitting Orders concerning religious matters as well as persons it needs stumble no thinking person as if our Religion were thereby exposed to dangers at the pleasure of the Prince if we consider the following words viz. Matters to be proposed and determined in Ecclesiastical Meetings or Assemblies which reserves the power of determining matters of Religion still in the hands of that Meeting or Assembly So that tho the King may by vertue of his RoyalSupremacy propose any matter of Religion to a National Asâ— Yet it is not to pass unto an act till first it be determined by the deliberate and free consent vote and suffrage of the major part of that Ecclesiastical Meeting And now let the Impartial Judg if any so great security for the true Protestant Religion can be devised as to have all Bishops Ministers and Members of a National Synod to whom the determining of matters of Religion by Law belongs solemnly sworn and bound by this Oath and Test to adhere to the same Protestant Religion all the days of their lives and never to consent to any alteration or change thereof As for the other Objection of these who think that by this assertory Act 1669. there is a power declared to be vested in the King to alter and change the Established Episcopal Government of this National Church which these who believe Episcopacy to be of Divine Right and Apostolical Institution and by consequence unalterable by any humane Authority can never swear to belong to the Crown as an Inherent Right and Prerogative thereof For answer Tho this point of the Divine Right of Episcopacy is tenderly to be touched the Phrase of Jus Divinum being in terms subject to misconstruction yet it must be acknowledged that no form of Church Government was ever yet modelled or set up which hath not claimed to a Jus Divinum as well as Episcopacy tho every one of them with far more noise but with far less reason than this hath done For the Papists ground the Popes Oecumenical Supremacy upon Christs Commands to St. Peter to execute it and to all the Flock of Christ Soveraign Princes as well as others to submit to him as to their Universal Pastor The Presbyterians cry up their model of Government tho of a very late Edition as the very Scepter of Christs Kingdom to which all Kings are bound to submit theirs making it also unalterable and as inevitably necessary to the being of a Church as the Word and Sacraments The Independents assert that any single Confederate Congregation is Jure Divino free and absolute within it self to govern it self by such Rules as shall be consented to by its Members without dependance from any except Jesus Christ alone or subjection to any Prince Bishop or any other Person or Consistory whatsoever So that all these other flatly deny the Kings Supremacy and claim a Power and Jurisdiction over him The Presbyterians agreeing with the Papists in this branch of Antichristianism and claiming to their Consistories as full and absolute Jurisdiction over Princes even to the highest censure by Excommunication as the Romanists challenge to belong to the Pope or pleading at least a priviledg of exemption from the Kings Authority and Jurisdiction The Independents exempting their Congregations from all Ecclesiastical subjection to Christian Kings in asample manner as ther Papists do their Clergy whereas the Protestant Bishop and regular Ministers as becometh good Christians and dutiful Subjects do neither pretend to any Jurisdiction over the King nor withdraw their Subjection from him but humbly acknowledg His Majesty to have Soveraign Power over them as well as over his other Subjects and that in all matters Ecclesiastical as well as Temporal But for a more closse Answer to this Objection They who believe the Indifferency of the forms and models of Church-Goverment cannot have any scruple on this Head in regard of the present Church-Government For should it be changed by Authority then are they not obliged by this Oath any longer
to own it Cessante enim materia juramenti cessat ejusdem obligatio radice obligationis sublata tollitur â—â—â pullulans inde obligatio according to all Casuists Juramentum sequitur naturam conditionem actus cui adjungitur id est materiae circa quam versatur sicut accessorium sequitur naturam sui principalis accessorium extinguitur cum principale cadit D. Sandersone These who believe Episcopacy to be of Divine Right have no cause to fear that ever the King will alter this specifick form of Church-Government neither inclination nor interest moving him to it The Aphorism so usual with His Majesties Royal Grandfather No Bishop no King cannot but make deep impression on His Majesty and must be considered not only as a sentence full of present truth when it was uttered but a sad prophecy of the Tragical events which after ensued And as the greatest and most politick Underminers of the Monarchy did of late so their successors continue still to make their oblique and first assaults upon it by raising their batteries against the setled Episcopacy 3 If the words of that assertory Act be sedately weighed they will not be found to bear the weight of this Objection for the odds are vast betwixt them a power to order and dispose the external Government and Policy of the Church together with the ordering of the administration of the external Government of the Church which are the words of that Act and the power of altering and changing the specifick and essential Government of the Church the former relating to the Ecclesiastical ordering of Ecclesiastical Persons Matters and Meetings as the Act it self expresly bears The King may and ought to have the ordering and disposing and administration of the external Government of the Church without claiming a power to alter or change the very Species Body and essence of it Nor may we in charity presume that our Gracious King challenges any such power to himself by vertue of that Act assertory nor doth it hinder any to believe Episcopal Government to be institute of God that in the exercise and external administration thereof it is subject to the Orders and Authority of the Prince for the same power may be said to be from Heaven and to be of men under different notions and respects to be from Heaven and of God in respect of the substance of the thing in general and to be of men in respect of the determination of sundry particulars requisite to the lawful and laudable exercise thereof Tho the Ministerial Power be of God yet are the Ministers in executing the Acts proper to their Ministerial Functions regulated and ordered by Ecclesiastical Laws Canons of the Church or Acts of General Assemblies Nor doth the derivation of any power from God necessarily infer the Non-subjection of the persons in whom that power is vested to any others as to the managing and exercise thereof For the power which Fathers have over their Children Husbands over their Wives Masters over their Servants is from Heaven of God and not of Men yet are Parents Husbands Masters in the exercise of their several respective powers subject to the powers Jurisdictions and Laws of the lawful Soveraigns It will prove a very difficult task for any man to find out a clear and satisfying reason of difference in this present case betwixt the Ecclesiastical power Oeconomical why the one because it claimeth to be of Divine Right should be therefore exempted from the Regulation of it in its exercise by humane Laws and not the other which flows from Heaven and is equally of Divine Right with the former 5. In fine All such who have sworn the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy since the assertory Act was made Anno 1669 can have no pretence to scruple the taking of this Test upon account of any thing contained in the Act of Supremacy already sworn by them in as much as they must be understood to have taken that Oath in the sense of the Lawgivers who framed that Act. Before we come to the Third Classis of Objections it will be necessary to say something for satisfaction of the Doubts of some who apprehend contradictions betwixt some expressions in the Consession of Faith and others in the same Consession and betwixt some assertions therein and others in the Test So that they think by taking this Oath they shall he ensnared to swear to contradictory Propositions Two are instanced that in the Article concerning the Immortality of Souls it is said That the Elect departed this life are delivered from all torment And yet in the same Article it is asserted That neither the Elect nor Reprobate are in such sleep after death that they feel no torment To this seeming contradiction it is answered 1. That this flows from the mistake and error of the Printer alone and not from any fault in the Confession For in that History of the Reformation of the Kirk of Scotland of the foresaid Edition the later part of the Article runs thus So that neither the one nor the other are in such sleep that they feel nothing Which clearly takes off all shadow of Contradiction as well as the error of those against whom that Article seemsto be levelled But finally the Latin Paraphrase of it in the Harmony of Confessions takes off all difficultly For there the words run thus Adeo ut neque hi neque illi ita dormiant ut non sentiant in qua conditione versentur Another seeming contradiction is betwixt the Confession and the Test viz. Art 25. it is said That they who resist the supreme Powers doing that which belongs to their charge resist Gods Ordinance and they who deny to them their aid counsel comfort c while the Princeâ— and Rulers vigilantly travel in the execution of their Office these deny their help and support to God which words seem to disallow the resisting of the supreme Magistrate only conditionally and in a limited and restricted sense Again the Oath and Test assert That it is unlawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take up arms against the King or these commissionate by him which doth declare the resisting of the Soveraign power to be simply and absolutely unlawful without any restriction or limitation Ans. Here is no Contradiction if the Logical Rules be observed For to resist the Supreme Powers doing that which pertains to their charge is to resist Gods Ordinance and not to resist the Supreme Powers doing that which pertains to their charge is to resist Gods Ordinance were indeed a contradiction but to resist the Supreme Powers doing that which appertains to their charge is to resist Gods Ordinance and to resist the Supreme Powers upon whatsoever pretence is to resist Gods Ordinance imports no manner of contradiction And so of the other proposition To deny aid counsel c. while Princes and Rulers vigilantly travel c. in the execution of their Office and not to deny aid counsel c. while
or Government or to deprave his Laws and Acts of Parliament or misconstrue his Proceedings whereby any misliking may be moved betwixt his Highness and his Nobility and loving Subjects in time coming under the pain of death certifying them that do in the contrary they shall be reputed as seditious and wicked instruments enemies to his Highness and the Commonwealth of this Realm and the said pain of death shall be executed upon them with all rigour in example of others Act for preservation of His Majesties Person Authority and Government May 16â—2 And further it is by His Majesty and Estates of Parliament declared statuted and enacted That if any person or persons shall by writing printing praying preaching libelling remonstrating or by any malicious or advised speaking express publish or declare any words or sentences to stir up the people to the hatred or dislike of His Majesties Royal Prerogative and Supremacy in Causes Ecclesiastical or of the Government of the Church by Archbishops and Bishops as it is now setled by Law That every such person or persons so offending and being Legally Convicted thereof are hereby declared incapable to enjoy or exercise any place or employment Civil Ecclesiastik or Military within this Church and Kingdom and shall be liable to such further pains as are due by the Law in such Cases Act 130. Par. 8. James 6. May 22. 1584 Anent the Authority of the Three Estates of Parliament THe Kings Majesty considering the Honour and the Authority of his Supreme Court of Parliament continued past all memory of man unto their days as constitut upon the free Votes of the Three Estates of this ancient Kingdom by whom the same under God has ever been upholden rebellious and traiterous Subjects punished the good and faithful preserved and maintained and the Laws and Acts of Parliament by which all men are governed made and established And finding the Power Dignity and Authority of the said Court of Parliament of late years called in some doubt at least some curiously travelling to have introduced some Innovation thereanent His Majesties firm will and mind always being as it is yet That the Honour Authority and Dignity of his said Three Estates shall stand and continue in their own Integrity according to the ancient and laudable custom by-gone without any alteration or diminution Therefore it is statuted and ordained by our said Soveraign Lord and his said Three Estates in this present Parliament That none of his Leidges or Subjects presume or take upon hand to impugn the Dignity and Authority of the said Three Estates or to seek or procure the innovation or diminution of the power and Authority of the same Three Estates or any of them in time coming under the pain of Treason The Earl of Argyle's first Petition for Advocats or Council to be allovved him To his Royal Highness His Majesties High Commissioner and to the Right Honourable the Lords of His Majesties Privy-Council The Humble Petition of Archibald Earl of Argyle SHEWETH THat your Petitioner being Criminally Indicted before the Lords Commissioners of ustitiary at the instance of His Majesties Advocate for Crimes of an high Nature And whereas in this Case no Advocate will readily plead for the Petitioner unless they have your Royal Higâ—ness's and â—ordships Special Licence and Warrant to that Effect which is usual in the like Cases It is therefore humbly desired that Your Royal Highness and Lordships would give special Order and Warrant to Sir George Lockhart his ordinary Advocate to consâ—lt and plead for him in the foresaid Criminal Process without incurring â—ny hazard upon that account and your Petitioner shall ever pray Edenburgh Novemb. 22. 1681. The Councils Answer to the Earl of Argyl's first Petition about his having Advocates allowed him HIS Royal Highness his Majesties High Commissioner and Lords of Privy-Council do refuse the desire of the above-written Bill but allows any Lawyers the Petitioners shall employ to consult and plead for him in the Processof Treason and other Crimes to be pursued against him at the instance of His Majesties Advocate Extr. By me Will. Paterson The Earl of Argyl's second Petition for Council to be allovved him To His Royal Highness His Majesties High Commissioner and to the Right Honourable the Lords of His Majesties Privy-Council The humble Petition of Archibald Earl of Argyle SHEWETH THat your Petitioner having given in a former Petition humbly representing That he being Criminally Indicted before the Lords Commissioners of Justitiary at the instance of His Majesties Advocate for Crimes of an high Nature And therefore desiring that your Royal Highness and Lordships would give special Warrant to Sir George Lockhart to consult and plead for him Whereupon your Royal Highness and Lordships did allow the Petitioner to make use of such Advocates as he should think fit to call Accordingly your Petitioner having desired Sir George Lockhart to consult and plead for him he hath as yet refused your Petitioner And by the 11. Parliament of King James the VI. Cap. 38. As it is the undeniable priviledg of all Subjects accused for any Crimes to have liberty to provide themselves of Advocates to defend their Lives Honour and Lands against whatsoever accusation so the same Priviledg is not only by Parliament 11. King James the VI. Cap. 90. farther asserted and confirmed but also it is declared That in case the Advocates refuse the Judges are to compel them lest the party accused should be prejudged And this being an affair of great importance to your Petitioner and Sir George Lockhart having been not only still his ordinary Advocate but also by his constant converse with him is best known to your Petitioners Principles and of whose eminent abilities and fidelity your Petitioner as many others have hath had special proof all along in his Concerns and hath such singular confidence in him that he is most necessary to your Petitioner at this occasion May it therefore please Your Royal Highness and Lordships to interpose your Authority by giving a special Order and Warrant to the said Sir George Lockhart to consult and plead for him in the said Criminal Process conform to the tenor of the said Acts of Parliament and constant known practice in the like Cases which was never refused to any Subject of the meanest quality even to the greatest Criminals And Your Royal Highness's and Lordships Answer is humbly craved Edenburgh Novemb. 24. 1681. The Councils Answer to the Earl of Argyle's second Petition HIS Royal Highness His Majesties High Commissioner and Lords of Privy Council having considered the foresaid Petition do adhere to their former Order allowing Advocates to appear for the Petitioner in the Process foresaid Extr. By me Will. Paterson The Earl of Argyle's Letter of Attorney constituting Alexander Dunbar his Procurator for requiring Sir George Lockhart to plead for him WE Archibald Earl of Argyle do hereby substitute constitute and ordain Alexander Dunbar our Servitor to be our Procurator to pass and require
him 6. It is also offered to be proved that before the Pannel was required to take the Oath or did appear before his Royal Highness and Lords of Privy-Council to take the same there were a great many Papers spread abroad from persons and Ministers of the Orthodox Clergy and as the Pannel is informed some thereof presented to the Bishops of the Church in the name of Synods and Presbyteries which did in downright terms charge the Test and Oath withalledged contradictions and inconsistencies And for satisfaction whereof some of the Learned and Reverend Bishops of the Church did write a learned and satisfying Answer called A Vindication of the Test for clearing the Scruples Difficulties and mistakes that were objected against it And which Vindication and Answer was exhibited and read before the Lords of His Majesties Privy-Council and allowed to be printed And from which the Pannel argues 1. That it neither is nor can be pretended in this Libel that the alledged Explication wherein he did take the Oath does propose the scruples of his Conscience in these terms which were proposed by the Authors of these Objections which do flatly and positively assert that the Oath and Test do contain matters of inconsistency and contradiction whereas all that is pretended in this Libel with the most absolute violence can be put upon the words is arguing Implications and Inferences which neither the words are capable to bear nor the sincerity of the Earls intention and design nor the course of his by past Life can possibly admit of And yet none of the persons who were the Authors of such Papers were ever judged or reputed Criminal or Guilty and to be prosecuted for the odious and infamous Crimes libelled of Treason Leasing-making Prejury and the like 2. The Pannel does also argue from the said matter of Fact that the alledged Explication libelled can neither in his intention and design nor in the words infer or import any Crime against him because before his being required or appearing to take the Oath there were spread abroad such Scruples and Objections by some of the Orthodox Clergy and others So that the Earl can never in any sense be construed in his Explication wherein he took the Oath to have done it animo infamandi and to declaim against the Government For the Scruples and Objections that were spread abroad by others were a fair and rational occasion why the Earl in any sense or explication which he offered might have said that he was confident the Parliament never intended to impose contradictory Oaths and this is so far from importing the insinuation and inference made by the Libel that thereby the Parliament were so impious as to impose contradictory Oaths as on the contrary considering the Circumstances forementioned that there were Papers spread abroad insinuating That there were inconsiltencies and contradictions contained therein the said expression was an high Vindication of the Honour and Justice of the Parliament against the Calumnies and Mis-representations which were cast upon it and was also a just Rise for the Pannel for the clearing and exonoration of his own Conscience in the various senses and apprehensions which he found were going abroad as to the said Test humbly to offer his sense in which he was clear and satisfied to take the Oath 7. To the Libel in so far as it is founded upon the Act of Parliament viz. Act 130 Par. 8 James 6 declaring That none should presume to impugn the Dignity or Authority of the Three Estates of Parliament or procure any invasion or diminution thereof under the pain of Treason as also in so far as it is pretended in the Libel That the Pannel by offering the Sense and Explication libelled has assumed the Legislative Power which is incommunicable and has made a Law or a part of a Law It is answered The Libel is most groundless and irrelevant and against which the Act of Parliament is opponed which is so plain and evident upon the reading thereof that it neither is nor can be subject to the least cavillation And the plain meaning whereof is nothing else but to impugn the Authority of Parliaments as if the King and Parliament had not a Legislative Power or were not the highest Representative of the Kingdom or that any of the Three Estates were not essentially requisit to constitut the Parliament And besides there is nothing more certain than that the occasion of the said Act its being made was in relation to the Bishops and Clergy And there is nothing in the pretended Explanation that can be wrested to import the least Contravention of the said Act or to be an impugning of the Three Estates of Parliament or a seeking any innovation therein And it is admired with what shadow of Reason it can be pretended That the Pannel has assumed a Legislative Power or made a part of a Law seeing all that is contained in the alledged Explication libelled is only a Declaration of the Earl's sense in which he was satisfied to take the Oath and so respected none but himself and for the clearing of his own Conscience which justly indeed the Word of God calls a Law to himself without any incroaching upon the Legislative Power And where was it ever debated but that a man in the taking of an Oath if as to his apprehensions he thought any thing in it deserved to be cleared might declare the same or that his exhibiting at the time of the taking of the Oath his sense and explication wherein he did take it was ever reputed or pretended to be the assuming of a Legislative Power it being the universal practice of all Nations to allow this liberty and which sense may be either rejected or accepted as the Legislator shall think fit importing no more but a Parties private senseâ— for the exoneration of his own Conscience And as to that Member of the Libel founded upon Act 19. Par. 3. Queen Mary it contains nothing but a Declaration of the pain of â—erjury and there is nothing in the Explication libelled which can in the least be inferred as a Contravention of the said Act in respect if it should be proved That the Pannel at the time of the taking of the Oath did take it in the words of the said Explication as his sense of the Oath it is clear that the sense being declared at the time of taking the Oath and allowed as the sense wherein it was taken the Pannel can only be understood to have taken it in that sense And although publik Authority may consider whether the sense given by the Pannel does satisfie the Law or not yet that can import no more though it was found not to satisfie but to hold the Pannel as a Refuser of the Oath but it is absolutely impossible to infer the Crimes of Perjury upon it being as is pretended by the Libel the Pannel did only take it with the Declaration of the Sense and Explication libelled 8. As the Explication
more strongly be said against the General 2. The 130. Act. Par. 8. James VI. is expresly founded on because nothing can be a greater diminution of the power of the Parliament than to introduce a way or mean whereby all their Acts and Oaths shall be made insignificant and ineffectual as this Paper does make them for the Reasons represented Nor are any of the Estates of Parliament secure at this rate but that they who reserved a general power to make all alterations may under that General come to alter any of them 3. What can be a greater impugning of the Dignity and Authority of Parliaments than to say That the Parliament has made Acts for the security of the Kingdom which are in themselves ridiculous inconsistent with themselves and the Protestant Religion And as to what is answered against invading the Kings Prerogative and the Legislative Power in Parliaments in adding a part to an Oath or Act is not relevantly inferred since the sense of these words And this I understand as a part of my Oath is not to be understood as if any thing were to be added to the Law but only to the Oath and to be an interpretation of the Oath It is replied That after this no man needs to add a Caution to the Oath in Parliament But when he comes to take the Oath do the Parliament what they please he will add his own part Nor can this part be looked upon as a sense For if this were the sense before this Paper he needed not understand it as a part of it for it wanted not that part And in general as every man may add his own part so the King can be secure of no part But your Lordships of Justitiary are desired to consider how dangerous it would be in this Kingdom and how ill it would sound in any other Kingdom That men should be allowed to reserve to themselves liberty to make any alteration they thought fit in Church or State as to the legality of which they were themselves to be Judges And how far from Degree to Degree this at last may come to absolute Anarchy and how scandalous a thing as well as unsecure this new way may look in an Age wherein we are too much tracing the steps of our rebellious Progenitors in the last whose great detection and error was That they thought themselves and not the King the Authors of Reformation in Church and State And no man ever was barred by that that the way he was upon was not a lawful way For if it be allowed to every man to take his own way every man will think his own way to be the lawful way As to the Perjury it is founded on this first That perjury may be committed not only by breaking an Oath but even in the swearing of it viz. to swear it with such Evasions as make the Oath ineffectual For which Sandersone is cited Pag. 138. Alterum Perjurii genus est novo aliquo excogitato Commento Iuramenti vim declinare aut eludere Iurans tenetur sub poena Perjurii implere Secundum Intentionem deferentus both which are here For the Earl being bound by the very Oath to swear in the genuine meaning without any evasion he has sworn so as he has evaded every word there being not one word to which it can be said particularly he is bound as is said And it is undeniable that he has not sworn in the sense of the makers of the Law but in his own sense which is Perjury as is said And consequentially whatever sense may be allowed in ambiguous Cases yet there can be none where the Paper clearly bears Generals And where he declares That he takes it in his own sense His Majesties Advocate declares he will not burden himself that Copies were disperst tho it is certain since the very Paper it self by the giving in is chargeable with all that is above charged upon it Sir John Dalrymple's Defence and Plea for the Earl of Argyle by way of Reply upon the King's Advocate SIR John Dalrymple replies for the Pannel That since the solid grounds of Law adduced in the Defences have received no particular Answers in relation to the common consent of all Casuists viz. That a party who takes an Oath is bound in Conscience to clear and propose the terms and sense in which he does understand the Oath Nor in relation to the several Grounds adduced concerning the legal and rational Interpretation of dubious Clauses And since these have received no Answers the Grounds are not to be repeated but the Proctors for the Pannel do farther insist on these Defences 1. It is not alledged That any Explanation was given in by the Pannel to any person or any Copy spread before the Pannel did take the Test in Council So that it cannot be pretended That the many Scruples that have been moved concerning the Test did arise from the Pannel's Explication But on the contrary all the Objections that are answered and obviated in the Pannel's Explication were not only privately muttered or were the thoughts of single or illiterate persons but they were the difficulties proposed by Synods and Presbyteries long before the Pannel came from home or was required to take the Test So that the general terms of the Acts of Parliament founded upon in the Libel are not applicable to this Case For as these Laws in relation to Leasing makers are only relative to atrocious wilful Insinuations or misconstructions of His Majesties Person or Government or the open depraving of his Laws so the restrictive Clause whereby sedition or misconstructions may be moved raised or engendered betwixt His Majesty and his Liedges cannot be applied to this Case where all these Apprehensions and Scruples were on foot and agitated long before the Pannel's Explanation As it cannot be pretended That any new dust was raised by the Pannel's Explanation so it is positively offered to be proved That there is not one word contained in this Explanation but that either these individual words or much worse had been publikly proposed and verbatim read in Council without the least discouragement or the least objection made by any Member of the Council And where a Writing ex proposito read in so high a Court was universally agreed upon without the alteration of a Syllable how can it be pretended That any person thereafter using the said in â—ividual terms in any Explanation and far easier terms that they shall incur the high and infamous Crimes libelled And the question is not here Whether the Council was a proper Judicature to have proposed or imposed a sense or allowed any Explanation of the Test to be published but that it is impossible that a sense they allowed or being publikly read beâ—ore them and which the Kings Advocate did not controll that this should import Treason or any Crime And tho the Pannels Advocate will not pursue or follow the Reply that has been made to this point yet
the impugning of the Authority of Parliament as the Earl may appeal not only to his Majesties true and Royal sense but to the most scrupulous and nyce affecters of the exactest discerning besids that they were first formally tendered in Council for their approbation and by them directly allowed How then can any man think that they could be charged with the greatest and vilest of crimes Leasing-making depraving perjury and treason But the Advocate tells us That there are some things which the law commonly forbids in general and that some inferences are as natural and strong and reproach as soon or sooner then the plainest defamations But what of all this Must therefore such generalls be left to the phantastik application of every wild imagination to the confounding of the use of speach and subverting of of humane Society and not rather be still submitted to the Judgement of common sense for their true and right understanding and the deducing thence these strong and natural inferences talk't of Of which good sense if the Advocate do but allow a grain weight it is evident that the inferences he here libells against the Earl must infallibly be cast and by all rational unbyassed men be found strange unnaturall and monstrous For S r 2ly pray observe these rational and sound Maxims he sounds his inferences on and they are manifestly these First That he who sayes he will onely obey as far as he can invents a new way whereby no man is at all bound to obey 2ly That he who in the midst of hundreds of exceptions and contradictions objected against on Oath injoyned by Act of Parliament and still unanswered sayes that he is confident the Parliament never intended to impose contradictory Oaths reproaches the Parliament 3ly That he that sayes he must explain an ambiguous Oath for himself before he take it renders all Laws and Oaths useless and makes himself the Legislator 4ly That he that sayes that he takes this Oath as far as it is consistent with it self and the Protestant Religion swears nothing 5ly That he that declars himself not tyed up by the Test from endeavouring in a lawful way such alterations as he thinks to the advantage of Church and State consistent with Religion and Loyalty declares himself and all others loosed from the Government and all duty to it and free to make any and all alterations that he pleases And 6ly That he that takes the Test with an explanation and holds it to be a part of his Oath invads the Legislative power and makes Acts of Parliament Upon which rare and excellent propositions I dar say The Earl is content according to the best Judgment that you and all unbyassed men can make either of their truth or of my ingenuity in excerping them to be adjudged guilty or not guilty without the least fear or apprehension of the issue And in the third and last place I shall only intreat you to try how the Advocat's reasoning will proceed in other cases and what brave work may be wrought by so usefull a tool Suppose then a man refuse the Test simply or falls into any other kind of non-conformity either civil or Ecclesiastik or pay's not the Kings custom or other dues or lastly understands an Act otherwise then the Advocate thinks he should is not his Indictement already formed and his process as good as made viz. That he reguards not the Law that he thinks it is unjustly or foolishly enacted that he will only obey as far as he can and as he pleases and thereby renders all Laws useless and so reproaches the King and Parliament and impugns their Authority and assumes to himself the Legislative power and therefore is guilty of Leasing-making depraving his Majesties Lavvs and of treason of which crimes above mentioned or one or other of them he is actor art and part Which being found by an Assize he ought to be punished with the pains of death forfaulture and escheat of lands and goods to the terror of others to doe or commit the like hereafter And if there be found a convenient Judge the poor man is undoubtedly lost But Sir having drawn this parallel rather to retrive the Earl's case then to make it a precedent which I hope it shall never be and choosing rather to leave the Advocate then follow him in his follies I forbear to urge it further These things considered must it not appear strange beyond expression how the Earl's Explanation such as it is did fall under such enormous and grievous misconstructions For setting aside the Councils allowance and approbation which comes to be considered under the next head suppose the Earl or any other person called before the Council and there required to take the Test had in all due humility said either that he could not at all take it or at least not without an Explanation because the Test did contain such things as not only he but many other and those the best of the Loyal and Orthodox Clergy did apprehend to be contradictions and inconsistencies And thereupon had proponed one or two such as the Papers above set down do plainly eneugh hold out and the Bishop in his Explanation rather evades then answers would it not be hard beyond all the measures of equity and charity to look upon this as a designed reflection far more a malicious and wicked slander and the blackest treason We see the Act of Parliament doth not absolutly injoyn the taking of the Test but only proposeth it to such as are intrusted in the Government with the ordinary certification either of losing or holding their Trusts at their option We know also that in cases of this nature it is far more suitable both to our christian liberty and the respect we ow to a christian Magistrat to give a reason of our consciencious non-complyance with meekness and fear then by a mute compearance to fall under the censure of a stubborn obstinacy And lastly it is certain and may safely be affirmed without the least reproach that Parliaments are not infallible as witness the frequent changes and abrogations of their own Acts and their altering of Oaths imposed by themselves and even of this Oath after it was presented which the Earl was not for altering so much as it was done as I told you before How then can it be that the Earl appearing befor a christian Council and there declaring in terms at the worst a litle obscure because too tender modest his Scruples at an Oath presented to him either to be freely taken or refused should fall under any censure If the Earl had in this occasion said he could not take the Test. unless liberty were given him first to explain himself as to some contradictions inconsistencies which he conceaved to be in it though he had said far more then is contained in his contraverted Explanation yet he had said nothing but what Christian liberty hath often freely allowed and christian charity would readily construe
Arms all Collectors Sub Collectors and Fermers of His Majesties Customes and Excise all Magistrats Deans of Gild Councellors and Clerks of Boroughs Royal Regality all Deacons of trades and Deâ—con-conveeners in the said Burghs all Masters and Doctors in Universities Colledges or Schools all Chaplans in families Pedagogues to children and all Officers and Soldiers in Armies Forts or Militia And all other persons in any publick Trust or office within this Kingdom who shall publickly swear and subscribe the said Oath as follows viz. Archbishops Chief Commanders of the Forces and Officers of the Crown and State and Councellors before the Secret Council all the Lords of Session and all members of the Colledg of Justice and others depending upon them before the Lords of Session the Lords of lustitiary and all these depending upon that Court in the Iustice-Court the Lords and other Members of the Exchequer before the exchequer all Bishops before the Archibishops all the Inferior Clergy Commisaries Masters Doctors of Universities Schools Chaiplans Pedagogues before the Bishops of the respective Diocesses Sheriffs Stewards Baylies of Royalty and Regality and these depending on these Iurisdictions before their respective Courts all Provosts Baylies and others of the Boroughs before the Town-Council all Collectors and Fermers of the Kings Customs and Excise before the Exchequer the Commissioners of the Borders before the Privy-Council all Iustices of the Peace before the Conveeners and the Officers of the Mint before the General of the Mint and the Officers of the Forces before the Commander in chief and common Soldiers before their respective Officers The Lyon before the Privy Council and Heraulds Pursevants and Messengers at Arms before the Lyon And His Majesty with consent foresaid Statutes and ordains that all these who presently possess and enjoy any of the foresaid offices publick Trusts and Imployments shall take and subscribe the following Oath in one of the foresaid Offices in manner before prescribed betwixt and the first of January next which is to be recorded in the Registers of the respective Courts and extracts thereof under the Clerks hand to be reported to His Majesties Privy-Council betwixt and the first of March 1682. and hereafter in any other Courts whereof they are Iudges or Members the first time they shall sit or exercise in any of these respective Courts and ordains That all who shall hereafter be promoted to or imployed in any of the foresaid Offices Trusts or Imployments shall at their entry into and before their exercising thereof take and subscribe the said Oath in manner foresaid to be recorded in the Registers of their respective Courts and reported to His Majesties Privy Council within the space of fourty days after their taking of the same And if any shall presume to exercise any of the faid offices or Imployments or any publick Office or Trust within this Kingdom the Kings Brothers and Sons only excepted until they take the Oath foresaid and subscribe the same to be recorded in the Registers of the respective Courts they shall be declared incapable of all publick trust thereafter and be further punished with the loss of their moveables and liferent-escheats the one half whereof is to be given to the Informer and the other half to belong to his Majesty and his Majesty with advice foresaid recommends to his Privy-Council to see this Act put to due and vigorous execution The TEST Containing the Oath to be taken by all Persons in publick Trust. I Solemnly swear in the presence of the eternal God whom I invoke as Judge and witnesse of the sincere intention of this my Oath That I own and sincerely profess the true Protestant Religion contained in the Confession of Faith recorded in the first Parliament of King James the VI and that I believe the same to be founded on and agreeable to the written Word of God And I promise and swear That I shall adhere thereunto during all the dayes of my life-time and shall endeavour to educate my Children therein And shall never consent to any change or alteration contrary thereto and that I disoun and renounce all such Principles Doctrines or practices whether Popish or Fanatical which are contrare unto and inconsistent with the said Protestant Religion and Confession of Faith And for testification of my obedience â—o my most gracious Soveraign Charles the II. I do affirm and swear by this my solemn Oath that the Kings Majesty is the only Supreme Governour of this Realm over all persons and in all causes as well ecclesiastical as civil And that no forreign Prince Person Pope Prelate State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preheminency or Authority Ecclesiastical or Civil within this Realm And therefore I do utterly renounce and forsake all foreign Jurisdictions Powers Superiorities and Authorities And do promise that from henceforth I shall bear Faith and true Allegiance to the Kings Majesty his Heirs and lawful Successors and to my power shall assist and defend all Rights Jurisdictions Prerogatives Priviledges Preferments and Authorities belonging to the Kings Majesty his Heirs and lawful Successors And I further affirm and swear by this my solemn Oath That I judge it unlawful for Subjects upon pretence of Reformation or any other pretence whatsoever to enter into Covenants or Leagues or to convocar conveen or assemble in any Councils Conventions or Assemblies to treat consult or determine in any matter of State Civil or Ecclesiastick without his Majesties special command or express licence had thereto or to take up arms against the King or these Commissionate by him And that I shall never so rise in arms or enter into such Covenants or Assemblies And that there lies no obligation on me from the National Covenant or the Solemn League and Covenant commonly so called or any other manner of way whatsoever to endeavour any change or alteration in the Government either in Church or State as it is now established by the Laws of this Kingdom And I promise and swear That I shall with my utmost power defend assist and maintain his Majesties Jurisdiction foresaid against all deadly And I shall never decline his Majesties Power and Jurisdiction as I shall answer to God And finally I affirm and swear That this my solemn Oath is given in the plain genuine sense and meaning of the words without any equivocation mental reservation or any manner of evasion whatsoever and that I shall not accept or use any dispensation from any creature whatsoever So help me God Act J. 6. P. 1. C. 3. Anno 1567. Anent the annulling of the Acts of Parliament made against God His Word and for maintainance of Idolatrie in any tymes bypast ITem our Soveraigne Lord with advice of his dearest Regent and three Estates of this present Parliament ratifies and approves the Act under-written made in the Parliament holden at Edinburgh the 24. day of August the year of God anâ— thousand five hundred threescore years And
nane shall be repute as loyal and faithful Subjects to our said Soveraign Lord or his Authority but be punishable as Rebellars and Gainstanders of the samine quhilk shall not give their confession and make their profession of the said true Religion And that all sik as makes profession thereof and yet hes made defection fra their dew obedience ought to our Soveraign Lord shall be admonished be the Pastors and Ministers of the Kirk to acknowledge their offence and turn to their dutieful obedience And if they failzie therein to be excommunicat and secluded from the Society of the Kirk as rebellious and corrupt Members betwixt and the first of Jun nixt to come and that alwayes before sik persons as hes made defection be received to our Soveraign Lords mercie and favour they shall give the Confession of their Faith of new and promise to continue in the Confession of the true Religion in time coming and maintaine our Soveraign Lords Authoritie and that they shall at the utmost of their power fortifie assist and maintaine the true Preachers and Professors of Christs Religion against whatsomever enemies and gainstanders of the same and namely against all sik of whatsomever Nation Estate or degree they be of that hes joyned and bound themselves or hes assisted or assist to set forward and execut the cruel decreits of the Councel of Trent quhilk most injuriously is called by the adversaries of Gods Truth the halie league contrary the Preachers and true Professors of the Word of God Many other Acts and these most peremptory and strict against the Popish Religion as Idolatrie and very pernicious to the Kingdom might here be added But these are set down as most apposite to the purpose and the rest may be seen at length in the printed Acts of Parliament Act Ch. 2. P. 2. C. 1. Anno 1669. Act asserting His Majesties Supremacy over all Persons and in all Causes Ecclesiastik THE Estates of Parliament having seriously considered how necessary it is for the good and peace of Church and State that His Majesties Power and Authoritie in relation to maters and Persons Ecclesiastical be more clearly asserted by ane Act of Parliament Have therefore thought fit it be enacted asserted and declared Likeas His Majestie with advice and consent of his Estates of Parliament doth hereby enact assert and declare that His Majesty hath the supreme Authority and Supremacie over all Persons and in all causes Ecclesiastical within this his Kingdom And that by vertue thereof the ordering and disposal of the external Government and Policie of the Church doth properly belong to His Majestie and his Successors as ane inherent right of the Crown and that His Majesty and his Successors may setle enact and emit such Constitutions Acts and Orders concerning the administration of the external Government of the Church and the Persons imployed in the same and concerning all Ecclesiastical meetings and maters to be proposed and determined therein as they in their Royal Wisdom shall think fit Which Acts Orders and Constitutions being recorded in the Books of Councel and duelie published are to be observed and obeyed by all His Majesties Subjects any Law Act or Custom to the contrary notwithstanding likeas His Majesty with advice and consent foresaid doth rescind and annull all Lawes Acts and Clauses thereof and all Customs and Constitions Civil or Ecclesiastick which are contrary to or inconsistent with His Majesties Supremacy as it is hereby asserted and declares the same void and null in all time coming The Bishop of Aberdeen and the Synods Explanation of the Test. I. WE do not hereby swear to all the particular Assertions and Expressions of the Confession of Faith mentioned in the Test but only to the uniform Doctrine of the Reformed Churches contained therein II. We do not hereby prejudg the Church's Right to and Power of making any alteration in the said Confession as to the ambiguity and obscure expressions thereof or of making a more unexceptionable frame III. When we swear That the King is Supreme Governour over all Persons and in all Causes as well Ecclesiastick as Civil and when we swear to assert and defend all His Majesties Rights and Prerogatives this is reserving always the intrinsick unalterable power of the Church immediately derived from Jesus Christ to wit the power of the Keys consisting in the preaching of the Word administration of the Sacraments ordaining of Pastors exercise of Discipline and the holding of such Assemblies as are necessary for preservation of Peace and Unity Truth and Purity in the Church and withal we do not hereby think that the King has a power to alter the Government of the Church at his pleasure IV. When we swear That it is unlawful for subjects to meet or conveen to treat or consult c. about matters of State Civil and Ecclesiastick this is excepting meetings for Ordination publick Worship and Discipline and such meetings as are necessary for the conservation of the Church and true Protestant Religion V. When we swear there lyes no obligation on us c. to endeavour any change or alteration in Government either in Church or State we mean by Arms or any seditious way VI. When we swear That we take the Test in the plain and genuine sense of the words c. we understand it only in so far as it does not contradict these Exceptions The Explanation of the Test by the Synode and Clergy of Perth BEcause our Consciences require the publishing and declaring of that express meaning we have in taking the Test that we be not mis-interpreted to swear it in these glosses which men uncharitable to it and enemies to us are apt to put upon it and because some men ill affected to the Government who are daily broachers of odious and calumnious slanders against our Persons and Ministry are apt to deduce inferences and conclusions from the alledged ambiguity of some Propositions of the Test that we charitably and firmly do believe were never intended by the Imposers nor received by the Takers Therefore to satisfie our Consciences and to save our Credit from these unjust imputations we expresly declare That we swear the Test in this following meaning I. By taking the Test we do not swear to every Proposition and Clause contained in the Confession of Faith but only to the true Protestant Religion founded upon the Word of God contained in that Confession as it is opposed to Popery and Fanaticism II. By swearing the Ecclesiastick Supremacy we swear it as we have done formerly without any reference to the assertory Act we also reserve intire unto the Church it s own intrinsick and unalterable power of the Keys as it was exercised by the Apostles and the pure primitive Church for the first three Centuries III. By swearing That it is unlawful to convocate conveen or assemble in any Councils Conventions or Assemblies to treat consult c. in any matter of State Civil or Ecclesiastick as
God Subjects may take up Arms against him 2. They maintain That nothing is to be allowed in the worship of God but what is prescribed in his Word Were not these the Principles that embroiled these Kingdoms that raised a Combustion and that turned all things upside down both in Church and State And are not these Principles plainly taught in this Confession It is reckoned Art 15 a duty to repress Tyranny and to disobey and resist Kings is a sin with this caution and limitation while they pass not over the bounds of their Office or do that thing which appertains to their charge And in like manner the assistance we ow them is cautioned and limited while they vigilantly travel in the execution of their Office Is not this the very Doctrine of the Solemn League and Covenant by which they bind themselves to defend the Kings Majesty's Person and Authority in the preservation and defence of the true Religion and Liberties of the Kingdom Let any but read Spotswood's History of the Resormation Anno 1558 1559 1560. among others how Subjects did bind themselves by Oaths and Subscriptions to assist one another for advancing the Cause of Religion how by the advice of the Ministers they deprived the Queen Regent of her Government and this very year this Confession was compiled and ratified in Parliament And I am sure there can remain no doubt about the sense of the Confession in this point But to render the matter beyond exception It is declared rebellious and treasonable by Act of Parliament for Subjects to put limitations on their due obedience and allegiance And for the other Principles about Divine Worship the Confession affirms these to be evil works that in matters of Religion and Worship of God have no other assurance but the invention and opinion men In this principle they condemn very Ancient and laudable Customs of Churches as singing the Doxology and the most innocent and indifferent Ceremonies for decency and helps for Devotion calling them by the odious titles of Superstition and Will-worship But be these Principles true or false in themselves certainly they are utterly inconsistent with these other clauses in the Test that assert it unlawful on any pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the King and invest him with such a Supremacy as impowers him to erect such Constitutions and orders about Ecclesiastical matters as His Majesty thinks fit And in this also there is a palpable Contradiction that the Test binds us not to consent to any change contrary to the Confession and by and by enjoyns to swear what is flatly contradictory to it We cannot take this Test unless with the same breath we swear and forswear under Oath protest onething and forthwith under Oath protest the quite contrary It obliges us to swear we shall with our utmost power defend assist and maintain all the Kings Rights And is not this to swear we know not what or is it not to swear we shall maintain and defend with the greatest zeal and concernedness whatsoever the King challenges or the Parliament votes to belong to him And may not a Prince come to claim a Right to act Arbitrarily and may not iniquity happen to be established by Law Nay doth not the King de facto challenge and has not the Parliament declared Supremacy to be an inherent Right of the Crown by which His Majesty may settle and emit such Acts and Orders as he pleases about Ecclesiastical matters And are not Articles of Faith Ecclesiastical maters And what is this but to avow we hold our selves obliged to believe as the King believes And so ere long the Rights Jurisdictions Prerogatives Priviledges Preeminences and Authorities that may be v ted to belong to our Prince may come to swallow up Religion Liberty Property and all our Priviledges We do not see how any man of Sense and Conscience can swear this clause in so great a Latitude and so illimited Terms It obliges us to swear That we acknowledg it unlawful without the Kings special Command to convocate conveen or assemble in any Council Convention or Assembly to treat consult or determine in any matter of State Civil or Ecclesiastik The clause excepting ordinary judgments which was added in all such convocating conveening and assembling which were declared unlawful Anno 1661. 1. Par. Char. 2. Act 21. being left out here we have reason to think that all such Sessions Presbyteries and Synods are discharged there being no special Command or Express for them that we know of And these meetings being of great use for curbing of Vice and Prophanesse and for setling and entertaining Peace and good Order in the Church we cannot swear to forbear holding of them tho we have not an express License from the King We acknowledg Princes have Power and Authority to inhibit their Subjects to meet as they see cause but we cannot bind our selves to obey them against such liberty which Christ hath conferred on his Church This is a Priviledg the Church ever enjoyed since it was founded and erected by our Saviour and in all Ages used as the state of affairs required So we cannot devoid our selves of it without proving betrayers of our Trust and condemning the conduct of the Primitive Christians who without special command nay contrary to the express Edict of Princes did convocate conveen or assemble in Councils and Conventions to treat consult and determine about Ecclesiastical matters and yet for all that have been no less commended and admired for loyalty and peaceableness than for piety and zeal And seeing that in the present juncture its notour that there are Cabals and Engines formed and carried on to undermine the Protestant Religion and to bereave us of the Truth which our Lord has committed to us as so many Depositaries Can we without the most horrid guilt and the blackest infamy swear That we shall not so much as meet Two or Three of us together till we have the Kings Warrant perhaps never to consult about the Welfare of the Church and the Salvation of our own and other Mens Souls It obliges us to swear there is no obligation on us any manner of way whatsoever to endeavour any change or alteration in the Government either in Church or State Is not this to swear what no man living can assuredly know And are there not indeed many tyes on us as Men as Christians as Pastors to procure as far as in us lyes the happiness of the Church and State Now if we discern and it be acknowledged by wise and good men that the Government may be bettered by enacting wholsome new Laws and abrogating corrupt old ones might we not ought we not in our stations endeavour such an alteration The Constitution of a National Synod e. g. gives the Archbishop of St. Andrew's a Negative when the whole Clergy is contrary so that were all our Bishops and other Members of the Synod men of Apostolick sanctity and zeal yet nothing could be done
whoso does in the contrary to be punished at the Kings will And by the 10th Act Par. 10. James 6. it is statuted That none of His Majesties Subjects presume or take upon him publikly to declare or privately to speak or write any purpose of reproach or slander of His Majesties Person Estate or Government or to deprave his Laws or Acts of Parliament or mistconstrue his Proceedings whereby any mistaking may be moved betwixt his Highness his Nobility and loving Subjects in time coming under pain of death certifying them that does in the contrary they shall be reputed as seditious and wicked instruments enemies to his Highness and to the Commonwealth of this Realm and the said pain of death shall be executed against them with all rigour to the example of others And by the second Act Ses. 2. Par. 1 Char. 2. it is statuted That whosoever shall by writing libelling remonstrating express publish or declare any words or sentences to stir up the people to the dislike of His Majesties Prerogative and Supremacy in causes Ecclesiastik or of the Government of the Church by Archbishops and Bishops as it is now setled by Law is under the pain of being declared incapable to exercise any Office Civil Ecclesiastik or Military within this Kingdom in any time coming Like as by the fundamental Laws of this Nation By the 130th Act Par 8. James 6. it is declared That none of His Majesties Subjects presume to impugn the Dignity or Authority of the Three Estates or to procure innovation or diminution of their Power and Authority under the pain of Treason And that it is much more Treason in any of His Majesties Subjects to presume to alter Laws already made or to make new Laws or to add any part to any Law by their own Authority that being to assume the Legislative Power to themselves with his Majesties highest and most incommunicable Prerogative Yet true it is That albeit His Sacred Majesty did not only bestow on you the said Archibald Earl of Argyle those vast Lands Jurisdictons and Superiorities justly for faulted to His Majesty by the Crimes of your deceased Father preferring your Family to those who had served His Majesty against it in the late Rebellion but also pardoned and remitted to you the Crimes of leasing making and misconstruing His Majesties and his Parliaments proceedings against the very Laws above written whereof you were found guilty and condemned to die therefore by the High Court of Parliament the 25. of August 1662. And raised you to the Title and Dignity of an Earl and being a member of all His Majesties Judicatures Notwithstanding of all these and many other Favours you the said Archibald Earl of Argyle Being put by the Lords of His Majesties Privy-Council to take the Test appointed by the Act of the last Parliament to be taken by all persons in publik Trust you insteed of taking the said Test and swearing the same in the plain genuine sense and meaning of the words without any equivocation mental reservation or evasion whatsoever you did declare against and defame the said Act and having to the end you might corrupt others by your pernicious sense drawn the same in a Libel of which Libel you dispersed and gave abroad Copies whereby ill impressions were given of the King and Parliaments Proceedings at a time especially when his Majesties Subjects were expecting what submission should be given to the said Test and being desired the next day to take the same as one of the Commissioners of His Majesties Treasury you did give in to the Lords of His Majesties Privy-Council and owned twice in plain judgment before them the said defamatory Libel against the said Test and Act of Parliament declaring That you had considered the said â—est and was desirous to give obedience as far as you could whereby you clearly insinuated that you was not able to give full obedience In the second Article of which Libel you declare That you were confident the Parliament never intended to impose contradictory Oaths thereby to abuse the people with a belief that the Parliament had been so impious as really and actually to have imposed contradictory Oaths and so ridiculous as to have made an act of Parliament which should be most deliberate of all humane Actions quite contrary to their own intentions after which you subsumed contrary to the nature of all Oaths and to the Acts of Parliament above-cited that every man must explain it for himself and take it in his own sense by which not only that excellent Law and the Oath therein specified which is intended to be a Fence to the Government both of Church and State but all other Oaths and Laws shall be rendered altogether uselesse to the Government If every man take the Oaths imposed by Law in his own sense then the Oath imposed is to no purpose for the Legislator cannot be sure that the Oath imposed by him will bind the takers according to the design and intent for which he appointed it and the Legislative Power is taken from the Imposers and setled in the taker of the Oath And so he is allowed to be the Legislator which is not only an open and violent depraving of His Majesties Laws and Acts of Parliament but is likewise a setling of the Legistative Power on private Subjects who are to take such Oaths In the third Article of that Paper you declare That you take the Test in so far only as it is consistent with it self and the Protestant Religion by which you maliciously intimate to the people That the said Oath is inconsistent with it self and with the Protestant Religion which is not only a down-right depraving of the said Act of Parliament but is likewise a misconstruing of His Majesties and the Parliaments Proceedings and misrepresenting them to the people in the highest degree in the tenderest points they can be concerned and implying that the King and the Parliament have done things inconsistent with the Protestant Religion for securing of which that Test was particularly intended In the Fourth Article you do expresly declare that you mean not by taking the said Test to bind up your self from wishing and endeavouring any alteration in a lawful way that you shall think fit for advancing of Church and State whereby also it was designed by the said Act of Parliament and Oath That no man should make any alteration in the Government of Church and State as it is now established and that it is the duty of all good Subjects in humble and quiet manner to obey the present Government Yet you not only declare your self but by your example you invite others to think themselves â—oosed from that Obligation and that it is free for them to make any alteration in either as they shall think fit concluding your whole Paper with these words And this I understand as a part of my Oath which is a treasonable invasion upon the Royal Legislative Power as if it were
criminal he frequently repeats from the known grounds of Law of the nature of crimes and the design of criminal Laws viz. That as there can be no crime without a fraudulent purpose either apparent or proven So it was the design of Lawgivers only to punish such acts as are designedly malicious I desire you only to consider the particulars following And 1 Pag. 〈◊〉 l. 7. of his Book of Criminals having made the question Whether what tends to a crime not perfected doth fall under the Statut or Law by which that crime to which it approaches is punished He instances in the crime of Misconstruing His Majesties Government and Proceedings or depraving his Laws which as he sayes is punishable by death Ja. 6. Par. 10. Act 10. And then further moves Whether papers as tending to misconstrue His Majesties proceedings and Government or bearing insinuations which may raise in the people jealousy against the Government be punished by that Law Which being one of the great crimes pretended and libelled against the Earl I shall here omitting his reasons in the affirmative which have not the least ground in the Earl's case as you have heard represent to you how exactly he himself and others have acted for the Earl's overthrow all these dangerous and pernicious things from which he argues in the negative His words then are these And that such insinuations and tendencies are not punished criminally he sayes 1. It is the interest of mankind to know expresly what they are to obey especially where such great certifications are annexed as in crimes 2. The Law having taken under its consideration this guilt hes punished the actual misconstruing or depraving but hes not declared such insinuations or tendencies punishable Et in statutis casus omissus habetur pro omisso 3. This would infallibly tend to render all judges arbitrary for tendencies and insinuations are in effect the product of conjecture and papers may seem innocent or criminall according to the zeal or humour as well as malice of judges men being naturally prone to differ in such consequentiall inferences and too apt to make constructions in such according to the favour or malice they bear to the Person or Cause Are not some men apt to construct that to tend to their dishonour which was designed for their honour and to think every thing an innovation of Law or Priviledge which checks their inclination and design Whereas some judges are so violent in their Loyalty as to imagine the meanest mistaks do tend to an opposition against Authority and thus Zeal Iealousie Malice or Interest would become judges 4. Men are so silly or may be in such haste or so confounded and the best are subject to such mistakes as that no man could know when he were innocent simplicity might oft times become a crime and the fear of offending might occasion offence and how uncomfortably would the people live if they knew not how to be innocent 2ly p 47 l 9. Of the same Book he sayes That the 8th Point of Treason is to impugn the dignity and Authority of the three Estates or to seek and procure the innovat on and diminution of their Power and Authority Act 103. Ja. 6. p. 6. Now this being another of the crimes charged upon the Earl hear how the Advocate there understands it But this he adds immediatly is to be understood of a N. B. direct impugning of their Authority as if it were contended that Parliaments were not necessary or that one of the three Estates might be turned out Which how vastly different from his indirect forced and horrible inferences in the Earl's case is plain and obvious 3ly ibid. p. 58. l. 2. After having said That according to former Laws no sort of Treason was to be persued in absence before the Justices And urging it to be reasonable he adds Nor is it imaginable but if it had been safe it had been granted formerly And l. 31. he sayes The Justices are never allowed even by the late Act of Parliament to proceed to sentence against absents but such as are persued for Rising in Armes against the King The true reason whereof he tells us is that the Law is not so inhumane as to punish equally presumed and reall guilt And that it hath been often found that men have absented themselves rather out of fear of a prevailing Faction or currupt witnesses c. then out of consciousness of guilt Reasons which albeit neither true nor just seeing that the Law punishes nothing even in case of absence but either manifest contumacie or crimes fully proven And that the only reason why it allowes no other crime save Perduellion to be proceeded against in absence is because it judges no other crime tanti yet you see how this whole passage quadrats with the Earl's case Who being neither persued for perduellion nor present at giving sentence was yet sentenced in absence as a most desperate traitour 4ly ibid p. 60. l. 24. Speaking of the Solemnities used in Parliament at the pronouncing sentences for Treason viz. That the Pannel receives his sentence kneeling and that after the doom of for faulture pronounced against him the Lyon and his Brethren the Heraulds in their formalities come tear his Coat of armes at the Throne and thereafter hang up his Eschucheon ranversed upon the mercat Crosse he adds But this I think should only hold in the crime of Perduellion and then goes on to add That the children of the delinquent are declared incapable to bruik any Office or Estate is another Speciality introduced in the punishment of Perduellion only And yet both these terrible Solemnities were practised against the Earl even by a Court of Iustitiary and not in Parliament albeit he was not accused of Perduellion nor be indeed more guilty of any crime then all the world sees 5ly ibid page 303 l. ult he sayes That verbal injuries are these that are committed by unwarrantable expressions as to call a man a Cheat a woman whore But because expressions may vary according to the intention of the speaker therefore except the words can allow of no good sense as whore or thief or that there be strong presumptions against the speaker the injuriandi animus or design of injuring as well as the injuring words must be proven and the speaker will be allowed to purge his guilt by declaring his intention and his declaration without an Oath will be sufficient 2ly The persuer should libell the design and prove it except the words clearly inferre it 3ly The persuer is presently to resent the injurie and if at first the words be taken for no injurie they cannot afterward become such Which things being applied to the Earl's words do evident I say That unless his words could allow of no good sense or that there were strong presumptions against him or that he could not purge his guilt by declaring his intention or that his words did clearly inferre the guilt there could be no crime of
received the same For we dare not receive nor admit any interpretation which repugnes to any principal point of our faith or to any other plain text of Scripture or yet unto the rule of charity XIX Of The Authority of the Scriptures AS we believe and confess the Scriptures of God sufficient to instruct and make the man of God perfect so do we affirm and avow the Authority of the same to be of God and neither to depend on Men nor Angels We affirm therefore that such as alledg the Scripture to have no other Authority but that which it has received from the Kirk to be blasphemous against God and â—njurious to the true Kirk which always hears and obeys the voice of her own Spouse and Pastor but takes not upon her to be Mistres over the same XX. Of General Councils of their Power Authority and cause of their Convention AS we do not rashly damn that which godly men assembled together in General Council lawfully gathered have proponed unto us so without just examination dare we not receive whatsoever is obtruded unto men under the name of General Councils For plain it is as they were men so have some of them manifestly erred and that in matters of great weight and importance So far then as the Council proves the determination and commandment that it gives by the plain word of God so soon do we reverence and embrace the same But if men under the name of a Council pretend to forge unto us new Articles of our Faith or to make Constitutions repugning to the Word of God then utterly we must refuse the same as the Doctrine of Devils which draws our souls from the voice of our only God to follow the Doctrines and Constitutions of men The cause then why that General Councils conveened was neither to make any perpetual Law which God before had not made neither yet to forge new Articles of our Belief nor to give the Word of God Authority much less to make that to be his Word or yet the true Interpretation of the same which was not before by his holy will expressed in his word But the cause of Councils we mean of such as merit the name of Councils was partly for confutation of Heresies and for giving publick confession of their Faith to Posterity following which both they did by the authority of Gods written Word and not by any Opinion or Prerogative that they could not erre by reason of their general Assembly-And this we judg to have been the chief cause of General Councils The other was for good Policy and Order to be constitute and observed in the Kirk in which as in the house of God it becomes all things to be done decently and in order Not that we think that any policy and order in Ceremonies can be appointed for all ages times and places For as Ceremonies such as men have devised are but temporal so may and ought they to be changed when they rather foster Superstition than that they edifie the Kirk using the same XXI Of the Sacraments AS the Fathers under the Law besides the verity of the Sacrifices had two chief Sacraments to wit Circumcision and the Passeover the despisers and contemners whereof were not reputed of Gods People so do we acknowledg and confess that we now in the time of the Evangel have two chief Sacraments only instituted by the Lord Jesus and commanded to be used of all these that will be reâ—uted Members of his Body to wit Baptism and the Supper or Table of the Lord Jesus called the Communion of his Body and Blood And these Sacraments as well of Old as New Testament were instituted of God not only to make a visible difference betwixt his People and these that were without his League but also to exercise the faith of his Children and by participation of the same Sacraments to seal in their hearts the assurance of his promise and of that most blessed conjunction union and society which the Elect have with their Head Christ Jesus And thus we utterly damn the vanity of them that affirm Sacraments to be nothing else but naked and bare signs No we assuredly believe that by Baptism we are ingrafted in Christ Jesus to be made pertakers of his Justice by which our sins are covered and remitted And also that in the Supper rightly used Christ Jesus is so joyned with us that he becomes very nourishment and food of our souls Not that we imagine any Transubstantiation of Bread into Christs natural Body of Wine into his natural Blood as the Papists have perniciously taught and damnably believed but this Union and Conjunction which we have with the Body and Blood of Christ Iesus in the right use of the Sacraments is wrought by the operation of the Holy Ghost who by true faith carries us above all things that are visible carnal and earthly and makes us to feed upon the Body and Blood of Christ Iesus which was once broken and shed for us who now is in Heaven and appears in the presence of his Father for us And yet notwithstanding the far distance of place which is betwixt his body now glorified in Heaven and us now mortal in this earth yet we most assuredly believe that the bread which we break is the Communion of Christs Body and the Cup which we bless is the Communion of his Blood So that we confess and undoubtedly believe that the faithful in the right use of the Lords Table do so eat the Body and drink the Blood of the Lord Iesus that he remains in them and they in him Yea they are so made flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones that as the eternal Godhead has given to the flesh of Christ Iesus which of its own condition and nature was mortal and corruptible life and immortality so does Christ Iesus his flesh and blood eaten and drunken by us give unto us the same Prerogatives Which albeit we confess are neither given unto us at that time only neither yet by the proper power and virtue of the Sacrament only yet we affirm that the faithful in the right use of the Lords Table has such Conjunction with Christ Iesus as the natural man cannot apprehend Yea and further we affirm That albeit the faithful oppressed by negligence and manly infirmity does not profit so much as they would in the very instant Action of the Supper yet shall it after bring fruit forth as lively seed sown in good ground For the Holy Spirit which can never be divided from the right Institution of the Lord Iesus will not frustrate the faithful of the fruit of that mystical Action but all this we say comes of true faith which apprehends Christ Iesus who only makes this Sacrament effectual unto us And therefore whosoever slanders us as that we affirm or believe Sacraments to be naked and bare signs do injury unto us and speak against the manifest truth But this liberally and frankly
word of God be the certain and infallible signs of the true Kirk we mean not that every particular person joyned with such company be an elect member of Christ iesus For we acknowledg and confess that dornel cockle and chaff may be sown grow and in great abundancely in the midst of the wheat that is the Reprobate may be joyned in the society of the Elect and may externally use with them the benefits of the word and Sacraments But such being but temporal professors in mouth but not in heart do fall back and continue not to the end And therefore have they no fruit of Christs Death Resurrection nor Ascension but such as with heart unfeignedly believe with mouth boldly confess the Lord Iesus as before we have said shall most assuredly receive these gifts First In this life remission of sins and that by only Faith in Christs blood in so much that albeit sin remains and continually abides in these our mortal bodies yet it is not imputed unto us but is remitted and covered with Christs Justice Secondly in the general Judgment there shall be given to everyman and woman resurrection of the flesh for the Sea shall give her dead the Earth these that therein be inclosed yea the Eternal God shall stretch out his hand on the dust and the dead shall arise uncorruptible and that in the substance of the self-same flesh that every man now bears to receive according to their works glory or punishment For such as now delight in vanity cruelty filthiness superstition or idolatry shall be adjudged to the fire unquenchable in which they shall be tormented for ever as well in their bodies as in their souls which now they give to serve the Devil in all abomination But such as continue in well-doing to the end boldly professing the Lord Jesus we constantly believe that they shall receive glory honour and immortality to reign for ever in life everlasting with Christ Iesus to whose glorified body all his Elect shall be made like when he shall appear again in Iudgment shall render up the Kingdom to God his Father who then shall be and ever shall remain in all things God blessed for ever To whom with the Son and with the Holy Ghost se all honour and glory now and ever So be it Arise O Lord and let thine enemies be confounded let them flee from thy presence that hate thy godly Name Give thy Servants strength to speak thy VVord in boldnessâ— and let all Nations cleave to thy true Knowledge Amen Thir Acts and Articles were read in the face of Parliament and ratified by the three Estates at Edinburgh the 17. day of August the year of God 1560. years Act I. 6. P. 1. C. 8. Anno 1567. Anent the Kings Aith to be given at His Coronation ITem Because that the increase of vertue suppressing of Idolatrie craves that the Prince and the People be of ane perfite Religion quhilk of Gods mercie is now presently professed within this Realm Therefore it is statute and ordained be our Soveraign Lord my Lord Regent and the three Estates of this present Parliament that all Kings and Princes or Magistrats whatsoever holding their place quhilk hereafter in any time sall happen to reigne and bear rule over this realm at the time of their Coronation and receipt of their Princely Authoritie make their faithfull promise be aith in presence of the eternal God that during the haill course of their lives they sall serve the samin eternall God to the uttermost of their power according as he hes required in his maist haly Word revieled and contained in the new and auld Testaments And according to the samin word sall maintaine the trew Religion of Christ Iesus the preaching of his halie word and due and right ministration of the Sacraments now received and preached within this realme And sall abolish and gainstand all false Religion contrare to the samin And sall rule the people committed to their charge according to the will and command of God revealed in his foresaid Word and according to the laudable Lawes and Constitutions received in this realme nawise repugnant to the said Word of the eternal God And sall procure to the uttermaist of their power to the Kirk of God and haill Christian people trew and perfite peace in all time cumming The Rights and rents with all just Priviledges of the Croun of Scotland to preserve and keep inviolated nouther sall they transfer nor alienate the samin They sall forbid and represse in all estates and degrees reife oppression and all kinde of wrang In all judgements they sall command and procure that justice and equitie de keeped to all creatures without exception as the Lord and father of all mercies be mereyful to them And out of their Lands and Empyre they sall be carefull to root out all heretikes and enemies to the trew worship of God that shall be convict be the trew Kirk of God of the foresaid crymes And that they fall faithfullie affirme the things above written be their solemn aith Act. J. 6. P. 1. C. 9. Anno 1567. No person may be judge Procurator Notar nor Member of Court quha professis not the Religion ITem The Kings grace with advice of my Lord Regent and the three Estates of this present Parliament statutes and ordains That no manner of person nor persons be received in any times hereafter to bear publick office removabill of judgment within this Realm but sik as profess the puritie of Religion and Doctrine now presently established And that nane be permitted to procure nor admitted Notar or created a Mâ—mber of Court in any time coming without he in likewise professe the Evangel and Religion foresaid Providing alwayes that this Act be on no wise extended to any manner of person or persons havand their offices heritable or in life-rent but that they may use the samin conforme to their infeftments and dispositions granted to them thereof Which Act was thereafter Anno 1609. explained and extended in this manner Part of the Act I. 6. P. 2. C. 5. Anno 1609. intituled c. AND that the Act made in His Highness first Parliament bearing that nane that professe not the true Religion presently professed within this Realm may be judge Procurator or Member of Court be extended to all and whatsomever offices without any exception or restriction in all time coming Act. J. 6. P. 3. C. 47. Anno 1572. Adversaries of the true Religion are not Subjects of the King Of Apostats ITem Forsameikle as there hes been great rebellion and disobedience against our Soveraign Lords authoritie in time bypast and seeing the cause of Gods true Religion and His Highness authoritie foresaid are so joyned as the hurt of the ane is common to baith It is therefore declared statute and ordained by our Soveraign Lord with advice and consent of his Regents grace with the three Estates and hail bodie of this present Parliament That
lawful for you to make to your self an Act of Parliament since he who can make any part of an Act may make the whole the Power and Authority in both being the same Of the which Crimes above-mentioned you the said Archibald Earl of Argyle are Actor Art and Part which being found by the Assize you ought to be punished with the pains of Death for faulture and escheat of Lands and Goods to the terror of others to commit the like hereafter An Abstract of the several Acts of Parliament upon which the Indictment against the Earl of Argyle was grounded Concerning Raisers of Rumors betwixt the King and his People Chap 20. 1. Statutes of King Robert 1. IT is defended and forbidden That no man be a Conspirator or Inventer of Narrations or Rumors by the which occasion of discord may arise betwixt the King and his People And if any such man shall be found and attainted thereof incontinent he shall be taken and put in Prison and there shall be surely keeped up ay and while the King declare his will anent him Act 43. of Par. 2. King James 1. March 11. 1424. Leasing-makers for fault Life and Goods Item it is ordained by the King and whole Parliament that all Leasing makers and tellers of them which may engender discord betwixt the King and his People wherever they may be gotten shall be challenged by them that power has and tyne Life and Goods to the King Act 83. Par 6. James 5. Dec. 10. 1540. Of Leasing-makers ITem Touching the Article of Leasing-makers to the Kings Grace of his Barons Great-men and Leidges and for punishment to be put to them therefore the Kings Grace with advice of his three Estates ratifies and approves the Acts and Statutes made thereupon before and ordains the same to be put in execution in all Points and also Statutes and ordains That if any manner of person makes any evil Information of his Highness to his Barons and Leidges that they shall be punished in such manner and by the same punishment as they that make Leasings to his Grace of his Lords Barons and Leidges Act 134. Par. 8 James 6. May 22. 1584. Anent Slandereres of the King his Progenitors Estate and Realm FOrasmuch as it is understood to our Soveraign Lord and his Three Estates assembled in this present Parliament what great harm and inconveniency has fallen in this Realm chiefly since the beginning of the Civil Troubles occurred in the time of His Highness minority through the wicked and licentious publik and private speeches and untrue Calumnies of divers of his Subjects to the disdain contempt and reproach of His Majesty his Council and Proceedings and to the dishonour and prejudice of His Highness his Parents Progenitors and Estate stirring up His Highness's Subjects thereby to misliking sedition unquietness and to cast off their due obedience to His Majesty to their evident peril tinsil and destruction His Highness continuing always in love and clemency toward all his good Subjects and most willing to seek the safety and preservation of them all which wilfully needlesly and upon plain malice after His Highness's mercy and pardon oft-times afore granted has procured themselves by their treasonable deeds to be cut off as corrupt Members of this Commonwealth Therefore it is statut and ordained by our Soveraign Lord and his Three Estates in this present Parliament that none of his Subjects of whatsoever Function Degree or Quality in time coming shall presume or take upon hand privately or publikly in Sermons Declamations and familiar Conferences to utter any false slanderous or untrue speeches to the disdain reproach and contempt of His Majesty his Council and Proceedings or to the dishonour hurt or prejudice of His Highness his Parents and Progenitors or to meddle in the Affairs of His Highness and his Estate present by-gone and in time coming under the pains contained in the Acts of Parliament anent makers and tellers of Leesings certifying them that shall be tryed contraveeners thereof or that hear such slanderous speeches and reports not the same with diligence the said pain shall be executed against them with all rigour in example of others Act 205. Par. 14 King James 6. June 8. 1594. Anent Leasing-makers and Authors of Slanders OUr Soveraign Lord with advice of his Estates in this present Parliament ratifies approves and for His Highness and Successors perpetually confirms the Act made by his Noble Progenitors King James the First of Worthy Memory against Leasing-makers the Act made by King James the Second entituled Against Leasing-makers and tellers of them the Act made by King James the Fifth entituled Of Leasing-makers and the Act made by his Highness's self with advice of his Estates in Parliament upon the 22 day of May 1584. entituled For the punishment of the Authors of Slanders and untrue Calumnies against the Kings Majesty his Council and Proceedings to the dishonour and prejudice of His Highness his Parents Progenitors Crown and Estate as also the Act made in His Highness's Parliament holden at Linlithgow upon the 10 of December 1585. entituled Against the Authors of slanderous speeches or Writs and statutes and ordains all the said Acts to be published of new and to be put in execution in time coming with this addition That whoever hears the said Leasings Calumnies or slanderous Speeches or Writs to be made and apprehends not the Authors thereof if it lyes in his power and reveals not the same to His Highness or one of his Privy-Council or to the Sheriff Steward or Bayliff of the Shire Stewards in Regality or Royalty or to the Provost or any of the Bayliffs within Burgh by whom the same may come to the knowledg of his Highness or his said Privy-Council wherethrough the said Leasing-makers and Authors of slanderous Speeches may be called tryed and punished according to the said Acts The hearer and not apprehender if it lye in his power and concealer and not revealer of the said Leasing-makers and Authors of the said slanderous Speeches or Writs shall incur the like pain and punishment as the Principal Offender Act 107. Par. 7. King James 1. March 1. 1427. That none interpret the Kings Statutes wrongously ITem The King by deliverance of Council by manner of Statute forbids That no man interpret his Statutes otherwise than the Statutes bear and to the intent and effect that they were made for and as the maker of them understood and whoso does in the contrary shall be punished at the Kings will Act 10. Par 10. King James 6. Dec. 10. 1585. Authors of slanderous Speeches or Writs should be punished to the death IT is statuted and ordained by our Soveraign Lord and Three Estates That all his Highness's Subjects content themselves in quietness and dutiful obedience to his Highness and his Authority and that none of them presume or take upon hand publikly to declaim or privately to speak or write any purpose of reproach or slander of His Majesties Person Estate
Sir George Lockhart Advocate to consult and plead for us in the Criminal Process intended against us at the instance of His Majesties Advocate and to compear with us before the Lords Commissioners of Justitiary upon the 12th of December next conform to an Act of Council dated the 22d of Novemb. instant allowing any Lawyers that we should employ to consult and plead for us in the said Process and to another Act of Council of the 24th of Novemb. instant relative to the former and conform to the Acts of Parliament In witness whereof we have Subscribed these Presents at Edenburgh-Castle Nov 26. 1681. before these Witnesses Duncan Campbell Servitor to James Glen Stationer in Edenburgh and John Thom Merchant in the said Burgh ARGYLE Duncan Campbell Iohn Thom Witnesses An Instrument whereby the Earl of Argyle required Sir George Lockhart to appear and plead for him Apud Edenburgum vigesimo sexto die Mensis Novembris Anno Domini millesimo sexcentesimo octuagesimo primo Anno Regni Car. 2. Regis trigesimo tertio THe which day in presence of Me Notar publik and Witnesses under-subscribed compeared personally Alexander Dunbar Servitor to a Noble Earl Archibald Earl of Argyle as Procurator and in name of the said Earl conform to a Procuration subscribed by the said Earl at the Castle of Edenburgh upon the twenty first day of November 1681. making and constituting the said Alexander Dunbar his Procurator to the effect under-written and past to the personal presence of Sir George Lockhart Advocate in his own lodging in Edenburgh having and holding in his hands an Act of his Majesties Privy Council of the date the 22 of November 1681. instant proceeding upon a Petition given in by the said Earl of Argyle to the said Lords shewing That he being Criminally indicted before the Lords Commissioners of Justitiary at the instance of His Majesties Advocate for Crimes of an high Nature and whereas in that case no Advocates would readily plead for the said Earl unless they had his Royal Highness's and their Lordships special Licence and Warrant to that effect which is usual in the like Cases And by the said Petition humbly supplicated That his Highness and the Council would give special Order and Command to the said Sir George Lockhart the said Earl's ordinary Advocate to consult and plead for him in the foresaid Criminal Process without incurring any hazard upon that account His Royal Highness and Lords of the said Privy-Council did refuse the desire of the said Petition but allowed any Lawyers the Petitioner should employ to consult and plead for him in the Process of Treason and other Crimes to be pursued against him at the instance of His Majesties Advocate And also the said Alexander Dunbar having and holding in his hands another Act of the said Lords of Privy-Council of the date the 24th of the said moneth relative to and nar rating the foresaid first Act and Proceeding upon another supplication given in by the said Earl to the said-Lords craving That his Royal Highness and the said Lords would interâ—ose their Authority by giving a positive and special Order and Warrant to the said Sir George Lockhart to consult and plead with him in the foresaid Criminal Process conform to the tenor of the Acts of Parliament mentioned and particularized in the said Petition and frequent and known practice in the like cases which was never refused to any Subjects of the meanest quality His Royal Highness and Lords of Privy-Council having considered the foresaid Petition did by the said Act adhere to their former Order allowing Advocates to appear for the said Earl in the Process foresaid as the said Acts bear and produced the said Acts and Procuratory foresaid to the said Sir George Lockhart who took the same in his hands and read them over successive and after reading thereof the said Alexander Dunbar Procurator and in name and behalf foresaid solemnly required the said Sir George Lockhart as the said Noble Earl's ordinary Advocate and as a Lawyer and Advocate upon the said Earl's reasonable expence to consult and advise the said Earl's said Processe at any time and place the said Sir George should appoint to meet thereupon conform to the foresaid Two Acts of Council and Acts of Parliament therein mentioned appointing Advocates to consult in such matters Which the said Sir George Lockhart altogether refused Whereupon the said Alexander Dunbar as Procurator and in Name foresaid asked and took Instruments one or more in the hands of me Notary publik undersubscribed And these things were done within the said Sir George Lockhart's Lodging on the South side of the Street of Edenburgh in the Lane-Mercat within the Dining-room of the said Lodging betwixt Four and Five hours in the Afternoon Day Moneth Year Place and of His Majesties Reign respective foresaid before Robert Dicksone and John Lesly Servitors to John Campbell Writer to His Majesties Signet and Doâ—gall Maâ— Alester Messenger in Edenburgh with divers others called and required to the Premisses Ita esse Ego Johannes Broun Notarius publicui in Praemissis requisitus Attestor Testantibus his meis signe subscriptione manualibus solitis consuetis Broun Witnesses Robert Dicksone Dowgall Mac. Alester Iohn Lesly Decemb. 5. 1682. The Opinion of divers Lawyers concerning the Case of the Earl of Argyle WE have considered the Criminal Letters raised at the instance of His Majesties Advocate against the Earl of Argyle with the Acts of Parliament contained and narrated in the same Criminal Letters and have compared the same with a Paper or Explication which is libelled to have been given in by the Earl to the Lords of His Majesties Privy-Council and owned by him as the sense and explication in which he did take the Oath imposed by the late Act of Parliament Which Paper is of this tenor I have considered the Test and am very desirous to give obedience as far as I can c. And having likewise considered that the Earl after he had taken the Oath with the explication and sense then put upon it it was acquiesced to by the Lords of Privy-Council and he allowed to take his Place and to sit and vote And that before the Earl's taking of the Oath there were several Papers spread abroad containing Objections and alledging inconsistencies and contradictions in the Oath and some thereof were presented by Synods and Presbyteries of the Orthodox Clergy to some of the Bishops of the Church It is our humble Opinion that seeing the Earls design and meaning in offering the said Explication was allenarly for the clearing of his own Conscience and upon no factious or seditious design and that the matter and import of the said Paper is no contradiction of the Laws and Acts of Parliament It doth not at all import any of the Crimes libelled against him viz. Treason Leasing-making depraving of His Majesties Laws or the Crime of Perjury but that the Glosses and Inferences put by the Libel upon the said Paper
are ever to be interpreted and understood in meliorem partem And by way of Implication and Inference to conclud and infer crimes from the same which the user of such words and expressions never mean'd nor designed is both unreasonable and unjust 2. As the foresaid Acts of Parliament made against Leasing-makers and depravers of His Majesties Laws only proceed in the terms foresaid where the words and speeches are plain tending to beget discord between the King and his Subjects and to the reproach and dislike of his Government and when the same are spoke and vented in a subdolous pernicious and fraudulent manner So they never were nor can be understood to proceed in the case of a person offering in the presence of a publik udicature whereof he had the honour to be a Member his sincere and plain meaning and apprehension of what he conceived to be the true sense of the Act of Parliament imâ—osing and enjoyning the Test There being nothing more opposite to the Acts of Parliamenâ— made against Leasing-making and venting and spreading abroad the same upon seditious designs than the foresaid plain and open declaration of his sense and apprehension what was the meaning of the said Act of Parliament And it is of no import to inter any crime and much less any of the crimes libelled albeit the Pannel had erred and mistaken in his apprehension of the Act of Parliament And it were a strange extention of the Act of Parliament made against Leasing makers requiring the qualifications foresaid the Acts against depraving His Majesties Laws to make the Pannel or any other person guilty upon the mistakes and misapprehensions of the sense of the â—aws wherein men may mistake and differ very much and even eminent Lawyers and Judges So that the Acts of Parliament against Leasing-making and depraving His Majesties Lavvs can only be understood in the express terms and qualifications â—oresaid Like as it neither is libelled nor can be proven that the Pannel before he was called and required by the Lords of His Majesties Privy-council to take the Oath did ever by word or practice use any reproachful speeches of the said Act of Parliament or of His Majestâ—es Government But being required to take the Oath he did humbly with all submission declare what he apprehended to be the sense of the Act of the Parliament enjoyning the Test and in what sense he had freedom to take the same 3. The Act of Parliament enjoyning the Test does not enjoyn the same to be taken by all persons whatsoever but only prescribes it as a qualification without which persons could not assume or continue to act in publik Trust Which bein an Oath to be taken by so solemn an invocation of the Name of Almighty God it is not only allowable by the Lavvs and customs of all Nations and the Opinion of all Divines ad Casuists Popish or Protestant but also commended that where a Party has any scrupulosity or unclearness in his conscience as to the matter of the Oath that he should exhibit and declare the sense and meaning in which he is willing and able to take the Oath And it is not at all material whether the scruples of a mans conscience in the matter of an Oath be in themselves just or groundless it being a certain maxime both in Law and Divinity that Conscientia etiam erronea ligat And therefore tho the Pannel had thought fit for the clearing and exoneration of his own conscience in a matter of the highest concern as to his peace and repose to have exprest and declared t e express sense in which he could take the Oath whether the said sense was consistent with the Act of Parliament or not yet it does not in the least import any matter of reproach or reflection upon the justice or prudence of the Parliament in imposing the said Oath but alenarly does evince the weakness and scrupulosity of a mans conscience who neither did nor ought to have taken the Oath but with an explanation that would have saved his conscience to his apprehension Otherwise he had grosly sinned before God even tho it was Conscientia errans And this is allowed and prescribed by all Protestant Divines as indispensibly necessary and was never thought to import any crime and is also commended even by Popish Casuists themselves who tho they allow in some cases of mental reservations and equivocations yet the express declaration of the sense o the party is allowed and commended as much more ingenuous and tutius Remedium Conscientiae ne illaqueetur as appears by Bellarmine de Iuramento and upon the same Title de Interpretatione Iuramenti and Lessius that famous Casuist de Iustitia Iure Dubitatione 8 9. utrum siquis salvo animo aliquid Iuramento promittat obligetur quale peccatum hoc sit And which is the general opinion of all Casuists and all Divines as may appear by Amesius in his Treatise de Conscientia Sanderson de Iuramento Praelectione secunda And such an express Declaration of the sense and meaning of any party when required to take an Oath for no other end but for the clearing and exoneration of his own Conscience was never in the opinion of any Lawyer or any Divine construed to be the Crime of Leasing-making or of defamatory Libels or depraving of publik Laws or reproaching or misconstruing of the Government but on the contrary by the universal suffrage of all Protestant Divines there is expresly required in Cases of a scrupulous Conscience an abhorrence and detestation of all reserved senses and of all Amphibologies and Equivocations which are in themselves unlawful and reprobate upon that unanswerable Reason that Juramentum being the highest Act of Devotion and Religion in eo requiritur maxima simplicitas and that a party is obliged who has any scruples of Conscience publikly and openly to clear and declare the same 4. Albeit it is not controverted but that a Legislator imposing an Oath or any publik Authority before whom the Oath is taken may after hearing of the Sense and Explication which a person is willing to put upon it either reject or accept of the same if it be conceived not to be consistent with the genuine sense of the Oath Yet tho it were rejected it was never heard of or pretended that the offering of a sense does import a crime but that notwithstanding thereof Habetur pro Recusante and as if he had not taken the Oath and to be liable to the certification of Law as if he had been a Refuser 5. The Pannel having publikly and openly declared the sense in which he was free to take the Oath it is offered to be proved that he was allowed and did accordingly proceed to the taking of the Oath and did thereafter take his place and sit and vote during that Sederunt of Privy Council So as the pretended Sense and Explication which he did then emit and give can import no Crime against
certainly no man of sober sense will think that it is fit to insinuate that so high a judicature might have authorized or acquiescedin such Explanations as the Liedges thereafter should be entrapped to have used If the Pannel had officiously or ultrâ—neously offered a sense or Explanation of His Majesties Laws which the Laws themselves could not have born it might justly have been alledged that he was extraordinem and medling in a matter he was not concerned in but where the Act of Council did enjoyn and he was required and cited to that effect It could neither be constructed as ostentation or to move or encourage Scruples or Resistance but it was absolutely necessary either for to have refused the Test or else to have declared what he thought to be the true and genuine meaning of it And there being so many objections publikly moved and known his Explanation was nothing else but to clear That he did not look upon these Scruples and Objections moved by others as well founded and rational in themselves and therefore he was able to take the Test in that sense the Council had heard or allowed And it is not controverted that the sense of the Legislator is the genuine sense both of Laws and Oaths And if a person were only interpreting the meaning of either a Law or an Oath imposed he should deprave and misconstruct the Law and Oath if he rendered it wittingly and willingly in terms inconsistent with the meaning of the imposer But there is a great difference betwixt taking of Oaths and interpreting Oaths For when a man comes to take an Oath except his particular sense did agree with the genuine meaning of the imposer he cannot take that Oath tho he may very well interpret and declare what is the sense of the Legislator which he may know and yet perhaps not be able to take the Oath And therefore when there is any doubtfulness in an Oath and a party is bound to take it if then he gives in an Explication of the sense which he in his private judgment doth apprehend to be the genuine meaning if that private sense be disconform to the Legislators sense in the Oath then the Imposer of the Oath or he that has power to offer it to the party if he consider the parties sense disconform he ought to reject the Oath as not fulfilling the intent of the Law imposing it But it is impossible to state that as a Crime That a party should neither believe what is proposed in the Oath nor be able to take it And he can run no farther hazard but the penalty imposed upon the Refuser And therefore in all Oaths there must be a concourse both of the sense imposed by Authority and of the private Sense Iudgment or Conscience of the party And therefore if a party should take an Oath in the Sense proposed by Authority contrary to his own sense he were perjured whereby it is evident that the sense of Authority is not sufficient without the acquiescence and consent of the private person And therefore it is very strange why that part of the Pannel's Explanation should be challenged that he takes it in his own Sense the posterior words making it as plain as the light that that sense of his own is not what he pleases to make of the Oath for it bears expresly that no body can explain it but for himself and reconcile it as it is genuine and agrees in its own sense So that there must be a Reconciliation betwixt his own sense and the genuine sense which upon all hands is acknowledged to be the Sense of Authority And if the Pannel had been of these lax and debaucht Principles that he might have evaded the meaning and energy of the Oath by imposing upon it what sense he pleased certainly he would have contented himself in the general refuge of Equivocation or Mental Reservation and he would never have exposed his sense to the world in which he took this Oath whereby he became absolutely fixed and determined to the Oath in that particular sense and so had no latitude of shuffling off the Energy or Obligation of the Oath And it is likewise acknowledged That the Cases alledged in the Reply are true viz. That the person is guilty of Perjury si aliquo novo Commento he would elude his Oath or who doth not fulfil the Oath in the sense of the Imposer But that does not concern this Case For in the foresaid Citation a person after he has taken an Oath finding out some new conceit to elude it he is perjured but in this Case the Pannel did at and before his taking the Test declare the terms in which he understood it So that this was not novâ— aliquo commento to elude it And the other Case where a party takes it in the sense of Authority but has some subterfuge or concealed Explanation it is acknowledged to be Perjury But in this Case there was no concealed Explanation but it was publikly exprest and an Explanation given which the Pannel designed and understood as the meaning of Authority and had ground to believe he was not mistaken since upon that Explanation he was received and allowed to sit and vote in Council And as to that part of the Reply that explains the Treason there can be no Treason in the Pannel's Case because the express Act of Parliament founded upon doth relate only to the Constitution of the Parliament And I am sure His Majesties Advocate cannot subsume in these terms And therefore in the Reply he recurs to the general Grounds of the Law That the usurping of His Majesties Authority in making a part of the Law and to make alterations in general and without the King are high and treasonable words or designs and such as the party pleases and such designs as have been practised in the late times And that even the adjection of fair and safe words as in the Covenant does not secure from treasonable Designs and that it was so found in Balmerino's Case tho it bear a fair Narrative of an humble Supplication It is replied That the usurpation of making of Laws is undoubtedly treasonable but no such thing can be pretended or subsumed in this Case For albeit the Pannel declares his Explanation to be a part of his Oath yet he never meaned to impose it as a part of the Law or that this Explanation should be a thing distinct or a separate part even of his Oath For his Explanation being but exegetik of the several parts of the Oath it is no distinct thing from the Oath but declared to be a part of the Oath de natura rei And it was never pretended That he that alledged any thing to be de natura rei did say That that was distinct and separate which were a Contradiction And therefore the Argument is retorted the Pannel having declared this Explanation was de natura rei implied in the Oath he necessarily made this
use of Times and Places and Companies of another nature on whom their suggestions and insinuations may prevail But it is a violence to the common Reason of mankind to pretend that a person of the Pannel's Quality having the honour to serve His Majesty in most eminent Capacities and devoted to His Majesties Interest and Service beyond the strictest ties of Duty and Allegiance by the transcendent Favours he had received that the Pannel in those Circumstances and in presence of his Royal Highness and Lords of Privy-Council should design to declame and de facto declame against and defame His Majesties Government To suppose this is absolutely contradictory to the common Principles and Practices of Law and common Topiks of Reason And as to Balmerino's Case it is answered That the Lords of Justitiary are humbly desired to call for and peruse the said Petition and Books of Adjournal which was certainly a defamatory Libel of His Majesties Father of blessed Memory and of the States of Parliament in the highest degree bearing expresly that there was nothing designed but an innovation of the Protestant Religion and the subversion and over-turning the Liberties and Priviledges of the Parliament and the Constitutions of the Articles and other things of that kind which made certainly of it self a most villanous and execrable Libel containing the highest Crimes of Treason and Perduellion and was not capable of any good sense or interpretation but was absolutely pernicious and destructive So that it is in vain to pretend that the said Libel did contain Prefaces and Protestations of Loyalty which no Law regards even in simplici injuria maledicto tho committed by a private person cum praefatione salvo honore or the like and which were certainly ridiculous to sustain in a Libel concerning Crimes of Treason And whereas it is pretended That tho others were guilty of these Crimes it does not excuse the Earl and that the Lords of Privy-Council cannot remit Crimes and the negligence of the Kings Officers cannot prejudg his Interest It is answered The Pannel is very confident that neither the Lords of His Majesties Privy-Council consisting of persons of eminent Loyalty and Judgment nor His Majesties Officers were capable of any such escape as is pretended and if the tenor of the Pannels Explication did in the least import the high and infamous Crimes libelled as beyond all peradventure it does not it were strange how the same being contained in the foresaid vindication and the whole Clauses thereof justified that this should have been looked on as no Crime and allowed to be published And the Pannel neither does nor needs to make farther use thereof but to convince all dis-interested persons that his Explication can import no Crime And whereas it is pretended That the Crime of Treason is inferred from the fundamental Laws of the Kingdom and from that Clause of the Pannel's Explication wherereby he declares he is not bound up by any thing in this Oath not to endeavour any alteration in a lawful way which being an indefinite Proposition is equipollent to an univetsal and is upon the matter coincident with a Clause which was rebellious in its consequences contained in the Solemn League and Covenant It is answered That it is strange how such a plain and innocent Clause whereby beyond all question he does express no more than was naturally imported in the Oath it self whether exprest or not should be made a foundation to import the Crime of Treason which no Lawyer ever allowed except where it was founded upon express Law Luce Meridiana Clariâ—r And indeed if such stretches and inferences can make men guilty of Treason no man can be secure And the words in the Pannel's Declaration are plain and clear yet non sunt cavillanda and import no more but that in his station and in a lawful way and consistent with the Protestant Religion and his Loyalty he might endeavour any alteration to the advantage of Church and State And was there ever any loyal or rational Subject that does or can doubt that this is the natural import of the Oath And indeed it were a strange Oath if it were capable of another sense and being designed for the security of the Government should bind up mens hands to concur for its advantage And how was it possible that the Pannel or any other in the capacity of a Privy-Councellor or a Member of the Parliament would have satisfied his Duty and Allegiance in other terms And whereas it is pretended that there was the like case in the pretended League and Covenant it is answered The Assertion is evidently a Mistake and tho it were the Argument is altogether inconsequential For that League and Covenant was treasonable in it self as being a Combination entered into without His Majesties Authority and was treasonable in the glosses that were put upon it and was imposed by absolute violence on the Subjects of this Kingdom And how can the Pannel be in the least supposed to have had any respect to the said League and Covenant when he had so often taken the Declaration disowning and renouncing it as an unlawful and sinful Oath and concurred in the many excellent Laws and Acts of Parliament made by His Majesty condemning the same as seditious and treasonable And whereas it is pretended That the Pannel is guilty of Perjury having taken the Oath in another sense than was consistent with the genuine sense of the Parliament and that by the Authority cited he doth commento eludere Iuramentum which ought always to be taken in the sense of him that imposeth the Oath It is answered The Pretence is most groundless and Perjury never was nor can be inferred but by the commission or omission of something directly contrary to the Oath And altho it it is true That where an Oath is taken without any Declaration of the express sense of the persons who take it it obliges sub poena Perjurii in the sense not of the taker but of the imposer of the Oath because expressing no Sense Law and Reason presumes there is a full acquiescence in the sense and meaning of the imposer of the Oath and then if an Oath be not so taken he that takes it is guilty of Perjury Yet there was never Lawyer nor Divine Popish or Protestant but agree in this That whatever be the tenor of the Oath if before the taking thereof the party in express terms does publikly openly declare the sense in which he takes it it is impossible it can infer the Crime of Perjury against him in any other sense this not being Commentum excogitatum after the taking of the Oath And if this were not so how is it possible in Sense and Reason that ever any Explication or Sense could solve the Scruples of a mans Conscience For it might be always pretended That notwithstanding of the express sense wherein he took it he should be guilty of Perjury from another sense And that this is
other parts of it mere extravagant improvements of a lesed phansy viz. That he did thereby teach others to do the like And evacuate all other acts of that nature And yet our Author as if he had fully made out his Charge goes on to answer not the Mist in the pertinent contexture of its whole discourse but a few such Objections as he thought fit lamely to excerp out of it And the first he takes notice of is where the Mist or M r Mist as this Brouillon calls him sayes That if the Authority vvhich is to administer the Oath accept the Takers sense the Taker is only bound in that sense But so it is the Council accepted the Earl's sense and if they had refused it the Earl had not taken the Oath nor had his refusal been a crime Which being indeed an unanswerable Defence for the Earl and largely insisted on in the Narrative I shall only shortly consider our Author's Reply whereof the summe and force is That the Council not having the povver to pardon Crimes their connivance at the Earl's misinterpreting the Law cannot exoner him Which he illustrats by putting the case That a man having many Friends in Council gives in an Explication incontrovertedly treasonable for example That he minds not thereby to bind up himself from rising in Arms yet it would be no defence sayes our Author that the Council did not challenge it for the time But waving the Author's confounding of misinterpreting of a Law with the missensing of an Oath His lessening the Councils Acceptance of the Earl's Explanation into a bare connivance and lastly his reproaching their Lordships with a very palpable insinuation of partiality The question is not If the Council have the power of pardoning as our Author goes about to pervert the argument on purpose that he may presuppose a Crime but plainly If they have not the Authority to administer the Oath of the Test by express provision of the Act of Parliament Which our Author cannot deny Now If the Council by the Act of Parliament have the Authority to administer and did really accept the Earl's Explanation and not only connive at it which on his part was a mere proposal and in effect by their acceptance became as truly their Explanation as if they themselves had emitted it how is it possible that in this matter he should be thought guilty without overturning all the principles of Reason Sense and common Honesty I grant If the Earl or any man else had under the pretext of offering an Explanation taken occasion openly to misinterpret the Laws or utter speaches manifestly treasonable the Councils connivance could not fully assoil him But 1. What have we to do with such absurd and incredible suppositions And is it not the hight of calumnie to compare the Earl's Explanation which both in it self and in all its circumstances manifestly appears to be most ingenuously and dutyfully by him tendered for the exoneration of his conscience and was no less really accepted as such by the Council with imaginary criminal Wrestings and treasonable Declamations which as proposed scarce any man in his right wits can judge caseable 2 ly The Earl and his words being charged with Misinterpreting Slandering Reproaching and Depraving his Majesties Statuts and Proceedings If the Lords of Council who represent his Majesty by a commission unaccountable save to his Majesty alone accept his words is it not the same thing as if his Majesty himself had done it Which certainly is more significant as to the cutting off of any pretence of Injury then either Dissimulation or Remission which yet all Law doth constantly sustain for that end 3ly As to the Treason objected though there were some ground for it as there is none yet seeing the Earl's Explanation was tendered to the Council to be by them authorized and if by them rejected had indeed evanished as never uttered It 's yet further evident that their Acceptance could not be made a snare to the Earl without the greatest injustice But 4ly The Council being impowered by the Parliament to administer and having accepted the Earl's Explanation it is the same thing as if the Parliament had accepted it in which case even our Author must acknowledge that all ground of accusation would have been for ever excluded But instead of noticing these things all that our Author sayes is 1. That the Paper containing the Earl's Explanation was not given in till the next day after that the Earl had sworn the Test. But was it therefore not delivered verbally in Council the day before And was not this Delivery enough And 2ly That tho the Judges had allowed the Earl to prove that he had emitted these words at the swearing of the Test yet he failed in the probation But in what manner and for what intent this Allowance was given and how disingenuously it is here obtruded I have already cleared In the 2d Place Our Author affirms the Mists alledgeance for clearing the Earl of the Charge of Misinterpreting viz. That the Law doth only discharge publik Misinterpreting to the abusing of others to be most false But althouh I have already told you that to extend the Law against Misinterpreting the King's Statuts to a man's Missensing of an Oath is a wide stretch which both Papists and Fanatiks who vastly disagree from our Author as to the sense of the Oath of Supremacy and yet have no difference with him as to the sense of the Acts imposing it may justly call absurd Yet to assist my Friend the Mist who tho a stranger hath yet said things ten times more justly then our Author albeit apparently a piece of a Scotch aspiring Lawyer 1. I would be content to know If so be our Author think every private misinterpretation of Laws to be a transgression of this Act of Parliament What shall become not only of thousands of the King 's best subjects who fall dayly in such mistakes but also of Advocates and Lawyers themselves who are continually by the Ears about such controversies Nay even of his Majesties Advocate who in his prined Criminals as you may see above in the first Posâ—script to the Narrative calls an Act of Parliament an unreasonable unjust murthering and inept Act And I am very confident whatever our Author shall think fit to alledge either from the Direction of the Intention or favour of Circumstances for acquitting these Misinterpreters it shall fully quadrate to the Earl's case and with many and clear advantages 2ly When our Author jumps from the Misinterpreting of Lavvs to the Missensing of Oaths and thereon tells us how dangerous and criminal it is to take Oaths in wrested senses contrair to the design of the Legislator He first supposes what is already shewed to be false viz. That the Earl's Explanation of the Test is wrested And next he quite forgets that no sense of the Test can avail unless accepted by the Council the great Administrators So that for all his flanting the Government