being now very few who go not to Church and almost all repenting that they went not sooner and I desire to know from these Authors if their Partie in England thinks that the true way of using Papists or if the Presbyterians allowed that way of arguing when they prevail'd and was it not that lenity which drew on the last Rebellion and our Slavery A short view of our Laws made on that Subject with the occasion of them will best clear this point In the last Rebellion defensive Armes and that the people had power to Depose or Suspend Kings were the great foundation and in defence whereof several Books have been lately written and therefore these were declared Treason and it is admir'd how any can be called good Subjects who maintain them The Parliament did see that the not going to Church occasioned much Atheism and Ignorance and that the hearing such as were not Authorized was a certain inlet to all Sedition and Herisie since every man might preach what he pleased and therefore they discharg'd House Conventicles and declar'd that meetings in the Fields were formall Rebellion since Rebellion is only a rising in Armes without and contrary to the Command of Authority and that sometimes there would be gathered together several thousands of people in Armes who might joyn when they pleased and from a Conjunction meerly of those proceeded the Rebellions 1666. and 1679. and they punished these with moderat Fynes far below the guilt And how dare men be so dissingenuous as to own themselves the only Protestants and yet to inveigh against Statutes made to hinder Jesuites Socinians and others to pervert the people as we certainly know they did for many years together at those meetings and how could this be prevented since the poor commens know not what is Orthodox And since they were perswaded not to ask who was to Preach least they should be oblidged to Witnesse against him and as the dangers on the onehand were great so on the other they were desired to go to that Church which the greatest and soberest of their own Ministers did and do still frequent Some Ministers fearing that their hearers might be led as Witnesses against them infused in them a dangerous and ridiculous principle that no man was oblidged to depone when he was called to be a Witness and that no man was oblig'd to Depone when the being at such illegal Meetings was referred to his Oath and this was called the accusing of ones self whereas all Laws under Heaven oblige a man to be a Witness else no Crime could be prov'd And if this were allowed we might have as many Masses as we pleas'd and when any thing is referred to a mans Oath he does not accuse himself for the Fiskal accuses him and do not all Nations prove Injuries and Misdemeanours by the Oaths of the Committers if these are not to be capitally punished And therefore the Parliament was forced to make a Statute obliging them to Depone as VVitnesses I need not tell the dreadful Equivocations lately invented to secure Rebels as when a Witness Depones he saw a Hilt and a Scabbart but yet knows not if there was a Sword The Pia fraus of Ignoramus Iuries and a hundreth other Cheats rather to be lamented then related And which tended to unhing all Property as well as Religion if God and zealous Magistrates had not prevented it And yet the opposing these which is a Duty must be represented as a Crime for deluding ignorant people The Parliament then having for the necessary Defense of the Kingdom by reiterated Laws commanded those things to be put to Execution Laws which did not only at first seem to be just but were thereafter upon experience found to be so Are not they promoters of Arbitrary Government who think that the Judges and Magistrats of the Nation should dispense with such Laws And whoever thinks he may dispense with the Law must certainly think that he is ty'd by no Law and that is to be truly Arbitrary And it is most observable that these who are Enemies to His Majesties Government and His Servants are of all men alive most guilty of that Arbiltariness which they would fix upon others It cannot be imagin'd that the King will contemn the Laws since they are his own Creatures as well as His Support whereas such as oppose Him or Rebell against Him must first trample under foot the Laws by which the King is Secur'd and by which they are to be punish't and it is not the Masters but Robbers who break the Fences 2ly Are not these honest and good Countrey-men who think it cruelty to punish such as did take up Arms twice in an open Rebellion and who own all the Cruelties that were committed in the late Civil Wars who burn publickly the Acts of Parliament and who joyn with Murderers 3ly Albeit those Crymes be very attrocious horrid in themselves and dreadful in the preparative inconsistent with humane Society and a Scandal to Religion Yet have not His Majesties Judicatures offered Remissions to all such as have been accus'd providing they would disown those Rebellious Principles so that such as dy are the Martyrs of their own Crymes and justifie their Judges even whilst they are Exclaiming against them And as no Government under Heaven did ever shew so many Instances of Clemency offering Indemnities when there was no necessity for them Renewing and Pressing those Indemnities when they were twice or thrice slighted and Remissions when all those gentle Offers were contemn'd so has any man dy'd amongst us by malicious Juries or false Witnesses 4ly Has not the Privy Council in their Fyning such as were guilty proceeded with such moderation that albeit for many years the Laws were absolutely contemned after many Reiterations by the Parliament and Proclamations from the Council pressing Obedience to them Yet they have Ordered Execution to be Suspended as for bypast times to all such as would Obey for the Future And I must beg leave to Observe that it has been upon an exact Review found that the Rebellious Parliament 1647. did Impose more by way of Fyne in one day than the Privy Council has done since His Majesties happy Restauration Such as differ'd from their Government Intreated for those Pardons which are now refus'd And it would have been then thought very ridiculous to offer a man his Life who had been in Arms for the King upon his offering to live peaceably 5ly If the Differences amongst us upon which all those Rebellions were founded were Matterial and did proceed from Conscience somewhat might be said to lessen though not to justifie the Guilt for Conscience should neither be a Cryme nor a defence for Crymes Yet what can now be said When all men willingly go to Church which certainly they would not do if their Conscience did not allow them And it being now clear that the former contempt of the Law proceeded from Humor and not from Conscience who can blame
and the Earl himself still the only Judge And I am desirous to know in what part of Europe such qualities were ever allowed It is also very absurd to contend that the adjecting of these qualities can put the Taker in no worse case then if he had refused the Test. And since that cannot amount to a Crime so neither can this For it is contended that these qualities do infer a misinterpreting of the Kings Laws and a Defaming of the Parliament And it is most absurd to think that such things as these should be suffered because they are thrown in into Explications For else under the pretence of Explaining Oaths we should have virulent Libels dayly against King and Palliament Nor can I see why Equivocations and Mental Reservations should be condemned if this be allowed for such as take the Test or any other Oath may at the taking of them Evacuat the Obligation of the Oath by adjecting such qualities And it is all one to the Legislator whether he be openly or secretly abas'd Only this I must observe that the open Abuse is the greater because it adds publick Contempt to the design'd Cheat And whereas it is pretended that the Magistrat may choose whether he will admit of the quality or not which he cannot do in mental Equivacations To this it is answered that that could only hold if the qualities adjected to the Oath were first offered by way of Petition to the Magistrat that it might be known whether he would allow of them which was not done in this Case wherein without ever applying to the King or Council The Earl did by his own Authority Swear in his own Terms Though the Council and the Reverend Bishops took pains to satisfie some scrupulous Ministers whose Scruples were in Favours of the Government and got them the Kings Sense and told them their own And which indeed was the genuine Sense of the Parliament Yet that did not at all allow the Earl or any privat man to take it in a Sense Inconsistent with the Oath And that too without previously offering his doubt to the King and Council And geting their Approbation as said is Nor were they allowed to take it in such general Terms as did â—â—â—ecure the Legislator and admit the Takers to be Judges The second Cryme fixt'd upon the Earl from this Paper is That albeit by the 10 Act Par 10 Ia 6 It is Satute That none of His Majesties Subjects presume nor take upon hand publickly to Declaim or privatly to Speak or Write any purpose of Reproach or slander of His Majesties Person Estate or Government or to Deprave His Laws and Acts of Parliament or misconstruct His Proceedings whereby any misliking may be mov'd betwixt his Highness and his Nobility and loving Subjects in time coming under the pain of death Certifying them that do in the contrair they shall be repute as seditious and wicked Instruments enemies to his Highness and the common well of the Realm and the pain of death shall be Execute against them with all rigour in example of others Yet true it is that the said Earl did endeavour all that in him lay to Defame the King and Parliament and Test in so far as he did declare That he would give Obedience to it as far as he could Which imported that the Parliament had made an Oath which could not be absolutely obeyed And though the Parliament never intended to impose contradictory Oaths yet no body can Explain it but for himself Which did clearly import that though the Parliament design'd not to make an Oath that was contradictory yet they had made one that was indeed contradictory And could not be made Sense without privat Reconciliations and Explications And by saying that he took this Oath only as far as it was consistent with it self and the Protestant Religion he did clearly declare to all the world that he thought it in some things inconsistent with it self and the Protestant Religion And since there is nothing concerns Governours more than to have themselves esteemed by the people without which or numerous Armies Government cannot subsist And therefore our Parliaments have in place of Armies consented in the former excellent Statute that whosoever shall endeavour to deprave the Laws or misconstruct the proceedings of King and Parliament shall be punished to the death And what can be a greater reflection upon King and Parliament in the age wherein we live than to have made Laws which cannot be obeyed and which are inconsistent with the Protestant Religion And there was no man that ever hear'd that Paper except this Author but did conclude that upon the matter the people would from it entertain those scruples Nor are these the inferences of people that live far from the Sun as the undiscreet Author does object against this Nation But men must be as disingenuous as he not to confess that these are most just and natural Inferences And the Inferences are so much the stronger that both this Author and all such as were enemies to the Test did take pains to make the People believe that the Contrivers of the Test were in so far friends to Popery and consequently there was nothing drawn from this Paper by Inferences but that which was too publickly owned by all who were in the same Circumstances with him who gave it in Mr. Mist in answer to this part of the Accusation does first cry out that Crymes must not be inferred by Inferences and Insinuations seing these may be unjustly drawn against the design of the Party accus'd And no man could be secure if men could be made Criminal upon Insinuations and Inferences And this Paper having been given only for the Exoneration of his Conscience it is not capable of any such Misconstruction nor ought any such Construction be made except where a malitious Design can be proved in the Person accused To which it is answered That the Parliament having been very jealous of the honour of the Government which ought to be Sacred They discharg'd in general all such Words and Papers whereby any mislyking might be mov'd betwixt the King and his Subjects And therefore since the effect was the thing they lookt to and that it is all one to the Government what the Authors design was if the effect was wrought and the dislike moved They therefore ordained the effect to be punished without adding as they do in other cases that whosoever shall malitiously or upon design Write or Speak and it is very well known that there are no Papers so dangerous nor no Satyre so bitter as these which are coloured with specious pretexts of Conscience Respect and Kindness And upon this accompt it was that by the 9 Act Par 20 Ia 6 All Papers that tend to renew the remembrance of the former feeds betwixt the two Nations shall be punishable And what can be more justly called Insinuations and Inferences then Tendencies are And if the people be abus'd and inflam'd what
should be Taken in the Legislators Sense And can there be a greater moving of the People to Sedition than to tell them that no man that Takes that Oath is bound by it farther then he pleases and further then his own Sense leads him And that the Legislator is Ridiculous in having made Contradictory Oaths which without Debating whether it be true or false is a Reflection upon the State and is unlawful for any privat Subject And if any such thing were suffered upon pretence that it were possible or true It should be lawful for every privat man to accuse the Government As to these Words I Take it in so far as it is Consistent with it Self and the protestant Religion Do's so far openly import That in some things it is Inconsistent with it Self and the Protestant Religion that whosoever would perswade us to the contrary must think us Fools and Idiots And I almost charge my Self with Folly for taking pains to clear this Since why should the Earl have Scrupled to Take this Oath simply and have thought it necessary to adject that He Took it only in so far as it was Consistent with it Self and the Protestant Religion If he had not thought it Inconsistent and either he must say he thought it Consistent or not If he thought it Consistent why did he not Take it simply and if he thought it not Consistent then he owns that He thought the Parliament made an Oath which was Inconsistent with it Self and the Protestant Religion And this was to Inflame the People who are so reasonably jealous of any thing that is Inconsistent with the Protestant Religion Beside that it is a great Reflection upon their Prudence and Conduct And so every Expression in this Paper do's clear up one another and do's clear unanswerably to all the World that this Paper is a Defaming of the Parliament and a depraving of its Laws and a moving of the People to a Dislike of it Which are the Words of the above cited Statute And what can be a greater Depraving of a Law then to make it pravam legem a pernicious Law And what can be more pernicious then that Law which is Inconsistent with the Protestant Religion and which Tyes men to Swear things which are Contradictory and having affirmed all this upon Oath and having dispersed these his Explications amongst the People he did thereby shew a firm and passionat Design to make the People believe all these ill things of the Parliament For no man uses to Swear any thing to another without a great Design to have him believe it Nor do's any man disperse Papers amongst the People for the Exoneration of his privat Conscience Nor could he have any Design in that save to Poison them with those Jealousies against the Test to which he himself had shown such an aversion in the whole Tract of the affair I cannot but smyle at Mr. Mists Critical Learning when he contends that the ' Earles Paper does only bear that the Earl did Take the Oath in so far as it was Consistent with it Self and the Protestant Religion But did not adject the Word Only as the Libel does For he who Takes it in so far as it is Consistent does Take it only in so far And certainly the Author must confess that either he Designed to Take it further then it was Consistent with the Protestant Religion or as far only as it was Consistent with the Protestant Religion there being no midst betwixt these two and so our Critick may choose any of the two he pleases The third Cryme is Treason which is Inferred from these Words I do declare I mean not to bâ—â—d up my self in my station and in a lawful way to wish and endeavour any alteration I think to the advantage of Church and State Noâ— Repugnant to the Proestant Religion and my 〈…〉 this I understand as a part of my Oath Which Treason may be founded upon many Reasons yet to convince any Reader in a plain familiar and unanswerable way I lay down for a Position which I hope no man will deny that all Nations have made it Treason for any privat man to assume or reserve to himself the power of Reforming Church and State For that is the highest Point of Government Which how soon any privat man arrogats to himself he becomes presently Governour of that Kingdom and Superiour both in Church and State therein And therefore by the 1 Act 2 Sess Par 1 Ch. 2 and 1 Act 2 Par Ch 2 The power of Reforming is declared His Majesties sole Prerogative and all the Civilians agree with us in this Inter caeteras sollicitudines verba sunt Theodosi Valentiniani in Novel de Iudaeis sam haer pag quas amor publicus pervigili cogitatione nobis indixit praecipuam Majestatis curam esse perspicimus veram religionis indaginem Cujus si cultum tenere potuerimus iter prosperitatis humanis aperiemos inceptis vid. Ziegler de jur Majest cap 13 num 1 Arnis de jur Majest cap 6 num 15 And which is most reasonable for whoever pretends to have power of Reforming must be greater then he who is Reformed And we have found by woful Experience that such as have endeavoured to Reform have withdrawn themselves from the subjection of the Supream Power under which they liv'd And except they resolve to force the Supream Power as to this Point there is no necessity of reserving a Power to themselves From all which I form this Argument First It is Treason to any man to reserve to himself the power of Reforming Church or State that being the Priviledge and Prerogative of the Prince both by the Common Law and the above-cited Statute But so it is the Earl does reserve to himself in this Explication a power of Reforming And therefore he commits Treason The first Proposition is founded upon the Nature of the Monarchy and the Reasons and Citations above-mentioned The second Proposition is likewise very clear because he who reserves to himself a Power to make any alteration reserves a Power to make all Alterations in Church and State And consequently reserves a Power to Reform in Matters of the greatest Importance For in all Languages Any comprehends All. As for Instance Does not he who sayes he 'l do any thing for the King say as much as if he said I will do all things for him Or does not he who confesses he believes any thing that is in the Scripture Imply that he believes all things that are in the Scripture And consequently that Proposition of the Earls viz. I întend not to bind up my self from endeavouring any alteration I think to the Advantage of Church and State Resolves in and is equivalent to this Proposition I intend not to bind my self up from making all alterations that I shall think to the advantage of Church or State And if that be not Treason nothing can be Treason The second Argument is That all Lawyers are
privat mens Lives and to rise in Arms was Treason before the Statute King Ia. 1. Nor have we yet any clear Statute against Murder and if special Statutes were requisit in every case of Treason the greatest Treason should often escape unpunished For Law thought it unnecessary to provide against these and every age produces new kinds of Treasonable Extravagancies and Traitors would easily elude and cheat the express Words of a Statue if that were all that were necessary But who can deny that the Justices condemned a man justly for Treason for saying when he was askt if the King was a Tyrant let his Coronation Oath and his Actions and particularly his usurping over the Church of Christ be compared and that will be soon known And yet here was no explicite assertion but yet what all men easily understood and which reproacht and mis-represented the King as much as any open Expression and there was no Statute condemning that Expression expresly nor can there be a Law for every Expression But yet the Earls Treason is founded upon the express Statute abovementioned And whereas it is pretended 2ly That the Earl might have as a Privy Counsellor propos'd any thing to the King and so a Reservation was necessar upon that account To this it may be easily answered that no Oath does hinder a man from doing what is Lawful and so there needed be no Reservation nor Exception upon that or the like Consideration For an Exception must be of some thing that could oppose the Rule But so it is the Oath which is the Rule in that Case did not exclude any lawful Endeavours at the desire or command of the Prince and so there needed no Exception as to these But the former argument still Recurs viz. He that will not bind himself up as to any thing reserves a power as to all things or at least it must be Interpret of unlawful things For lawful things need no exception And if this were sufficient then the Parliament did unjustly in declaring that it is Treason to put limitations on our alleadgance and that notwithstanding of any pretence whatsoever Nor could any man commit Treason if that were allowed for he himself would be still Judge And whereas it is pretended 3ly That he disclaims the Covenant and rising in Arms expresly in this Oath and so he could not reserve any thing as to these It is answered that this were undenyable if he took the Oath simply but having taken the Oath only In so far as it is consistent with it Self and the Protestant Religion This Oath does not tye him if he think the Protestant Religion shall require rising in Arms. And having taken the Covenant if he still thinks the Covenant binds him he renunces it not by his Oath For this Oath tyes him only as far as he can that is to say as far as he is free and no man is free who thinks himself bound And taking it only as far as it is consistent with it self God only and the Earl knows how far that is for he has not told us how far it is consistent with it self and very probably such as have taken the Covenant think not that Oath consistent with the Protestant Religion in so far as it binds us not to take up Arms if the Protestant Religion be in danger and the Antitesters Papers Printed by Mr. Mist tell us plainly that it is not consistent with it self in so far as we swear to own the Successor though differing in Religion from us And yet we swear to the preservation of the Laws of which the Coronation Oath is one But whatever might have been said in defense of such Limitations before we saw what dreadful effects they had produced both in the last age and this And that Parliaments had so severely condemned them as Treason It is the duty of Judges to be severe to such as use them and they have only themselves to blame who split on a Rock when they see a Beacon set up to them And it is much safer for the Common-wealth that such Papers be punished then that it should be in danger by such Reservations as leave every man Judge how far he is oblieged to Obey And as there is great danger to the State on the one hand if it passe unpunished So there is none on the other seing men may be secure in abstaining from such Expressions and Papers And there was never any so unnecessary as this was And might not Strangers and our own Posterity think all the miseries that should fall on us by Rebellions and Civil Wars very just punishments of our senselesse Security if after we had not only seen but felt the mischief of such Glosses We stood still unconcernedly as men seing their own House set on fire by the same hands which had help't to burn it formerly If any by Ignorance or Error stumble into a Legal tho undesign'd Crime The Law allows not Judges by an insolent pity to justifie the Guilt but suffers the King by a Judicious Clemency to mitigat or remit the Punishment In which the Subjects under Monarchy are much happier than these of a Common-wealth where in many cases the Law must be cruel or Judges must be Arbitrary This is that sure City of Refuge into which no man who flees perisheth And if the Earl of Argile had come in Will during the Debate as use is I am sure he had been Securer there than by his Defenses But why should I admire that this Author and those of his Principles do not see that this Paper is Treason Since I dare say they will not acknowledge that it is Treason to oppose the Succession and to say that it can be altered by a Parliament and yet our Parliament unanimously thought that to be Treason And in the last age they thought it not Treason but duty to rise in Arms against the King and to Call Parliaments without him Though all the World abhorr'd us for it So that the fault is not in our Parliaments and Judges but in the depraved Sense and debauched Intellectuals of such as have by a long Custom of hating Authority bred in themselves also a hatred of every Person and thing that can maintain it Since then GOD Almighty amongst the other Miracles which he has wrought for his Darling as well as Representative CHARLES THE MERCIFUL begins to open the Eyes of the Blind and to make some who were Crooked Walk Straight Let us who Serve this gracious Monarch Reason whilst His Enemies Rail and be Just whilst they are Extravagant but withal let us be asham'd that they dare do more for Humour and Errors than we for Duty and Law and we may expect amongst other Rewards which the Rabble has not to bestow that we will get also that Applause which is alwise the Slave of Victory and which of late seem'd to Fan them so pleasantly meerly because they were like to prevail And for which too many of late sacrific'd their Honour and Loyalty VVithout remembring that tho just Applause is an Elogie VVritten by the Hand of Vertue and a Monument Built of solid Merit Yet that Applause which is unjust is only a sweet Poyson a plausible Cheat and the Dream of one who is Drunk FINIS
A VINDICATION OF His Majesties GOVERNMENT IUDICATURES IN SCOTLAND From some Aspersions thrown on them by scandalous Pamphlets and News-books and especially with Relation to the late Earl of Argiles Process EDINBURGH Printed by the Heir of Andrew Anderson Printer to His most Sacred Majesty Anno DOM. 1683. A Vindication of His Majesties Government and Judicatures in SCOTLAND c. ALL wise and sober Men in Scotland do with a just mixture of pity and contempt Read those infamous Pamphlets wherein this Kingdom is so maliciously traduced by some in our Neighbour-Nation and when they consider that the Licentiousness of the Press does so much weaken all Government corrupt all Intelligence and blast so unavoidably the Reputation of the best and most Innocent They conclude justly that to deny their King the necessary priviledge and prerogative of restraining the Press were to refuse to the Master of a Ship the power to prevent its Leaking To deny the Magistrat the power of punishing these who corrupt the Springs and Fountains of a City And to refuse to the Master of a Family the Power of Chastising his Servants when they rail at one another I am very desirous also to be informed how the King can by the Priviledge and Prerogative of His Crown have the absolute power of making Peace and War Calling and Dissolving of Parliaments and a Negative Voice in them and yet should be denyed the far less priviledge of restraining the Press Especially after so many proofs of its having been so dangerous and Seditious How the Magistrats of the meanest Hanse-Town should enjoy this priviledge and yet that it should be deny'd to the King of Great-Britain Or how he should have the power to punish Lybels and yet should want the power of stopping them it being both much safer and easier to prevent then to punish Nor can I dissemble that our Nation has found the happy Effects of discharging all Printing without Licence by an express Statute whereby we find the publick Government and every privat Mans Reputation most happily secured Whilst on the other hand It is very observable that that Peer who told it was not yet time to restrain the Press in England has liv'd to see a famous Library of Libels and Pasquills against himself for the Conviction of this Age and the Information of those who shall succeed us We glory also in the justice of our Law that has by a special Statute Ordained all such to be severely punished who by Word or Writ Devise Utter or publish any false slanderous or reproachful Speeches or Writs against the State People or Countrey of England or to the Dishonour of any Privy Councellour thereof and therefore we hope that so wise and just a Nation as England which punishes those who injure a privat Peer will not suffer them to go unpunished who rail at a Nation that is obliged to hazard their Lives and Fortuns for their preservation Unhappy Liberty which consists in the priviledge of doing ill and which serves for nothing but to make the Authors be contemn'd for want of Breeding and despis'd for want of Sense Nor does this Crime want a sufficient punishment since it has convinced us that the Enemies of the Monarchy are such liars and so malicious that they deserve neither to be believed nor followed and how can any amongst us believe these in Matters of Right who every day lie so scandalously in Matters of Fact Upon this Ground I confidently believe that no honest man will think we in Scotland have owned his Royal Highness because England had an aversion for him as a late Pamphlet has maliciously asserted for as their worthy Peers did wisely reject the Bill of Exclusion so our Predecessours were obliged to this by so many Oaths and through a Series of so many Ages and GOD had so severely punished us in the last Age for having joyned with our Rebellious Neighbours against our Native Prince that we had been the greatest Fools and Rogues upon Earth to have Relaps'd so soon into the fame Errors and especially in following the Example and Advice of those very Rebels or their impenitent Heirs who had in ten years Exercised that Arbitrary Government over us against which themselves had Exclaimed and to a hight that we had never known and as it is very well known that every honest Man in Scotland rejoyces when they hear of the prosperity of the Royal Family in England and esteem highly and love passionatly all such as have or do contribute to it an Union in Principles being stronger then that of the Kingdoms So Scotland being the less powerful Nation what can they gain in the contest Or why should they envy that which is their greatest Security as well as Honour The delivering of the best of Kings at Newcastle was no more a National Act in us than the Murdering him after a Mock-Tryal was a National Act in the Kingdom of England Rebels in both committed those Crymes whilst honest Men suffer'd with him and for him and it is undenyable that the honest Party of Scotland were at that time fighting under the Great Montrose against that pretended Parliament which Voted his Delivery and that even our Rebellious Countrey-men delivered him only up to such of our Neighbour Nation as did Swear upon Oath that they should preserve Him and His Crowns and when they found that these Sectarians neither regarded their Oath nor their King they rais'd an Army immediatly to Expiat their Cryme Nor wanted ever our Nation an Army even under the Usurpers to appear for the Monarchy and from us and Encourag'd by us went that Army that Restor'd our present King Let then no honest Man remember those National Errors except either in his Prayers when he Interceeds with GOD For diverting the Curse which those Crimes deserve Or in Judicatures when such are to be punish'd as would lead us back into those Confusions But why the Authors of these Pamphlets should condemn the very Actions which they so very faithfully Copy seems very wonderful as it does how our Fanatick Countrey-men should wish success to those who Rail at their Nation and their Principles Open then your Eyes my dear Countrey-men and let not your own Fanaticism nor their Cheats perswade you that such as endeavour to lessen and asperse the Monarchy in our Neighbour Nation will be ever Faithful to you who are sworn even in your Covenant to maintain it in this to you who opposed them in the last War in their grand Designs for a Common-wealth and the Extirpation of the Scottish Race to you who think that Presbytery jure divino which they laugh at and never use it as an useful Government in the Church though they do some times as an useful Tool to Rebellion in the State and to you whom they cheated so far and opprest so dreadfully in the late Rebellion that they know you cannot trust them Was it the Church of England or Sectarians that Sold
Magistrats for preferring the Law of the Kingdom to the Humor of particular Persons Somewhat might be likewise said for those Differences if we did not find that they necessarly and naturally produced Principles of Rebellion Assassination contempt of Magistracy and of Masters with a thousand other Impieties and Immoralities Whilst it is very remarkable that Episcopacy never bred a Rebel nor inspir'd a Murderer but gentle like the Christian Religion which it professes it Preaches Obedience under the pain of eternal Damnation and practises mercy to that height that it is now become the Temper of the Men as well as the Doctrine of the Church 6ly In Matters of Government We must Ballance the Safety of the whole with the Punishment of a few And in our Case We must consider that a Civil War would be much more severe then a few Executions or Fynes can be And we need only remember the vast Subsidies the extraordinary Cruelties and boundless Arbitrariness of the last Age to be convinc'd that it is not Severity but kindness in the present Government which forces them as a Physician rather to draw a little Bloud than to suffer their Patient to run into a Frensie especially when they know the Patient has been lately inclin'd to it and when they see the usual Symptoms that foretel the approaching fit to grow very remarkably every hour This may be further clear'd by comparing a little the condition wherein His Royal Highness found this Kingdom with that State to which it is now brought under his happy Influence It cannot be deny'd but that before His Royal Highness came to Scotland the Fields were every Sabbath cover'd with Arm'd-men upon the pretext of hearing Sermons Which Sermons were so far from being a legal Defense against Rebellion that they were most Efficacious Incentives to it His Majesties most undenyable Prerogatives were upon all Occasions contraverted Masters were contemn'd by their Servants and Heretors by their Tennents And it was very just and consequential that these Masters should have been contemn'd by their Servants who did themselves learn them this Lesson by contemning the King their Superiour and Master The Ministers of the Gospel were Invaded Wounded and Assassinated Churches were either left Waste or insolently Perturb'd when they were frequented Principles of Assassination were Preach'd and Practis'd All such as own'd or Serv'd the Government were affronted and menac'd Pasquils and Defamatory Libels vvere publickly vented and prais'd Dreams Visions and Prophesies portending the Ruine and Overthrovv of the Government vvere spread abroad to amuse the People and fill the Heads of the vveaker sort vvith Fears and Jealousies Lying vvas become all our Wit and Hectoring of the Government all our Courage Whereas novv People are gathered in from the Fields to Churches God Almighty is served with Reverence and the King as his Vicegerent with Respect The Royal Prerogative is neither streatch'd nor basi'd The Privy Council have learn'd by his Royal Highnesses sitting so long amongst them to shevv as much Clemency as may consist vvith firmness and to sustain their Justice by their Courage All Animosities and Differences among our Nobility are Compos'd and forgot and Thefts and Robberies in the Highlands vvhich vvere formerly so great a Reproach to the Government and a Ruine to the People are novv not only Secur'd against by present Punishments but prevented by suitable and proportional Remedies such as Commissions of Justiciary Security taken from the Heretors and Chiftains of Clans setling of Garisons in convenient places and giving Money for Intelligence to Spy's Ministers are so much Protected and Encourag'd that one can hardly think if he had not knovvn their former condition that ever the People had had any unkindness for them Men do not novv lust after Nevvs nor Conventicles But Employ those Thoughts and that Time upon their privat Affairs vvhich they formerly mispent in follovving Expensive Field Preachers Securing themselves and their Estates by a pleasant peaceableness from the Fears as vvell as the Damnage of Fines and Punishments We have no Pasquils nor hear of no Visions Men honour the Lavvs by vvhich they are Protected and those Magistrats by whose Ministry they enjoy this Peace and Quiet Whilst their Magistrats on the other hand remember that His Majesty and His Royal Highness hate the insolence of their Servants though they may for some time suffer it And that the preparatives they make to the prejudice of the People will be lasting Snares and Burdens on their Posterity Magistrats should pity the frailties to which themselves are subject and the misfortuns which themselves cannot shun and should cover rather than punish Escapes which have more of mistake in them than of Guilt By which paralel our Countrey-men and Neighbours may judge whether His Royal Highness be so undesirable a Governour that the Law of God of Nature and Nations should be brok to Exclude him from his Right of Succession Whether we Enjoy greater and truer Liberty under his Protection than we did under our usurping Parliaments And whether those Expressions of our Thankfulness proceed from flattery or from gratitude REFLECTIONS ON The Earl of ARGIL'S Process NExt to our Laws our Judges are arraigned and though all Nations presume that Judges understand and that we should presume them Just being ordinarly men of Integrity who are ingadg'd upon Oath and have both Soul and Reputation at Stake And who know their Children are to be Judg'd by the preparatives they make Yet our Phamphleters who neither understand matter of Law nor matter of Fact stick not most soveraignly to decyde that our Sentences even in Criminals in which men cannot Err wilfully without murdering deliberatly are absurd ridiculous and inhumane And yet these same men the great Patrons of Iustice are the Secretaries of that Party who after they had murdered Strafford made an Act that none should dy by that preparative in imitation of which horrid Injustice our Rebellous Zealots did Execute Sir Iohn Gordon of Haddo upon a Statute made by them after they had Condemn'd him as a Traitor for bearing Arms against the three Estates tho he had a special Commission from the King their Soveraign And hang'd the great Marques of Montrose with his Declaration Emited by His Majesties Authority about his Neck though they had Treated and concluded with the King that gave it by whom so many Noble-men and Gentle-men fell for doing their Duty and so many innocent Cavaleers were Massacr'd after they got Quarters Then it was That an Oath was taken by our States-men not to spare the lives of either kin Friend nor Ally That three hundred were expos'd on a Rock to be starv'd and as many murdered in cold Bloud after Quarter And a Scaffold being Erected at the Cross of Edinburgh on which in six Weeks time multitudes of generous Gentle-men having dy'd a Zealous Minister Thanked GOD for that Altar on which so sweet smelling a Sacrifice was offer'd Whereas our Merciful King having had his Father
So that it would not be the Parliaments Test but every mans own Test. And there should be as many different Oaths as there are different Takers 7ly Former Statutes having discharged the Leidges to Convocat or Assemble or to enter into Bonds and Leagues without the Kings consent the Covenanters did protest that their taking the Covenant was not against these Acts because these Acts could not be mean'd against any Leagues or Meetings holden for Preservation of the King Religion and Laws And yet the 4 Act Par 1 Ch 2 does positively declare that all such Glosses are false and disloyal and contrair to the true and genuine meaning of these Acts. And therefore this Glosse must be so too because this Glosse is the very same both in Words and Design with those Glosses But though this Poynt be very clear and undenyable Yet Mr. Mist for so I must call the Author for distinctions sake makes those three answers First That if the Authority which is to administer the Oath do's accept the Takers Sense the Taker is only bound in the Sense he gives and no other But so it is the Council accepted his Sense And if they had refused the Earl had not taken the Oath nor had his refusal been a Cryme To which it is replyed That first If it be a Cryme to Interpret the Kings Laws otherwise than they bear and to the Effect for which they were design'd Then certainly it may be debated with very good Reason that though the Council had conniv'd at the Earls misinterpreting the Law neither their negligence nor their mistake could have prejudg'd the King nor have been in place of a Remission For though the Council be a more eminent Judicature than others yet they cannot pardon Crymes when committed And consequently their allowance cannot make that to be no Crime which is a Cryme And we have a particular Statute in Scotland That the negligence of the Kings Officers shall not prejudge Him Nor is that Statute so Reasonable in any Case as in this For since this and all other Oaths are oft times administred by very ignorant Persons we should have them a thousand times cheated and impos'd upon by the adjecting of such Qualifications as these if the adjecting of such Qualifications as these were not punishable Because he who did Administrat the Oath did once allow them And I put the Case that if a man who had many Friends in Council should have given in an Explication that was uncontravertedly Treasonable by saying that he was content to take the Oath but that he design'd not by it to preclude himself from rysing in Arms when he thought fit for the Defense of the Protestant Religion Would it have been a sufficient Defense that the Council did not challenge it in the mean time And therefore it this was a Cryme in it self the Councils allowing the Explication did not at all in strict Law take off the Cryme But the Judges resolv'd to do him all possible favour were more merciful then to straiten the Earl upon this Point For if the Earl had given in an Explication to the Council and told that he subjected that Paper to their Consideration and that he would take the Oath upon these Termes and no otherwise the Judges would have Interpos'd for the Kings Favour if he had been so ensnared by the Councils connivance or mistake Nor would the King have pursued it But the true matter of Fact is that the said Paper was not given in till the next day after the Earl had sworn the Test. And though the Judges allowed him to prove that he had adjected these Words at his first Swearing of the said Test and that they were allow'd yet he fail'd in the Probation and so the Judicature is no way to be blam'd The second Defense is that all that can be inferr'd from the above-cited Law is that no man should put a Sense upon any Law that should bind another or be the publick Sense of that Law to all the Subjects which is most false for the Words of the Law are general That no man shall Interpret the Kings Laws but to the Intent and Effect for which they were made And consequently this must be Extended to all Cases where the Law is abus'd and the Legislator disappointed by a misinterpretation Et ubi lex non distinguit nec nos And there is as great Reason to Punish such as take Oaths under such wrested Senses contrair to the Design of the Legislator as there is for punishing any Cryme And much more then for punishing such as misinterpret the Law to others in other Cases Since if this be allow'd every man may by misinterpreting the Oath as to himself evacuat all Oaths and make them ridiculous And so not only enjoy Employments contrair to the Legislators Design But likewise cut down the greatest Fence of Government such as Oaths are now esteemed to be by all Christians The third answer made to this Point is that the Legislator is surest of those who give Explications of their Oaths for they deal honestly And it is impossible that any man can take an Oath but he must take it in his own Sense But neither is this of any moment for if this Answer prove any thing it will prove that no man can be challenged for adjecting any Quality And consequently the Act of Parliament could take effect in no case And so not only were this Act useless but we would want an excellent Remedy for curbing such as resolve to abuse the Government in rendring all Oaths that are invented for its Security altogether ineffectual And it is strange to see what absurd things men will run to when they are put to Defend an Absurdity And though every man must have a Sense when he takes an Oath it does not therefore at all follow that men must be allowed to adject Senses that are inconsistent with the Oath or render the Oath useless And since this is not an Oath that all the Subjects must take it having no other Penalty adjected to the not taking but the loss of the Employment they possess by the Kings meer Favour Every good Christian ought either to be satisfied of the design of the Legislator in the Oath or else to abstain from it And though the Mind of the Legislator might secure the Taker yet that can only be when the Sense is previously offered to and accepted by him which cannot at all be said in this Case And whatever favour may be pretended where the Taker of the Oath condescends upon what he will oblige himself to yet that cannot be pretended in this Case where the Earl does not condescend how far he can obey And does not specifie how far he thinks it consistent with the Protestant Religion or with it Self But only that he will obey it as far as he can and as far as it is consistent with it self and the Protestant Religion So that the Legislator is still unsecure