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
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
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
for reforming the Church if one man who may happen to be an enemy both to Truth and Vertue shall dissent And how can honest conscientious Church-men swear they shall never endeavour to have this helped By the same Act no matter is to be debated consulted or concluded but what shall be allowed by His Majesty What now if the Prince come to be Popish or altogether unconcerned about Religion shall we can we in Conscience bind our selves to propose treat and conclude nothing but what he pleases By the explicatory Act itis put in the Kings power to cut and carve in the external Government of the Church at his pleasure And so he may without consent of Parliament or Clergy restore Presbytery he may turn out all the Bishops and Pastors and plant in their room men of his own persuasion whatever it be he may casheer all our spiritual Fathers and substitute Noble-men Gentle-men Lawyers or any other kind of Laiks to be Superintendents of the Church or his Commissioners in Ecclesiastical affairs And shall we oblige our selves by an Oath to endeavour no rectification of so unreasonable a Statute If we see and it cannot be denied that Episcopal Government might contribute more to maintain Truth and advance Piety and Peace than hitherto it has done might we not ought we not to use our utmost endeavours to procure such Laws and Canons to be enacted as should oblige Bishops to manage their Power and Authority to such noble and excellent ends and not put off the respect to the souls committed to their charge We are to endeavour such a change which might conduce mightily for changing and reforming them Out of the veneration we bear to Episcopacy we cannot but pray and with for such a change and do our best to effectuate it because otherways Episcopal Government would come to be despised and derided not only as useless but pernicious Unless then we would intirely abandon Episcopacy unless we would express no regard for or concern our selves with the flourishing of piety unless we would sit down contented and satisfied without ever complaining of and opposing the corruptions of the Church we can by no means swear this Clause of the Test But we would with a very good Conscience testifie by our Solemn Oath if we were put to it that we judge our selvès obliged to endeavour a change both of the Government and Governors of the Church There are several other things that beget in our minds an utter dislike of the Act anent Religion We shall touch Two or Three things more It commands us to become a kind of Sycophants Delators and Informers against Dissenters Hardly could our mortal enemies fall upon a course more likely to blast our Ministry and expose us to hatred and obloquy Had it been designed we should give an account of Schismatical Withdrawers that our spiritual Fathers might bear with them in the spirit of meekness and charity for clearing their prejudices we would have most readily and joyfully served them in so worthy an enterprise But to delate them that they may be fined and imprisoned or banished or sustain any bodily or temporal damages is a thing we abhor We judg it more eligible to be no Pastors than to be on such terms 2. It weakens the Protestant Interest by dividing Protestants and treating sober Dissenters with as great severity as Papists or wildest Fanatiks 3. It leaves a wide postern for Popery for it exempts from the Test such as should have been first of all put to it and so provides most effectually for perpetuating Popery in the Royal Family And what could have been contrived more grateful and advantageous to the Church of Rome and what more grievous and fatal to the Reformed Grounds wherupon some of the Conformed Ministers scruple to take the Test. FIrst passing by the danger of Oaths when pressed so generally men of the least tenderness ordinarily swallow them easily and make small Conscience of observing them while they that fear Oaths are hardly induced to take them and by their strict observance make themselves a Prey we think it strange that this Oath should be injoyned to us who cannot be suspected rationally to incline either to Fanaticism or Popery since by our Subscriptions to the Oath of Supremacy and canonical obedience we have sufficiently purged our selves of the first and by our refuting Popish errors daily in our Pulpits do shew an utter abhorrence of the other and further since meerly our owning of Episcopal Government has begot and still increases in the minds of our People such an Aversion from and dislike of us we would have expected that our spiritual Fathers would not have exposed us to greater loathing and contempt by such engagements which although it should be granted to be causeless and unjust yet we think our selves bound to shun it that our Ministry may be the more taking with them since the thing pressed upon us is neither absolutely necessarie nor yet so evident in what is asserted for truth as may incourage us for to underlie their prejudice conceived thereupon And finallie since it is known that abjuring the Covenant did hinder many Ministers to conform and People to joyn in Ordinances dispensed by Conformists and our Parliaments had hitherto shewed such civil Moderation as to free us from the Declaration we cannot look at it but as bad and fatal that our Church should be dashed on this Rock which may occasion its splitting and instead of quenching this former evil create new Flames Secondly as we wish for the suppressing of the growth of Popery a more particular way had been made use of even for the discovering of such as are of no publick Trust so we cannot but regret that this Test has been so framed as to divide the sound sober Presbyterians amongst themselves whereby our Common Enemies are gratify'd and the true Faith indangered we being perswaded that there are many Presbyterians in the Kingdom Gentlemen Ministers and others who cannot in conscience take this Test who yet do dayly come and are ready to joyne with us in Ordinances We think it had been fitter to have condescended something for gaining of such then to have put such a brand upon them which may more alienate them and weaken us Thirdly that Confession of Faith Recorded in the first Parliament of King James the 6th has some things in it which may scarre the Swearing to it without Limitation as 1. Section 15th it Asserts those to be evil works which are done not only contra but praeter verbum Dei 2dly Section 25th It Asserts such as resist the Supreme Power doing that which pertains to his charge and while he vigilantly travels in his office doe resist the Ordinance of God which clauses may bear an exclusive sense especially when in the 5th Section it is reckoned among good works to suppress Tyranny 3dly Section 15th Jesus Christ is asserted to be the only Head and Law-giver of his Kirk and it
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
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
endeavouring for such as are good and lawful and in a lawful way which no man can disown without denying common reason nor no sworn Councellour disclaime without manifest perjury But the Advocat's last conceit is That the Earl's restriction is not as the King shall think fitt or as is consistent with the Law but that himself is still to be judge of this and his Loyalty to be the standard But first The Earl's restriction is expresly according to Loyalty which in good sense is the same with according to Law and the very thing that the King is ever supposed to think Secondly as neither the Advocate nor any other hitherto have had reason to distinguish the exercise and actings of the Earl's Loyalty from those of His Majesties best Subjects so is it not a marvellous thing that the Advocate should prosesse to think for in reality he cannot think it the Earl's words His Loyalty which all men see to to be the same with his duty and sidelity or what else can bind him to his Prince capable of any quible farr more to be a ground of so horrid an accusation And whereas the Advocate sayes The Earl is still to be judge of this It is but an insipid calumny it being as plain as any thing can be that the Earl doth nowise design His thinking to be the rule of right and wrong but only mentions it as the necessary application of these excellent and unerring rules of Religion Law and Reason to which he plainly resers and subjects both his thinking and himself to be judged accordingly By which it is evident that the Earl's restriction is rather better and more dutyful then that which the Advocate seems to desiderat And if the Earl's restrictions had not been full eneugh it was the Advocat's part before administrating the Oath to have craved what more he thought necessary which the Earl in the case would not have refused But it is beleeved the Advocate can yet hardly propose restrictions more full and suitable to duty then the fore-mentioned of Religion Law and Reason which the Earl did of himself profer As for what His Majesties Advocate add's That under such professions and reserves the late Rebellions and disorders have all been carried on and fomented It is but meer vapour for no rebellion ever was or can be without a breach of one or other of the Earl's Qualifications which doth sufficiently vindicat that part of the Earl's Explanation The Advocate insists much that Any is equivalent to All and that All comprehends Every particular under it which he would have to be the deadly poyson in the Earl's words And yet the Earl may defy him and all his detracters to find out a case of the least undutifulness much less of rebellion that a man can be guilty of while he keeps within the excellent Rules and limitations wherewith his words are cautioned I could tell you further that so imaginary or rather extravagant and ridiculous is this pretended Treason that there is not a person in Scotland either of these who have refused or who by the Act are not called to take the Test that may not upon the same ground and words be impeach't viz. That they are not bound and so without doubt both may and do saâ— it by the Test in their station c. to wish and endeavour any alteration c. Nay I desire the Advocate to produce the man among those that have taken the Test that will affirm that by taking it he hath bound up himself never to wish or endeavour any alteration c. according to the Earl's Qualifications and I shall name hundreds to Whom his Highness as you have heard may be added that will say they are not bound up So that by this conclusion if it were yeelded all Scotland are equally guilty of treason the Advocate himself to say nothing of His Royal Highness not excepted Or if he still think he is I wish he would testify under his hand to the World that by his Oath he is bound up never to wish nor endeavour any alteration he thinks to the advantage of Church or State in a lavvful way nor in his station though neither repugnant to the Protestant Religion nor his Loyalty And if this he do he does as a man if not of sense at least of honour but if not I leave a blank for his Epithets But that you may see that this whole affair is a deep Mystery Pray notice what is objected against the last part of the Explanation This I understand as a part of my Oath Which sayes the Advocate Is a treasonable invasion upon the Royal Legislative power as if the Earl could make to himself an Act of Parliament since he who can make any part of an Act may make the whole And then say I farewell all Takers of the Test with an Explanation whether the Orthodox clergy or Earl Queensberry tho himself Justice generall who were allowed by the Council so to do seing that whether they hold their Explanation for a part of their Oath or not yet others may and in effect all men of sense doe understand it so and thus in the Advocat's Opinion they have treasonably invaded the Legislative povver and made an Act of Parliament to themselves Neither in that case can the Councils allovvance excuse them seing not only the Earl had it as well as they but even the Council it self cannot make an Act of Parliament either for themselves or others But Sir I protest I am both ashamed and wearied of this trifling And therefore to shut up this Head I shall only give a few remarks First you may see by the Acts of Parliament upon which the Advocate sounds his indictment that as to Leasing-making and depraving Laws all of them run in these plain and sensible terms The inventing of narrations the making and telling of lyes the uttering of wicked and untrue calumnies to the slander of King and Government the depraving of his Laws and misconstruing his proceedings to the engendering of discord moving and raising of hatred and dislike betwixt the King and his People And as to treason in these yet more positive terms That none impugne the dignity and authority of the three Estats or seek or procure the innovation or diminution thereof Which are things so palpbale and easily discerned and withall so infinitly remote both from the Earl's words and intentions or any tolerable construction can be put on either that I confess I never read this indictment but I was made to wonder that its forget and maker was not in looking on it deterred by the just apprehensions he might have not only to be sometime accused as a manifest depraver of all Law but to be for ever accounted a gross and most disingenuous perverter of common sense The Earl's words are sober respectful and duty fully spoken for the exoneration of his own Conscience without the least insinuation of either reflection or slander much less
Explanation no addition or extention of the Oath So that for all this Explanation the Oath is neither broader nor longer than it was And as to these words I do not mean to bind up my self in my station and in a lawful way to wish and endeavour any alteration I think to the advantage of Church or State not repugnant to the Protestant Religion and my Loyalty It is a strange thing how this Clause can be drawn in question as treasonable when it may with better Reason be alledged That there is no good Subject but is bound to say it And albeit the words to endeavour in my station be words contained in the Covenant yet that is no Reason why two words in the Covenant may not be made use of in another very good and loyal sense And there is no man that shall have the honour either to be entrusted by His Majesty in his Council or any other Judicature or to be a Member of Parliament but he is bound by his Loyalty to say the same thing And there was never a Clause more cautiously exprest for the words run to endeavour any alteration I shall think to the advantage of Church and State And tho that was sufficient yet the Clause is so cautiously conceived that it contains another Restriction not repugnant to Religion and his Loyalty So that except it could be alledged That a man by lawful means to the advantage of Church and State consistent with his Religion and Loyalty could make treasonable alterations and invasions upon the Government and Monarchy which are the highest Contradictions imaginable there can be nothing against the Pannel And albeit the Clause any alterations might without the Restrictions and Qualifications foresaid be generally extended yet the preceeding words of lawful way and the rational Interpretation of the emission of words especially before a solemn Judicatory leaves no place or shadow to doubt that these alterations were no fundamental or treasonable alterations but such as the frailty of humane Affairs and Constitutions and vicissitude of things and circumstances do constantly require in the most exact Constitutions under Heaven And the clause does not so much as import that there is a present necessity of alteration but it was a necessary and rational prospect That albeit at present all things under Heaven had been done to secure the Religion and Government yet there might occur Cases that would require new helps alterations and remedies And it is not pretended in this Case for the Pannel That he desires to alleviate or take off words truly treasonable or having an ill design by the mixing of fair and safe dutiful and submissive Expressions which indeed are Protestations contrariâ— facto For there is nothing in his Explanation that either in his design or in the words themselves being rationally and naturally interpreted can infer the Crimes libelled or any of them And the Pannel's known Principles and known Practices do not only clear that Loyalty that he has profest before the Lords of Justitiary and instructed by unquestionable Documents but they put him far from the suspicion of these damnable Principles related in the Reply Of which the whole tract of his Life hath been an intire evidence of his abhorrency and detestation And in the last place It is thought strange why that should be represented as an affront or disgrace to the Government That the Parliament imposed a Test which the Pannel is not able to take simply And it is not pretended That he hath defamed written or spoken against the Test it self or for the inconvenience of it but only that he hath not been able to see the good ground upon which it may be simply taken And this were to condemn him for want of sight or sense when the Law hath punished no man for not taking the Test but only turned him out of the Government And it is as strange an Inference That because the Pannel declares He believes the Parliament meaned no Contradiction and would take the Test in as far as it is consistent that therefore he said the Parliament imposed Contradictions Which is so far from a rational Induction that the Contradiction of these Subsumptions in all congruity of Language and Sense is necessarily true And therefore the last part of that Clause in so far as it is consistent is a Consequence inferred upon the former viz. I believe the Parliament designed to impose no Contradictions ergo I take the Test as consistent and in so far as it must be consistent if the Parliament did not impose Contradictions as certainly they have not and to convince the world that in this sense this Explanation is receivable it was proposed in Council and allowed and therefore without the highest reflection it cannot now be quarrelled Sir George Lockhart's second Plea for the Earl of Argyle by way of Reply upon the King's Advocate SIR George Lockhart Duplies That the Defender repeats and oppones his former Defences which are no ways elided nor satisfied by the Reply made by His Majesties Advocate And altho it be easie for the Kings Advocate out of his zeal to pretend and argue Crimes of the highest Nature upon Inferences and Consequences neither consistent with the Pannel's design nor with his words and expressions yet there cannot be a more dangerous foundation laid for the security and interest of the Government and the security and protection of the Subjects than that Crimes should be inferred but from clear evident and express Laws and plain palpable Contravention of these Laws It being both against the Laws of God and Man that a Man should be made an Offender for a word and especially for expressions which according to Sense and Reason and considering the time and place where they were spoken by the Pannel viz. as a Member of His Majesties Privy-Council and in presence of his Royal Highnes and the Members of Council and when required to take the Test were safe and Innocent and it were against all Law and Reason to suppose that the Pannel either did or designed to do any thing which may or did import the Crimes libelled against him And whereas it is pretended That the Oath required and imposed by Act of Parliament was for the security of the Government and that the Pannel by his Explication does evade the Oath by taking it only so far as it is consistent with the Protestant Religon and his own Loyalty whereof he was Judge It is answered That the pretence is most unwarrantable and the security of His Majesties Government is not at all endangered as God forbid it should tho the Pannel and a Thousand more had simply refused the Test or had taken it in a sense which does not satisfie the Law it being competent to publik Authority to consider whether the Pannels Oath in the terms of the Explication wherein he did take it does satisfie the Act of Parliament or not And if not there can be no rational consequence inferred thereupon but
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
And am very desirous to give obedience as far as I can but am not willing to give full obedience I am confident the Parliament never intended to impose contradictory Oaths that is I am confident they did intend to impose contradictory Oaths And therefor I think no man can explain it but for himself that is to say every man may take it in any sense he pleases to devise and thereby render this Law and also all other Laws though not at all concerned in this affair useless And so make himself a Legislator and usurp the supreme Authority And I take it in so far as it is consistent with it self and the Protestant Religion whereby I suppose that it is not at all consistent with either nor was ever intended by the Parliament it should be consistent And I declare that by taking this Test I mean not to bind up my self in my station and in a lawfull way to wish or endeavour any alteration I think to the advantage of Church or State not repugnant to the Protestant Religion and my Loyalty Whereby I declare my self and all others free from all obligation to the Government either of Church or State as by law established and from the duty and Loyalty of good Subjects Resolving of my self to alter all the Fundamentals both of Law and Religion as I shall think fit And this I understand as a part of my Oath that is as a part of the Act of Parliament by which I take upon me and usurp the Royal Legislative power Which sense and Explanation as it consists of the Advocat's own words and was indeed every word necessar to infer these horrible crimes contained in the Indictment So to speak with all the modesty that truth will allow I am sure it is so violent false and absurd that the greatest difficulty must be to beleeve that any such thing was alledged far more receaved and sustained in Judgment by men professing only Reason far less Religion But thirdly if neither the Earl's true genuine and honest sense nor this violent corrupt and false sense will satisfy let us try what transprosing the Earl's Explanation will do and see how the just contrary will look And it must be thus I Have considered the Test nor am I at all desirous to give Obedience so far as I can I am confident the Parliament intended to impose contradictory Oaths And therefor I think every man can explain it for others as well as for himself and take it without reconciling it either to it self or his own sense of it And I doe take it though it be inconsistent with it self and the Protestant Religion And I declare that I mean thereby to bind up my self never either in my station or in any lawfull way whatsoever to wish or endeavour in the least any alteration tho to the advantage of Church or State and tho never so suitable and no way repugnant to the Protestant Religion and my Loyalty And though this be the express quality of my swearing yet I understand it to be no part of my Oath Now whether this contradictory conversion be not treason or highly criminal at best I leave all the World to Judge and to make both sâ—â—es of a contradiction that is both the Affirmative and Negative of the same proposition treason is beyond ordinary Logik Escobar finds two contrary wayes may both be probable and safe wayes to go to heaven but neither he nor the Devil himself have hâ—thâ—rto adventured to declare two contradictory propositions both damnable and either of them a just cause to take away mens Lives Honours and Fortunes But where the disease is in the will it is lost Labour to apply Remedies to the understanding and must not this be indeed either the oddest treason or strangest discovery that ever was hear'd of The Bishop of Edinburgh sees it not witnesse his Vindication saying the same and more Nor many of the Orthodox Clergie witness their Explanations Nor his Royall Highness in privat nor at first in Council nor all the Councellors when together at the Council-board Nor the President of the Council nor the then President of the Session now Chancellour though He rose from his seat to be sure to hear nor any of the most learned lawyers witness their signed Opinion nor the most learned of the Judges on the bench nor the Generality of the knowing persons either in Scotland or England wonderfull treason one day seen by none another day seen by so many A stander-by hearing the trial and the Sentence said he beleeved the Earl's words were by Popish magik transsubstantiat for he saw them the same as before Another answered that he verily thought it was so for he was confident none could see Treason in the words that would not when ever it was a proper time readily also profess his beleefe of transubstantiation but he beleeved many that professed both beleeved neither The second Head of the Earl's additional defences contains the impertinencies absurdities of the Advocat's Arguings And here you must not expect any solid debate For as there is no disputing with those that deny Principles so as litle with those who heap up Phantastical and inconsequential inferences without all shadow of Reason If a stone be thrown though it may do hurt yet having some weight it may be thrown back with equall or more force But if a man trig up a feather and fling it It is in vain to throw it back and the more strength the less success It shall therefor serve by acursoâ—y discourse to expose his arguments which are in effect easier answered then understood and without any serious arguing which they cannot bear rather leave him to be wise in his own eyes then by too much empty talk hazard to be like him He alledges first that the Earl instead of taking the Test in its plain and genuine meaning as he ought doth declare against and defame the Act that enjoyned it which is certainly a great crime But how In as much sayes the Advocate as he tells us That he had considered the Test Which I have indeed hear'd say was his greatest crime and that he ought to have taken it with a profound and devout ignorance as some of our most inventive Politicians boasted they had done But the Earl sayes that he was desirous to give obedience as far as he could whereby sayes the Advcat He insinuats that he was not able to give full obedience This is not the meaning but what if it were and that indeed he coud not Have not thousands given no obedience yet even in law are guiltlesse And ought not that to please his Highnesse and the Council that is accepted of God Almighty and is all any Mortal can perform But the Earl sayes the Advocate Goes on that he was confident the Parliament never intended to impose contradictory Oaths whereby sayes the Advocat He abuses the people with a beleef that the Parliament did intend to impose such
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
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
every good subject much more of one of his Majesties svvorn Councellors Our Author sayes indeed well but to no purpose That it is Treason L. 1. § Majestatis ff ad L. Iuliam Majestatis to attempt against the security of the Government But can he or any man in his right senses conceive that for a man to endeavour any or all Alterations as above qualified by the Earl is to attempt against the Government Certainly he may as soon prove that to assist and advance the Government faithfully and strenuously the true and obvious import of the Earl's words is to overturn it traiterously But our Author hath a clear Statut for him viz. P. 1. Sess 2. Act. 2. Ch. 2. Whereby it is declared that these Positions That it is lawfull for subjects upon any pretence to enter into Leagues or take up Arms against the King Or that it is lawfull for subjects pretending his Authority to take up Arms against his Person or those commissionat by him Or to suspend him from the exercise of his Royal Government Or to put Limitations on their due Obedience and Allegiance are rebellious and treasonable From vvhich vvords sayes he I infer most clearly That for a subject to declare he is not tyed up from wishing any Alteration is Treason For any Alteration comprehending all Alterations can any man of sense and ingenuity deny but this is a putting Limitations upon his Obedience why not due obedience and Allegiance But admitting any to be comprehensive of all Alterations can any man of common ingenuity say That he that declares himself not tyed up from endeavouring in his station and in a lawfull way all Alterations to the advantage of Church and State not repugnant to Religion and Loyalty declares himself not tyed up from endeavouring all simply Which is a quite different thing Or that he that purposely declares in the former manner that he may preserve the just latitude of his Allegiance doth put Limitations upon his due Obedience and Allegiance when in effect he most expressly ampliats and explains it But our Author coming to see that the deadly thing in the Eal's vvords is neither the Any nor the All addes For vvhat is a greater Limitation then to reserve to himself to be Iudge hovv far he is tyed But because the Earl in his sincerity professes that he minded to endeavour in his Station and in a Lawfull way such Alterations as he should truly think and not barely alledge to be to the advantage of Church and State Doth he therefore make Himself or his Opinion the only Rule of his Oath and performance and not rather the Lavv to which he so plainly refers Or hath our Author either so little Understanding or so little Honesty as not to acknowledge that though de jure all men be obliged to regard Lavv and Reason as the great Directors of duty Yet de facto they can only apply them providing they would do it ingenuously according to their ovvn conceptions So that to accuse a man for such an Expression is to put off all professions of Sincerity and to subvert the very use of thinking among men as is more fully above held forth Our Author in the next place gives us many reasons why the Earl's Cautions in my Station and in a Lawfull way not repugnant to Religion and Loyalty cannot salve his Reservation But still seduced by one and the same foolish and wretched Error viz. That because such Cautions do not justify the contrarie Transgressions therefore all Professions so cautioned are a crime Thus he tells us first That the Covenant as criminal as it was vvas so qualified But who ever thought that these qualified Professions in the Covenant condescended on by our Author were the Covenanters guilt Sure I am it is only for the opposite Practices and not at all for these Professions that the Act of Parliament condemns them 2ly He sayes These Cautions never hindered any man to committ Treason And what then Have not the best Cautions and highest Professions in the world been in like manner violate Whereas the thing our Author should have said is That an Endeavour every vvay qualified as the Earl professes hath been found treasonable But knowing this to be certainly false you see how he here declines to averr it 3ly He tells us That they that rebelled in the 1666 and 1679. professed great love to his Majesty And had they never said or done more does our Author think they had been found guilty of Treason 4ly He tells us That the adjecting of such Cautions is reckoned by Lawyers as Protestatio contraria facto And so indeed they may justly be as they only are when any Fact is committed contrary to them as for example when the Earl shall turn Papist But was it ever heard since Law was named or Reason understood amongst men that a man's declaration That he did not mean to bind up himself in his Station and in a lawfull way to endeavour Alterations he should think to the advantage of Church and State not repugnant to Religion and Loyalty was judged either Protestatio illicita aut cuivis facto licito contraria And 5ly Our Author repeats the Statut condemning glosses put upon the Laws by the late Rebellious Parliaments to the prejudice of their Allegiance But I have already told you there is no such gloss contained in the Earl's words And I further appeal to all men our Author not excepted whether ever these Parliaments if they had only professed That in their station and in a lawfull way they would endeavour any Alteration they thought to the advantage of Church and State not repugnant to Religion and Loyalty would have incurred his late Majesties displeasure much less the atrocious Character of Rebellious here cast upon them But sayes our Author Their Explanation declaring that what they did was for the preservation of Religion which is the very Explanation put by the Earl upon this Oath was particularly condemned as false and disloyal But not to tell you that by our Author's words a man would think that even to say The Test was made for the preservation of Religion may be found both false and disloyal which I heartily wish may never come to pass may not this passage alone convince our Author That it neither was nor could be the Parliaments precise professing themselves to be for Religion but only their professing and justifying of what they did to be for Religion which was judged false and disloyal And that because their Profession or Protestation was thought contrary to their Deed with which the Earl's case Qui adeo factorum innocens ut verba ejus arguantur as a noble Roman said in the like case and who is not so much as accused of having done any thing holds not the least similitude And yet sayes our Author From all this it clearly follows That the Earl by reserving a power to himself to endeavour Alterations did committ Treason notwithstanding all his
needless is found guilty condemned of high Treason which is as full a Concession in my opinion as could have been desired Ay but sayes our Author The former argument still recurs viz. He that will not bind up himself as to any thing reserves a power as to all things which must at least be interpret of unlawful things for lavvful things need no Exception But not to notice our Authors Christian charity and far more observable justice that because Lavvful things need not be reserved though in all cases dubious it be certainly the more tender part to reserve them will therefore have the Earl's Reservation to be of Things unlawful and treasonable The Earl's Reservation is most expresly of Things lawfull in so far as he only refuses to bind up himself in his Station and in a lawfull way as to things advantageous to Church and State not repugnant to Religion and Loyalty Which is a full and cumulative Expression of their Lawfulness And as to what our Author subjoyns of the Earl's putting Limitations on his Allegiance in so far as what he sayes is intelligible it is already answered It being manifest that the Earl's words in stead of being a Limitation are a designed and ample Extension In the next place our Author comes to tell us That the Earl's Qualifications take off the whole force of his Oath either as to rising in Arms or any other unlawfull thing For. 1. Sayes he He takes the Oath only in so far as it is consistent with it self and the Protestant Religion So that if he think the Protestant Religion shall require rising in Arms he is not tyed But. 1. I have told you how false it is that the Earl resolves the force of his Oath upon his own thinking which here he doth not so much as mention 2ly Is it not strange how our Author should judge that the Protestant Religion may not make as certain a Qualification in the Earl's Explanation as it doth in the Councils Where yet in liew of the Confession of Faith the standard appointed by the Parliament it is made the only bar against Popery 3ly What a ridiculous Conceit it is to think that the Earl by offering to take the Test in as far as it is consistent with it self and the Protestant Religion did reserve to himself a liberty to rise in Arms when by an Article of the Test which can neither be taken off nor eluded by any part of the Earl's Explanation he was to swear liquidly and distinctly not to rise in Arms 2ly Sayes our Author The Earl's Oath only tyes him as far as he can which may leave him yet bound by the Covenant But I have already cleared how the Earl did only profess his readiness to obey the Act of Parliament as far as he could without intending by these Words any restriction of his Oath and that to wrest them as if designed for that end is an absurd and willfull errour 3ly Sayes he The Earl takes it only as far as it is consistent with it self And God and the Earl only know how far that is A noble Testimony to the Test And as plain a declaration that our Author neither knows nor caâ—es to know how far it is consistent But having already told you that the Earl did certainly use this Expression to vindicate the Test and his own Conscience from other mens Exceptions and Scruples And that no man in reason either ought to take it or can be bound by it otherwise I shall not here adde any thing And lastly our Author repeates the danger of Limitations telling us That if after the dreadfull effects we have seen produced by them and that Parliaments have condemned them as Treason we should still be secure and unconcerned all the vvorld might laugh at our ruine But seeing it is 1. Most ridiculous to call a manifest Extension an undue Limitation 2ly Most false that ever the Parliament condemned any Limitation of the nature of the Earl's Reservation or that ever a Deed qualified in the Earl's terms was or can be thought dangerous far less rebellious 3ly Most certain that nothing in all times hath so much ruined Government and Governours as the unjust Iealousies and pretended legal but really violent Proceedings of its Ministers I shall not trouble our Author with any further Remarks In the close of his Discourse he thinks fit to instigate Judges to Severity and to guard them against insolent Pity as he calls it which truly after what all men have seen of their frank Procedure against the Earl appeared to me at first reading a very superfluous Caution But my Surprise was only from the want of our Author's fore-sight and was soon intirely discussed For just as I am writing there is come to my hand His Majesties gracious Proclamation for compleeting no doubt the selicity of our Author 's happy Kingdom by ordering the Prosecution of all Rebells and their Resetters c. In the Execution whereof now after the Government had for severall years connived at many hundreds of these Rebells and out-Lavvs and thereby rendered the people secure and careless It is easy to demonstrate that more then ten thousand of his Majesties peaceable Subjects may be prosecute and punished as Traitors and above fourty thousand beside made liable to Fining and Imprisonment at the Councils pleasure A work which I confess requires the highest measures of severity that our Author could prompt to doth indeed leave the far better part of the Kingdom without all refuge or relief save in his Majesties Clemency But where I also hope they shall seasonably and comfortably find it notwithstanding all our Author 's many sly and mischievous Insinuations to the contrair He vvishes the Earl had come in vvill as if forsooth he had proven him to be guilty And as falsly insinuats this to be usual that he may represent him not only as Criminal but a Contemner of his Majesties Mercy He likewise tells us That he doth not admire that this Author and these of his vvay see not this Paper to be Treason since they vvill not acknovvledge it to be Treason to oppose the Succession and to say that it can be altered by a Parliament Which yet the Scotch Parliament thought to be Treason Nor in the last age thought they it Treason to rise in arms against the King and call Parliaments vvithout him So that sayes our Author The fault is only in the depraved Intellectuals of such as have by a long custome of hating Authority bred in themselves a hatred of every Person and thing that can maintain it But not to stay here to discuss all the Calumny and Envy wrap't up in this passage I shall only desire you to consider 1. That our Author would have it a transcendent wonder that the Author of the Mist should say The Succession can be altered by a Parliament And yet he cannot but know that that Person lives under an express Act of Parliament declaring it Treason to say the contrary 2ly He sayes The Scotch Parliament thought it to be Treason to oppose the Succession and to say that it can be altered by Parliament And yet the same Scotch Parliament judged it proper for them to declare and confirm the Succession And Law and Reason say that Constituere destituere sunt ejusdem facultatis But not to insist upon these things For a Conclusion I shall only take the liberty to protest for my self without offering to anticipate the better judgment of others as our Author visibly doth That were I as clear for the Succession as his Royal Highness As dissatisfied with the old Statut and late Proceedings of the English Parliaments about it as our Author As zealous for the Honour and Infallibility of the last Scotch Parliament as his Majesties Advocate As enraged against former Practices as the greatest Torry in Britain And yet more tender and respective of Authority then my ovvn heart I could not have imagined that either Misinterpreting Defaming Depraving or Treason should have been found in the Earl's words And am very apprehensive that the Judgment so given against him may prove a greater bar to the Succession and Reflection on Scotch Parliaments and Judges then all that our Author hath laboured to squeese out of them COPPY OF His Majesties Letter ordering the passing of his two former Signatures for the Earl's Offices and Jurisdictions AT Edinburgh the fifteenth day of January 1669 Years His Majesties Letter under-vvritten direct to the Lords Commissioners of his Treasury and Exchequer vvas presented and read and ordained to be recorded whereof the Tenor followeth Sic suprascribitur CHARLES R. Right trusty and right well beloved Cousins and Councellors and right trusty and well beloved Councellors we greet you well Wee did upon the fyfteenth day of October 1667 sign a Signature in favours of the Earl of Argyle and another shortly after for the Lands of Knoydart The Signatures we are informed are not past And in August last our Secretary acquainted us with a Letter which he had received from our Advocate bearing date the thirteenth day of August 1668 Years together with an Information containing thirteen Reasons against some heritable Offices comprehended in the said Signature We are also acquainted vvith the Earl of Argyle's Ansvvers All vvhich vve have taken into our consideration And although we are very well satisfied with our Advocate in his doing of his duty in representing to us what he conceives to be fit for our service in this particular as also vvith his Fiaelity and Diligence in other things relating to his Place Yet upon serious Consideration of the vvhole matter It is our Gracious Pleasure That the said Signatures vvith these Offices be past our Exchequer and that in the terms exprest in our Letter signed by us soon after the signature any thing in our Instructions to the contrary notvvithstanding For all vvhich this shall be your vvarant And so we bid you farewel Given at our Court at Whiteâ—al the seventh day of January 166 9 8 and of our Reign the 20 Year By His Majesties Command Sic subscribitur Lawderdale Extractum de Libris Actorum Scacarii per me Sic subscribitur THO. MURRAY Clericus Reg. FINIS ☜ ☞ ☞ ☜ ☜ ☜ ☜ ☞ ☜ ☜ ☞ ☞ ☜ ☜ ☞ ☞ ☜ ☜ ☜ ☜ ☜ ☜ ☞ ☞ ☞ ☞ ☞ ☜ ☜ ☜ ☜ ☜ ☜ ☜ ☜ ☜