God Subjects may take up Arms against him 2. They maintain That nothing is to be allowed in the worship of God but what is prescribed in his Word Were not these the Principles that embroiled these Kingdoms that raised a Combustion and that turned all things upside down both in Church and State And are not these Principles plainly taught in this Confession It is reckoned Art 15 a duty to repress Tyranny and to disobey and resist Kings is a sin with this caution and limitation while they pass not over the bounds of their Office or do that thing which appertains to their charge And in like manner the assistance we ow them is cautioned and limited while they vigilantly travel in the execution of their Office Is not this the very Doctrine of the Solemn League and Covenant by which they bind themselves to defend the Kings Majesty's Person and Authority in the preservation and defence of the true Religion and Liberties of the Kingdom Let any but read Spotswood's History of the Resormation Anno 1558 1559 1560. among others how Subjects did bind themselves by Oaths and Subscriptions to assist one another for advancing the Cause of Religion how by the advice of the Ministers they deprived the Queen Regent of her Government and this very year this Confession was compiled and ratified in Parliament And I am sure there can remain no doubt about the sense of the Confession in this point But to render the matter beyond exception It is declared rebellious and treasonable by Act of Parliament for Subjects to put limitations on their due obedience and allegiance And for the other Principles about Divine Worship the Confession affirms these to be evil works that in matters of Religion and Worship of God have no other assurance but the invention and opinion men In this principle they condemn very Ancient and laudable Customs of Churches as singing the Doxology and the most innocent and indifferent Ceremonies for decency and helps for Devotion calling them by the odious titles of Superstition and Will-worship But be these Principles true or false in themselves certainly they are utterly inconsistent with these other clauses in the Test that assert it unlawful on any pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the King and invest him with such a Supremacy as impowers him to erect such Constitutions and orders about Ecclesiastical matters as His Majesty thinks fit And in this also there is a palpable Contradiction that the Test binds us not to consent to any change contrary to the Confession and by and by enjoyns to swear what is flatly contradictory to it We cannot take this Test unless with the same breath we swear and forswear under Oath protest onething and forthwith under Oath protest the quite contrary It obliges us to swear we shall with our utmost power defend assist and maintain all the Kings Rights And is not this to swear we know not what or is it not to swear we shall maintain and defend with the greatest zeal and concernedness whatsoever the King challenges or the Parliament votes to belong to him And may not a Prince come to claim a Right to act Arbitrarily and may not iniquity happen to be established by Law Nay doth not the King de facto challenge and has not the Parliament declared Supremacy to be an inherent Right of the Crown by which His Majesty may settle and emit such Acts and Orders as he pleases about Ecclesiastical matters And are not Articles of Faith Ecclesiastical maters And what is this but to avow we hold our selves obliged to believe as the King believes And so ere long the Rights Jurisdictions Prerogatives Priviledges Preeminences and Authorities that may be v ted to belong to our Prince may come to swallow up Religion Liberty Property and all our Priviledges We do not see how any man of Sense and Conscience can swear this clause in so great a Latitude and so illimited Terms It obliges us to swear That we acknowledg it unlawful without the Kings special Command to convocate conveen or assemble in any Council Convention or Assembly to treat consult or determine in any matter of State Civil or Ecclesiastik The clause excepting ordinary judgments which was added in all such convocating conveening and assembling which were declared unlawful Anno 1661. 1. Par. Char. 2. Act 21. being left out here we have reason to think that all such Sessions Presbyteries and Synods are discharged there being no special Command or Express for them that we know of And these meetings being of great use for curbing of Vice and Prophanesse and for setling and entertaining Peace and good Order in the Church we cannot swear to forbear holding of them tho we have not an express License from the King We acknowledg Princes have Power and Authority to inhibit their Subjects to meet as they see cause but we cannot bind our selves to obey them against such liberty which Christ hath conferred on his Church This is a Priviledg the Church ever enjoyed since it was founded and erected by our Saviour and in all Ages used as the state of affairs required So we cannot devoid our selves of it without proving betrayers of our Trust and condemning the conduct of the Primitive Christians who without special command nay contrary to the express Edict of Princes did convocate conveen or assemble in Councils and Conventions to treat consult and determine about Ecclesiastical matters and yet for all that have been no less commended and admired for loyalty and peaceableness than for piety and zeal And seeing that in the present juncture its notour that there are Cabals and Engines formed and carried on to undermine the Protestant Religion and to bereave us of the Truth which our Lord has committed to us as so many Depositaries Can we without the most horrid guilt and the blackest infamy swear That we shall not so much as meet Two or Three of us together till we have the Kings Warrant perhaps never to consult about the Welfare of the Church and the Salvation of our own and other Mens Souls It obliges us to swear there is no obligation on us any manner of way whatsoever to endeavour any change or alteration in the Government either in Church or State Is not this to swear what no man living can assuredly know And are there not indeed many tyes on us as Men as Christians as Pastors to procure as far as in us lyes the happiness of the Church and State Now if we discern and it be acknowledged by wise and good men that the Government may be bettered by enacting wholsome new Laws and abrogating corrupt old ones might we not ought we not in our stations endeavour such an alteration The Constitution of a National Synod e. g. gives the Archbishop of St. Andrew's a Negative when the whole Clergy is contrary so that were all our Bishops and other Members of the Synod men of Apostolick sanctity and zeal yet nothing could be done
THE CASE OF THE EARL of ARGYLE OR An exact and full Account of his Trial Escape and Sentence Wherein are insert the Act of Parliament injoining the Test the Confession of Faith the old Act of the King's Oath to be given at His Coronation With several other old Acts made for establishing the Protestant Religion As also several Explications made of the Test by the Conformed Clergy With the Secret Councils Explanation thereof Together with several Papers of Objections against the Test all framed and emitted by Conformists With the Bishop of Edinburgh's Vindication of the Test in answer thereto As likewise a Relation of several Matters of fact for better clearing of the said Case Whereunto is added An APPENDIX in answer to a late Pamphlet called A Vindication of His Majestie 's Government and Judicatories in Scotland Especially with Relation to the Earl of Argyle's Process In so far as concerns the Earl's Trial Printed in the Year M. D. C. LXXXIII THE PUBLISHER TO THE READER HAving received the ensuing Narrative of the Case and Trial of the Earl of Argyle under the Caution you may find in the close of it not to hasten the publication but rather to vvait for a more convenient season It 's like I had continued to comply as I have done hitherto vvith the Earl's inclination if not excited to the contrary by a Paper called A Vindication of His Majestie 's Government and Judicatories in Scotland Especially with relation to the late Earl of Argyle's Process printed at Edinburgh and reprinted at London vvith the appearance of a publick allovvance For albeit all wise and sober men not only in Scotland but also in the vvorld vvho have heard this affair do at this day sufficiently understand its rise procedure issue and tendency vvith all the just consideration that either oppressed innocence abused justice or impotent and ill contrived malice do deserve Yet seeing these concerned have had the confidence to subject their Res Judicata to an unexpected review and vvithall the equitie to leave their advantages and sist themselves on even ground vvith an open defiance to all contradictors and fair submission to the common sense and reason of mankind I thought I could not be vvanting to such an happy opportunity vvithout disappointing so generous an offer deserting my good Friend the Author of the Mist and failing of the second and principal part of my Trust And therefore resolved vvithout further delay to give the follovving sheets their long desired licence Purposing to subjoyn as an Appendix any further animadversions that the above-mentioned Pamphlet may seem to deserve ERRATA PAg. 2. L. 48. Acts r. Oaths p. 6. l. 39. Tursday r. Thursday p. 8. I. 9. peased r. pleased l. 20. And r. But. p. 40. l. 24. prositive r. positive p. 41. l. 38. 1667. r. 1567. p. 44. l. 61. ther r the. p. 64. l. 6. King r. Kingdom p. 66. l. 48 the Earl's hand r. the Earl of Glencairn first Chancellour after His Majesties Return his hand p. 76. l. 2. is not r. as not p. 82. l. 34. yet r. et p. 86. l. 3. Governour r. Deputy Governour p. 94. l. 3. I have considered r. I have not considered Edinburgh 30. May 1682. SIR The case of the late Earl of Argyl which even before the Process led against him you was earnest to know was at first I thought so plain that I needed not and grew afterwards so exceedingly mysterious that I could not for some time give you so perfect ane accompt of it as I wished But this time being still no less proper the exactness of mynarrative will I hope excuse all delays The design against him being now so clear and the grounds founded on so slender that to satisfie all unbyassed Persons of his integrity there needs no more but barely to represent matter of fact I should think shame to spend so many words either on arguments or relation were it not lest to strangers some mystery might still be suspected to remain concealed And therefore to make plain what they can hardly believe though we clearly see it At His Royal Highness arrival in Scotland the Earl was one of the first to wait upon him and until the meeting of our last Parliament the world believed the Earl was as much in His Highness favour as any intrusted in His Majestie 's affairs in this Kingdom When it was resolved and His Majestie moved to call the Parliament the Earl was in the countrey and at the opening of it he appeared as forward as any in His Majestie 's and His Highness service but it had not fat many dayes when a change was noticed in His Highness and the Earl observed to decline in His Highness favour In the beginning of the Parliament the Earl was appointed one of the Lords of the Articles to prepare matters for the Parliament and named by His Highness to be one of a Committee of the Articles for Religion which by the custom of all Scots Parliaments and His Majestie 's instructions to his Commissioner at this time was the first thing treated of In this Committee there was ane Act prepared for securing the Protestant Religion which Act did ratify the Act approving the Confession of Faith and also the Act containing the Coronation Oath appointed by several standing Acts of Parliament to be taken by all our Kings Regents before their entrie to the exercise of the Government This Act was drawn somewhat less binding upon the Successor as to his own profession But full as strictly tying him to maintain the Protestant Religion in the publick profession thereof and to put the Laws concerning it in execution and also appointing a further Test beside the former to exclude Papists from places of publick trust and because the fines of such as should act without taking the Test appeared no better then discharged if falling in the hands of a Popish Successor and some accounting any limitation worse then ane exclusion and all being conâ—ent to put no limitation on the Crown so it might consist with the safety and security of the Protestant Religion it was ordained that all such fines and forfaultures should appertain the one half to the informers and the other half should be bestowed on pious uses according to certain Rules expressed in the Act. But this Act being no wise pleasing to some it was laid aside and the Committee discharged any more to meet and instead of this Act there was brought in to the Parliament at the same time with the Act of succession a short Act ratifying all former Acts made for the securitie of the Protestant Religion which is the first of the printed Acts of this Parliament At the passing of this Act the Earl proposed that these words And all Acts against Poperie might be added which was opposed by the Advocat and some of the Clergie as unnecessary But the motion being seconded by Sir George Lockhart and the then President of the Session now
turned out it was yeelded to and added without a vote and this Act being still not thought sufficient and several Members desiring other additions and other Acts a promise was made by His Royal Highness in open Parliament that time and opportunity should be given to bring in any other Act which should be thought necessary for further securing the Protestant Religion But though several persons both befor and after passing the Act for the Test here subjoyned did give in memorials and overtures yet they were never suffered to be read either in Articles or Parliament but in place of all this Act for the Test was still obtruded and nothing of that nature suffered to be heard after once that Act past though even at passing it the promise was renewed As for the Test it was first brought into the Parliament without mentioning the Confession of Faith and after several hours debate for adding the Confession of Faith and many other additions and alterations it was past at the first presenting albeit it was earnestly prest by near half the Parliament that it might be delayed till nixt morning the draught being so much changed and interlined that many even of the most engaged in the debate did not sufficiently understand it and though they took notes knew not precisely how it stood And this was indeed the Earls case in particular and the cause why in voting he did forbear either to approve or disapprove His part in the debate was that in the entrie of it he said that he thought as few Oaths should be required as could be and these as short and clear as possible That it was his humble opiâ—ion that a very small alteration in these Acts which had been used these twentie years might serve for it was manifest and he attested the whole Parliament upon it That the Oath of allegiance and Declaration had effectually debarred all Fanaticks from getting into places of trust all that time It was true some Papists had swallowed the Oath of allegiance and therefore a word or two only of addition to guard against them was all he judged necessary And there after where in the close of the Act The Kings Sons Brothers were intended to be dispensed with from taking the Test He opposed the exception said it was our happiness that King people were of one Religion and that they were so by Law That he hoped the Parliament would doe nothing to loose what was fast nor open a gap for the Royal Family to differ in Religion their example was of great consequence one of them was as a thousand and would draw the more followers if once it appeared to the people that it were honourable and a priviledge to be of an other Religion And therefor he wished if any exception vvere it might be particular for his Royal H s but His H s himselfe opposing this the Earl concluded vvith his fear that if this exception did pass it vvould doe more hurt to the Protestant Religion then all the rest of that Act and many other Acts could doe good Whilst these Acts about Religion were in agitation his H s told the Earl one day in privat to beware of himselfe for the Earl of Erroll and others were to give in a bill to the Parliament to get him made liable to some debts they pretended to be cautioners in for his Father and that those that were most forward in His Majesties service must be had a care of The Earl said He knew there was no ground for any such bill and he hoped neither the Earl of Errol nor any other should have any advantage of him upon any head relating to His Majesties service His Highness told others likewise he had given the Earl good advice But shortly after the above mentioned debates there were two bills given in to the meeting of the Articles against the Earl one by the Earl of Errol the other by His Majesties advocat who alledged he did it by command for otherwise he acknowledged it was without his line The Earl of Erroll's clame was that the Earl of Argyl might be declared liable to releeve him and others of a debt wherein they alleadged they stood bound as cautioners for the late Marques of Argyll the Earl's Father To which the Earl answered that he had not got his Fathers whole estate but only a part of it and that expresly burdened with all the debts he was liable to pay whereof this pretended debt was none and that the Marquess of Huntlie who at that time was owing to the Marquess of Argyl 35000. l. sâ—erl had got 4000 l. sterl of yearly rent out of the Marques of Argyll's forsaulture without the burden of any debt so that both by Law and equity the Earl could not be liable the Marquess of Huntlie and not he having got that which should bear this releefe and which should indeed have payed the far greatest part of the Marques of Argyll's debt the same having been undertaken for Huntlie by Argyll either as cautioner for Huntlie or to raise money to pay his debt Besides that the Earl of Erroll can never make it appear that he or his predecessors were bound for the Marques of Argyll in the third part of the summes he acclaimes Yet some were much inclined to beleive Erroll on his bare assertion His Majestie 's Advocat's clame was to take from the Earl his heritable offices of Sheriffe c. especially that of justice General of Argyll-Shire the â—sles and other places which last is nevertheless only a part of the generall Justitiarie of all Scotland granted to his Predecessors some hundred of years agoe for honourable and onerous causes and constantly enjoyed by them until expresly surrendered in his late Majesties hands for a new grant of the above mentioned Justitiary of Argyl c And this new grant was also confirmed by many Acts of Parliament and particularly by his Majesties Royall Father of blissed memorie in the Parliament holden by him Anno 1633. as likewise by his Majestie that now is whom God long preserve his new Gift and Chartour after several Debates before him in Anno 1663. and 1672. which new Gifts and Chartours were again ratified by a special instruction from His Majestie in the Parliament 1672. So that albeit several late Gifts of Regalitie granted to the Marqueis of Athol Marqueis of Queensberrie and others may be questioned because granted since the Acts of Parliament discharging all such Gifts in time coming yet the Earl of Argyl's rights are good as being both of a far different nature and granted long before the said Acts of Parliament and in effect the Earl his rights are rather confirmed by these prohibitive Acts because both anterior to and excepted from them as appears by the Act Salvo Iure 1633. wherein the Earls rights are particularly and fully excepted in the body of the printed Act. When these things appeared so plain as not to be answered It was alledged that
and when his Highness was told it was hard measure by such a process and on such pretensions to thereaten life and fortune his Highness said life and fortune God forbid What happened after these things and how the processe was carried on followes now in order and for your more clear and distinct information I have sent you several very necessary and useful papers with indexes on the margin pointing at such passages as more remarkably concern this affair And the papers are I. Act Char. 2. P. 3. C. 6 Aug. 31. 1681. Anent Religion and the Test. II. Act I. 6. P. 1. C. 3. Anno 1567. Anent the annulling of the Acts of Parliament made against God's Word and for maintainance of Idolatry in any times by past III. Act I. 6. P. 1. C. 4. Anno 1567. The Confession of the Faith and Doctrine c. IV. Act I. 6. P. 1 C. 8. Anno 1567. Anent the Kings Oath to be given at his Coronation V. Act I 6. P. 1. C. 9. No Person may be judge Procurator Notar nor member of Court who professeth not the Religion c. VI. Part of the Act I. 6. P. 2. C. 5. Anno 1609. entituled Act against Jesuits seminary Priests sayers or hearers of Messe Papists and receptors of them VII Act I 6. P 3. C. 47. Anno 1572. Adversaries of the true Religion are not Subjects to the King Of Apostats VIII Act Char. 2. P. 2. C 1. 16 Nov. 1669. Act asserting his Majesties Supremacy over all persons and in all causes ecclesiastical IX The Bishop of Aberdeens explication of the Test. X. The explication of the Test by the Synod and Clergie of Perth XI Paraphrase on the Test XII Grounds wherupon some of the conform Ministers scruple to take the Test. XIII Sederunt of the Council 22. September 1681. XIV The Earl of Queensberries explanation XV. Sederunt 21 October 1681. XVI The Bishop of Edinburgh's paper and vindication of the Test. XVII Sederunt 3 November 1681. XVIII Privy Councils explanation XIX Sederunt 4. Nov. 1681. XX. The Earl of Argyl's explication of the Test. XXI The explanation of his explication XXII The Councils Letter to the King XXIII The Kings Answer XXIV The inditement XXV Abstract of the Acts of Parliament whereupon the inditment is founded XXVI The Earl of Argyl's first Petition for Advocats XXVII The Councils Answer XXVIII The Earl of Argyl's second Petition XXIX The Councils Answer XXX The Earl of Argyl's Letter of Atturney XXXI Instrument thereon XXXII Opinion of Lawyers of the Earl's Case Which Papers may give you much light in this whole matter Anâ— ACT For securing the Protestant Religion and enjoyning a Test. OUR Soveraign Lord with his Estates of Parliament considering That albeit by many good and wholsom Laws made by his Royal Grandfather and Father of glorious Memory and by himself in this and the other Parliaments since his happy restauration The Protestant Religion is carefully asserted established and secured against Popery and Fanaticisme yet the restless Adversaries of our Religion do not cease to propagate their errors and to seduce His Majesties Subjects from their duty to God and loyalty to his Vicegerent and to overturn the established Religion by introducing their superstitions and delusions into this Church and Kingdom And knowing that nothing can more encrease the numbers and confidence of Papists and Schismatical Dissenters from the established Church then the supine neglect of putting in execution the good Laws provided against them together with their hopes to insinuate themselves into Offices and places of trust and publick employment Therefore His Majesty from his Princely and pious Zeal to maintain and preserve the true Protestant Religion contained in the Confession of Faith recorded in the first Parliament of King James the VI. which is founded on and agreeable to the written word of God Doeth with advice and consent of his Estates of Parliament require and command all his Officers Judges and Magistrates to put the Laws made against Popery and Papists Priests Jesuits and all persons of any other Order in the Popish Church especially against all sayers and hearers of Messe venters and dispensers of forbidden books and resetters of popish Priests and excommunicat Papists as also against all fanitical Separatists from this National Church against Preachers at house or field Conventicles and the resetters and harbourers of preachers who are intercommuned against disorderly Baptisms and Marriages and irregular Ordinations and all other schismatical disorders to full and vigorous execution according to the tenor of the respective Acts of Parliament thereanent provided And that His Majesties Princely Care to have these Laws put in execution against these enemies of the Protestant Religion may the more clearly appear He doth with aduice and consent foresaid statute and ordain that the Ministers of each Parish give up in October yearly to their respective Ordinaries true and compleat Lists of all Papists and schismatical with-drawers from the publick worship in their respective Parishes which Lists are to be subscribed by them and that the Bishops give in a double of the said Lists subscribed by them to the respective Sheriffs Steuards Bayliffs of Royalty and Regality and Magistrates of Burghs to the effect the said Judges may proceed against them according to Law As also the Sheriffs and other Magistrats foresaid are hereby ordained to give an accompt to His Majesties Privy Council in December yearly of their prooceedings against those Papists and fanatical separatists as they will be answerable at their highest peril And that the diligence done by the Sheriffs Baylies of Regalities and other Magistrates foresaid may be the better enquired into by the Council the Bishops of the respective Diocesses are to send exact doubles of the Lists of the Papists and Fanatiks to the Clerk of the Privy Council whereby the diligence of the Sheriffs and other Iudges of Courts may be comptrolled and examined And to cut off all hopes from Papists and Fanatiks of their being imployed in Offices and Places of publick trust It is hereby statute and ordained That the following Oath shall be taken by all persons in Offices and Places of publick trust Civil Ecclesiastical and Military especially by all Members of Parliament and all Electors of Members of Parliament all Privy-Councellors Lords of Session Members of the Exchequer Lords of Justitiary and all other Members of these Courts all Officers of the Crown and State all Archbishops and Bishops and all Preachers and Ministers of the Gospel whatsoever all persons of this Kingdom named or to be named Commissioners of the Borders all Members of the Commission for Church affaires all Sheriffs Steuards Baylies of of Royalties and Regalities Iustices of Peace Officers of the Mint Commisaries and their Deputies their Clerks and Fiscals all Advocats and Procurators before any of these Courts all Writers to the Signet all publick Notars and other persons imployed in writing and agenting The Lyon King at arms Heraulds Pursevants Messengers at
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
we do not evacuate our natural liberty whereby we are in freedom innocently without reflection upon or derogation to Authority or persons intrusted with it to discourse in any occasional meeting of these things so we exclude not those other meetings which are necessary for the well-being and Discipline of the Church IV. By our swearing it unlawful to endeavour any change or alteration in the Government either of Church or State we mean that it is unlawfal for us to endeavour the alteration of the specifick Government of Monarchy in the true and lineal Descent and Episcopacy V. When we swear in the genuine and literal sense c. we understand it so far as it is not opposite or contradictory to the foresaid exceptions They were allowed to insert after the Oath before their Subscriptions these words or to this purpose We Under-written do take this Oath according to the Explanation made by the Council approved by His Majesties Letter and we declare we are no further bound by this Oath A Paraphrase on the Test emitted by one of the conformed Clergy I A. B. solemnly swear in presence of the Eternal God whom I invocate as judge and witness of my sincere intention of this my Oath That I A. B. being fully assured without the least doubt or hesitation of the truth of all that I am now to assert and of the lawfulness of all that I am now to promise Do in the most solemn manner swear in the sight and presence of the Eternal God whom I here call upon to witness against me in the Great Day and to pass Sentence of Condemnation upon me if I affirm any thing by this my Oath of the certainty whereof I am not fully assured or promise any thing of the lawfulness whereof I have any scruples and which I am not sincerely resolved to perform viz. That I own and sincerely profess the true Protestant Religion contained in the Confession of Faith recorded in the first Parliament of James the VI c. That I cordially own without any dissimulation profess the true Protestant Religion And because there are many doctrines and opinions that pass under that name that it may be known what I do mean by the true Protestant Religion I declare That I own that Confession of Faith which is recorded in the first Parliament of King James the VI. as the true test and standard thereof And that I believe the same to be founded on and agreeable to the written Word of God And because it would not be a just standard if some part of it were taken and others left unless these parts that are to be sworn to were expresly condescended on by the same Authority whereby it is imposed For if it were left arbitrary for every one to pitch on these parts of it he pleases as the measure of his Faith it would be useless for the end for which it is adduced Therefore I embrace the whole Confession and do swear by the same solemn Oath That I believe every Article and every Proposition therein to be true as being evidently founded on and agreeable to the Word of God As for instance Art 3. I swear by this my solemn Oath That Adam's Transgression is commonly called Original Sin And Art 12. That men have as little hand in their Regeneration and Sanctification as they have in their Creation and Redemption And Art 14. That to suppress Tyranny is one of the good works of the Second Table most pleasing and acceptable to God and commanded by himself the contrary whereof is 〈◊〉 sin most odious which always displeaseth and provokes him to anger that is When the Civil Mastrate comes to act arbitrarily and against Law when he invades the established Religion the Priviledges of Parliament or the Liberties and Properties of Subjects he is to be opposed and resisted Or when our Ecclesiastical Superiors usurp a Dominion over the Inferior Clergy or behave themselves as Lords over Gods Heritage or require absolute obedience to their Dictates and Determinations they are to be withstood and born down And as it is in the same Article I swear That I believe our resistance of these whom God hath placed in Authority over us is a sin when they do not pass over the bounds of their Office but if they pass over these bounds it is a duty to resist them which is evident being compared with the former Proposition and the practices of them who composed the Confession And in the same Article I swear and believe all these to be evil works in matters of Religion and the worship of God which have no other assurance but the invention and opinion of men So that whatsoever our Superiors determine in this matter tho only for Decency if they cannot shew it to be clearly founded on the Word of God it is to be looked on as an evil work And I swear I shall so reckon it Art 16. I swear That I think it blasphemy to affirm that men who live acording to natural light and moral equity shall be saved unless they profess the Christian Religion And that out of the true Church there is neither life nor eternal felicity So that I not only condemn all Pagans and Papists to Hell fire but I declare upon Oath That I think it Blasphemy to affirm the contrary And Art 18. I believe That Ecclesiastical Discipline rightly administred as Gods Word prescribeth is as essential a note of the true Church as the right administration of the Word and Sacraments So that the Church of England or any other Church that has not Discipline rightly administred tho they have the Word and Sacraments pure and uncorrupted wants an essential Note of a true a Church And Art 21. I declare That I perfectly understand this Proposition and do solemnly swear that it 's true that the faithful in the right use of the Lords Table are so made flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone that as the eternal Godhead has given to the flesh of Iesus Christ 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 And Art 22. I declare and swear by this my solemn Oath That the Ministers of the Church of Rome are not Ministers of Iesus Christ and that they have no true Sacraments So that our first Reformers having both their Baptism and Ordination from them we have neither among us truly baptized persons nor rightly ordained Ministers And Art 24 I believe That the resisting the Supreme Power doing that which appertains to his charge is to resist the Ordinance of God So that to resist when he goes beyond his charge is not to resist the Ordinance of God but to repress Tyranny according to Art 14 And I promise and swear That I shall adhere thereto during all the days of my life shall endeavour to educate my
children therein shall never consent to any change contrary thereto And that I disown all such Doctrines whether Popish or Fanatical which are contrary to inconsistent with the true Protestant Religion this Confession of Faith All these Propositions and every thing contained therein I firmly believe and embrace and I promise and swear that I shall adhere to them so long as I live without ever changing my opinion about them and that I shall carefully educate my children according to them i. e. I shall teach them to repress Tyranny and if the Authority should make any alteration in the said Confession or any of the Propositions therein I swear that I shall neuer consent thereto And I swear also That I shall renounce all Principles Doctrines and Practices whether Popish or Fanatical which are contrary to any Article or proposition of the foresaid Confession of Faith And for testification of my obedience to my most Gracious Soveraign Charles the Second I do affirm and swear by this my solemn Oath That the Kings Majesty is the only Supreme Governour over this Realm over all Persons and Causes as well Ecclesiastick as Civil and that no Foreign Prince c. As I have declared my Faith toward God so now to testifie that I am a good Subject to the King I affirm and swear by this my solemn Oath That the Kings Majesty is the onely Supreme Governour over all Persons not only Civil but also Ecclesiastical By which I understand that Ecclesiastical Supremacy which the Parliament by Act Nov. 1669. has declared to belong to him as an inherent Right of the Crown By vertue whereof His Majesty and Successors may dispose of the external Governement and Policy of the Church as they please i. e. of all Church-Government there being no other Government exercised in the Church by men but that which is external And that they may settle enact and emit any Constitutions Acts or Orders concerning the Government or persons employed therein and concerning all Ecclesiastical meetings and matters to be proposed and determined therein as they shall think fit So that I affirm that His Majesty and Successors may alter change or abolish the form of Church-Government now established by Law that he may commit it into the hands of persons of a different Religion from what is presently professed in this Realm that he may discharge all meetings of Synods Presbyteries and Sessions for ever Or if he shall please to continue them that he may chuse one delegated or deputed by himself to propose and determine all-matters therein as he thinks â—it That he may by vertue of his Supreme Power iuhibit Church-Officers to meet or meddle in any matter eisher Doctrine or Discipline without his special Order to persue or process any Delinquent or to consider of means to prevent any change or alteration in Religion tho it should be in never so great hazard except only as he shall determine and appoint therein All which he may do by himself and his Councill without any new Law or Act of Parliament And I affirm swear that tho any of His Majesties Successors shall happen to be of another Religion as God forbid yet all this Ecclesiastical Power does belong to him it being declared to be an inherent Right in the Crown and so not to belong to him as a Christian or Protestant Magistrate but as a Magistrate precisely And to my power I shall defend all Rights Jurisdictions Prerogatives Priviledges Preheminencies belonging to His Majesty and lawful Successors And also I swear by this my solemn Oath that so far as I am able I shall assist and defend His Majesties Rights and Prerogatives which because I do not know therefore whatsoever the King and Parliament or King and Council shall declare to belong to him as a Right Jurisdiction and Prerogative either in Civil or Ecclesiastical Affairs either concerning Religion Liberty or Property by Ecclesiastical Supremacy I swear I shall own and approve assist and defend the same as far as possibly I can And further I affirm and swear by this my solemn Oath That I judge it unlawful for Subjects upon pretext of Reformation or any other pretence whatsoever to enter into Covenants or Leagues or to convocate conveene or assemble in any Council Convocation or Assembly to treat consult or determine in any matter of State Civil or Ecclesiastick without His Majesties special Licence or express Warrant had thereto or to take up Arms against the King or those commissionated by him And that I shall never so rise in Arms nor enter into such Covenants or Assemblies c And I further swear That I think it utterly unlawful for any Subject of whatsoever quality or condition many or few for whatsoever Cause not only to make any Covenants but not so much as to meet together in any kind of Meeting to hear see or consult about any matter belonging to the Civil or Ecclesiastical Estate without His Majesties special Command and express Licence So that whatsoever corruption or abuse may be in the Civil Government through the fault of the King or Council or whatsoever hazard or danger the true Religion and Church of God within this land may be in I judg it unlawful for any Subject whether Pastors or others to meet together that they may consider what way to remedy or prevent the same tho it were only by humble Addresses and Petitions And I sâ—ear That there can never fall out a Case wherein Subjects may rise in Arms against their King or any Commissionated by him even though it were meerly to defend themselves tho never so cruelly persecuted and invaded by any who pretend his Name and Authority And I promise and swear That if any shall rise in Arms or meet together in a peaceable way for the ends foresaid that I shall never joyn with them And that there lies no Obligation on me from the National Covenant or the Solemn League and Covenant so commonly called or any manner of way whatsoever to endeavour any change or alteration in the Government either in Church or State as it is now established by the Laws of this Kingdom c. And I also affirm and swear by this Oath That there lies no Obligation on me either by the National or Solemn League and Covenant or any other way imaginable whatsoever to endeavour the least change or alteration in the Government either in Church or State as they are now established So that I am never to endeavour any alteration not only in the Civil Government but also in the Govern of the Church as it is now established among us though it should be found never so prejudicial to Religion to His Majesties Service or to the good of the Countrey Yea whatever corruptions may come to be in either of the Govern I swear That I am obliged never to endeavour the least alteration of them And particularly 1. As to the Ecclesiastical Govern it being established by
is counted Blasphemy for Angels or Men to intrude themselves into the said Honor and Office 4 th Section the 23 th on the Sacraments Popish Baptism is denyed as to its validity and Popish Priests denyed to be true Ministers which expressions if narrowly scanned will be found of dangerous consequence and contradictory to other positions in the Confession it self Fourthly we fear that our People may look on us rather as Countenancers and Incouragers then Suppressors of Popery seeing by the Act we are obliged to delate yearly in October such as withdraw from our Ministry that they may be punished by the civil Magistrats and yet by the same Act the Kings lawful Brother and Sons in perpetuum are exempt from taking the Test and consequently left at liberty to be Papists or Protestants and what bad influence their example may have on inferior People may easily be apprehended and our taking the Test will be reputed an approving of that exemption which will be more stumbling That all former Acts against Papists were made without any exemption and they all declared to be disloyal who embraced not the Reformed Religion particularly in the 47 th Act of the third Parliament of James the V I. and the 8 th Act of the I. Parliament of Charles the II. Fifthly We are to swear that there lyes no obligation on us by vertue of the late Covenants or any other manner of way to endeavour the change of the Government either in Church or State as it is established by Law where we suppose we are sworn not only to maintain Monarchy but also as our Law tyes us in the present line and in the nearest in kin to our present King altho they should be Papists altho we judge the Coronation Oath in the eight Act of the first Parliament of James the VI. to be contradictory which yet is a standing unrepealed Law since this currant Parliament hath ratified and confirmed all Acts made in savour of the Protestant Religion whereof this is one so that we swear Contradictions Sixthly as for the Church Government as it is now establisht by Law there hath not been nor are yet wanting sound Protestants who assert the Jus divinum of Episcopacy such could not in conscience take this Oath seeing the King by vertue of his Prerogative and Supremacy is impowered by Law to dispose of the External Government and Policy of the Church as he pleases as for such as look upon Episcopal Government as indifferent in it self notwithstanding the submission that we give to it or have ingaged for they can as litle swear on these terms for why should they swear never to endeavor to alter that which in it self they look upon as alterable there being no indifferent thing which in tract of time through the corruption of Men may not prove hurtful and why might not men in their Station endeavor the redressing by fair means of any such evil and advise his Majesty if he be willing to exert the power setled on him by the law for freeing the Church from any inconveniency and altho we have engaged to obey Bishops yet we ever did wish that they may be setled aâ—ongst us in a way more suitable to the primitive times viz. That their number might be more encreased that they might by called by the Church allenarly to that office and that they might be made liable to the censure of the Church for their doctrine life and diligence that they might not be such pragmatical Medlers in Civil affairs and that Synods and Presbyteries might have more power then is assigned them by the Act of Restitution from the seeking a Remedy in any of which things this Oath doth tye us up Seventhly the power given to the King by the present laws if he should be popish should be very prejudicial to the Protestant Interest for by the first Act of the 2d Parliament of Charles the 2d he may not only dispose of the external Policy of the Church but may emit such Acts concerning the Persons imployed therein all Ecclesiastical Meetings and Matters to be treated upon therein as he shall think fit and this Act only published is to oblige all his Subjects and by the Act for a National Synod no Doctrinal Matter may be proposed debated or concluded without his express allowance in the foresaid case it is easie to divine what advantage the Enemies of our Religion will have for the overturning of all Hoc â—thacusvelit magno mercentur Atridâ— EDENBURGH The sederunt of the Council Sederunt vigesimo secundo Die Septembris 1681. His Royal Highness c. Montrose Errall Marshall Marr Glencarne Winton Linlithgow Perth Strathmore Roxburgh Queensberry Airley Kintore Breadalbane Lorne Levingston Bishop of Edenburgh Elphinston Rosse Dalziel Treasurer Deputy Praeses Advocate Justice Clerk Collintoun Tarbet Haddo Lundie This day the Test was subscribed by the above-written Privy Councellors and by the Earl of Queensberry who coming in after the rest had taken it declared that he took it with the Explication following The Earl of Queensberrie's Explanation of the Test when he took it HIS Lordship declared that by that part of the Test That there lyes no obligation to endeavour any change or alteration in the Government c. He did not understand himself to be oblidged against Alterations In case it should please His Majestie to make alterations of of the Government of Church or State HALYRUDEHOUSE Sederunt vigesimo primo Die Octobris 1681. His Royal Highness c. Winton Perth Strathmore Queensberry Ancram Airley Lorne Levingston Bishop of Edenburgh Treasurer Deputy Praeses Register Advocate Collintoun This day the Bishop of Edenburgh having drawn up a long Explication of the Test to satisfie the many Objections and Scruples moved against it especially by the conformed Clergie presented it to the Council for their Lp's Approbation which was ordered to be read But the paper proving prolixe and tedious His Highness after reading of a few leaves interrupted saying very wittyly and pertinently that the first Chapter of John with a stone will chase away a dog and so brake it off Yet the Bishop was afterward allowed to print it if he pleased and here you have it The Bishop of Edenburgh's Explanatory Vindication of the Test. THE last Session of this currant Parliament considering the interest of the true Protestant Religion to be the most sacred and important of all others doth by the first Act revive ratifie and confirm all Acts and Statutes made in our former Parliaments establishing the same in this Kingdom which Acts being made by our wise Ancestors when the Protestant Religion was in greatest danger not only from the great number of Popish Subjects in this Kingdom many whereof were persons of greatest interest power and influence therein but from the Power of France as well as of the Pope both which were zealously bent to re-establish and confirm the setlement of Popery in its Jurisdictions and Superstitions amongst
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
all Oaths and Obedience And consequently strikes at the root of all Laws as well as this Whereas to shun all this not only this excellent Statute 107. has secured all the rest but this is common Reason And in the opinion of all Divines as well as Lawyers in all Nations Verba juramenti intelliguntur secundum ment em intentionem ejus cui fit juramentum Which is set down as the grand position by Sandersone whom they cite Pag. 137. and is founded upon that Mother-Law Leg. 10. cui interrogatus f. f. de interrogationibus in Iure faciendis and without which no man can have sense of Government in his head or practise it in any Nation Whereas on the other hand there is no danger to any tender Conscience since there was no force upon the Earl to take the Oath but he took it for his own advantage and might have abstained 2. It is inferred from the above-written matter of Fact That the Earl is clearly guilty of contravention of the 10. Act Parl. 10. James VI. Whereby the Liedges are commanded not to write any purpose of Reproach of His Majesties Government or misconstrue his Proceedings whereby any misliking may be raised betwixt his Highness his Nobility or his People And who can read this Paper without seeing the King and Parliament reproached openly in it For who can hear that the Oath is only taken as far as it is consistent with it self and the Protestant Religion but must necessarily conclude that in several things it is inconsistent with it self and the Protestant Religion For if it were not inconsistent with it self and the Protestant Religion why this Clause at all but it might have been simply taken For the only reason of hindering it to be taken simply was because of the inconsistency ergo there behoved necessarily to be an inconsistency And if there be any inconsistency with the Protestant Religion or any contradiction in the Oath it self can there be any thing a greater Reproach on the Parliament or a greater ground of mislike to the People And whereas it is pretended That all Laws and Subsumptions should be clear and these are only Inferences It is answered That there are some things which the Law can only forbid in general And there are many Inferences which are as strong and natural and reproach as soon or sooner than the plainest defamations in the world do For what is openly said of reproach to the King does not wound him so much as many seditious Insinuations have done in this Age and the last So that whatever was the Earl's design albeit it is always conceived to be unkind to the Act against which himself debated in Parliament yet certainly the Law in such cases is only to consider what essect this may have amongst the People And therefore the Acts of Parliament that were to guard against the misconstruing of His Majesties Government do not only speak of what was designed but where a disliking may be caused and so judgeth ab effectu And consequentially to the same emergent Reason it makes all things tending to the raising of dislike to be punishable by the Act 60. Parl. 6. Queen Mary and the 9. Act. Parl. 20. James VI. So that the Law designed to deter all men by these indefinite and comprehensive Expressions And both in this and all the Laws of Leasing-making the Iudges are to consider what falls under these general and comprehensive words Nor could the Law be more special here since the makers of Reproach and Slander are so various that they could not be bound up or exprest in any Law But as it evidently appears that no man can hear the words exprest if he believe this Paper but he must think the Parliament has made a very ridiculous Oath inconsistent with it self and the Protestant Religion the words allowing no other sense and having that natural tendency Even as if a man would say I love such a man only in so far as he is an honest man he behoved certainly to conclude that the man was not every way honest So if your Lordships will take measures by other Parliaments or your Predecessors ye will clearly see That they thought less than this a defaming of the Government and misconstruing His Majesties Proceedings For in Balmerino's Case the Justices find an humble Supplication made to the King himself to fall under these Acts now cited Albeit as that was a Supplication so it contained the greatest expressions of Loyalty and offers of Life and Fortune that could be exprest Yet because it insinuates darkly That the King in the preceeding Parliament had not favoured the Protestant Religion and they were sorry he should have taken Notes with his own hands of what they said which seems to be most innocent yet he was found guilty upon those same very Acts. And the Parliament 1661. found his Lordship himself guilty of Leasing making tho he had only written a Letter to a private Friend which requires no great care nor observation but this Paper which was to be a part of his own Oath does because after he had spoken of the Parliament in the first part of this Letter he thereafter added That the King would know their Tricks Which words might be much more applicable to the private Persons therein designed than that the words now insisted on can be capable of any such Interpretation And if either Interpretations upon pretext of exonering of Conscience or otherwise be allowed a man may easily defame as much as he pleases And have we not seen the King most defamed by Covenants entered into upon pretence to make him great and glorious By Remonstrances made to take away his Brother and best Friend upon pretence of preserving the Protestant Religion and His Sacred Person And did not all who rebelled against him in the last Age declare That they thought themselves bound in duty to obey him but still as far as that could consist with their respect to the Protestant Religion and the Laws and Liberties which made all the rest ineffectual And whereas it is pretended That by these words I take the same in as far as it is consistent with it self and the Protestant Religion nothing more is meant but that he takes it as a true Protestant His Majesties Advocate appeals to your Lordships and all the Hearers if upon hearing this Expression they should take it in this sense and not rather think that there is an inconsistency For if that were possible to be the sense what need he say at all as far as it is consistent with it self Nor had the other part as far as it is consistent with the Protestant Religion been necessary For it is either consistent with the Protestant Religion or otherwise they were Enemies to the Protestant Religion that made it Nor are any Lawyers or others in danger by pleading or writing For these are very different from and may be very easily pleaded without defaming a Law and an
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
ambiguous and needs to be explained And the Earl may confidently averr that of all the Explanations that have been offered even the Councils not excepted his is the mostsafe sound and least disagreeable to the Parliaments true sense and meaning And yet when all others escape he alone must be seased and for a thing so openly innocent clearly justifiable and undeniably allowed found guilty of the worst of crimes even Leasing-making Leasing-telling Depraving of Laws and Treason but all these things God almighty sees and to him the judgment yet belongs And thus I leave this dscourse shutting it up with the case of Archbishop Cranmer plainly parallel to the Earl's to show how much he was more favourably dealt with by the King and Government in those dayes then the Earl now is though he live under a much more merciful and just Prince then that worthy Prelate did for Cranmer being called and promoted by Henry VIII of England to be Archbishop of Canterbury and finding an Oath was to be offered to him which in his apprehension would bind him up from what he accounted his duty he altogether declined the dignity and preferment unless he were allowed to take the Oath with such an Explanation as he himself proposed for salving of his Conscience and though this Oath was no other then the statut and solemn Oath that all his Predecessors in that See and all the mitered Clergy in England had sworn yet he was admitted to take it as you see in Fuller's Church hist Of Britain Lib 5 p. 185 and 186 with this formal Protestation In nomine Domini Amen Coramvobis c. Non est aut erit meae voluntatis aut intentionis per hujusmodi juramentum veljuramenta qualitereunque verba in ipsis posita sonare videbuntur me obligare ad aliquid ratione â—orundum post hac dicendum faciendum aut attentandum quod erit aut esse videbitur contra Legem Dei vel contra illustrissimum Regem nostrum Angliae Legesve aut Praerogativas Esusdem Et quod non intendo per hujusmodi juramentum veljuramentâ— quovis modo me obligare quo minus libere loqui consulere aut consentire valeam in omnibus singulâ—s Reformationem Religionis Christianae Gubernationem Ecclesiae Anglicanae Praerogativam Coronae ejusdâ—m Reipublicae vel commoditatem earundem quoquo modo concernentibus eâ— ubique exequi reformare quae mihi in Ecclesia Anglicana reformanda videbuntur Et secundum hanc interpretationem intellectum hunc non aliter neque alio modo dictum juramentum me praestiturum protestor profiteor That is to say In the Name of God Amen Before yow c. It neither is nor shall be my will or meaning by this kind of Oath or Oaths and however the words of themselves shall seem to sound or signify to bind up my self by vertue hereof to say do or endeavour any thing which shall really be or appear to be against the Law of God or against our most illustrious King of England or against his Laws and Prerogatives And that I mean not by this my Oath or Oaths any wayes to bind up my self from speaking consulting and consenting freely in all and every thing in any sort concerning the Reformation of the Christian Religion the Government of the Church of England and the Prerogative of the Crown of the Commonwealth thereof or their advantage and from executing and reforming such things as I shall think need to be reformed in the Church of England And according to this Explanaton and sense and not otherwise nor in any other manner do I protest and profess that I am to take and perform this Oath Nor did that excellent Person sayes Mr Fuller smother this privatly in a corner but publikly interposed it three severall times once in the Charter-house before authentik witnesses again upon his bended knees befor the high Alter in view and hearing of many people and Bishops beholding him when he was consecrated and the third time when he received the Pall in the same place Now would it not be very strange if the like liberty should not be allowed to the â—arl under His Majesty in reference to the Test which Henry the VIII a Prince that stood as much on his Prerogative as ever any did vouchafe to this Thomas Cranmer who as another Historian observes acted fairly and above-board But there wanted then the high and excellent designs of the great Ministers The rare fidelity of Councellors sound Religion and tender piety of Bishops solid Law and Learning of Advocates incorruptible integrity of Judges and upright honesty of Assizers that now we have to get Archbishop Cranmer accused and condemned for Leasing-making depraving Laws Perjury and Treason to which accusation his Explanation was certainly no less obnoxious then the Earl's But I hasten to the fourth and last head of the Earl's additional defences viz The removing certain groundless pretences alledged by the Advocate for aggravating the Earl's offence ASI That the Earl being a Peer and Member of Parliament should have known the sense of the Parliament and that neither the Scruples of the Clergy nor the Councils proclamation designed for meer Ignorants could any way excuse the Earl for offering such an Explanation But first the Advocate might have remembred that in another passage he taxes the Earl as having debated in Parliament against the Test whereby it is easy to gather that the Earl having been in the matter of the Test a dissenter this quality doth rather justify then aggravat the Earl's Scrupling 2ly If the proclamation was designed for the meer Ignorants of the Clergy as the Advocate calls them who knew nothing of what had past in Parliament an Explanation was far more necessary for the Earl who knows so little of what the Advocate alledges to have past in Parliament viz. That the Confession of Faith was not to be sworn to as a part of the Test that of necessity as I think he must know the contrary In as much as first this is obvious from the express tenor of the Test which binds to own and profess the true Protestant Religion contained in the Confession of Faith and to believe the same to be agreable to the Word of God as also to adhere thereto and never to consent to any change contrary to or inconsistent with the said Protestant Religion Confession of Faith Which to common sense appears as plain and evident as can be contrived or desired But 2ly It is very well known that it was expresly endeavoured and carried in Parliament that the Confession of Faith should be a part of the Test and Oath For the Confession of Faith being designed to be sworn to by an Act for securing the Protestant Religion which you have heard was prepared in the Articles but afterwards thrown out when this Act for the Test was brought in to the Parliament some dayes after by the Bishop of Edinburgh and others the
Sentence is constantly required which induced some to think that at least the Earl should have been lawfully cited to hear Sentence before it could be pronounced But it is like this course as confessing a difficulty and occasioning too long a delay was therefore not made use of However upon the whole it was the General Opinion that seeing the denouncing the Earl Fugitive would have wrought much more in Law then all that was commonly said at first to be designed against him And that his Case did appear every way so favourable that impartial men still wondered how it came to be at all questioned It had been better to have sisted the process with his escape and taken the ordinary course of Law without making any more stretches But as I have told you when the Fryday came the Lords of Iustitiary without any respect or answer given to the Petition above-mentioned given in by the Countess of Argyle to the Court for a stop pronounced Sentence first in the Court and then caused publish the same with all solemnity at the Mercat Cross of Edinburgh FOr as much as it is found by an Assize That Archibald Earl of Argyle is guilty culpable of the crimes of Treason Leasing-making Leasing-â—elling for which he was detained within the castle of Edinburgh out of which he â—es now since the said Verdict made his Escape Therefore the Lords Commissioners of Justitiarâ— decern and adjudge the said Archibald Earl of Argyle to be execute to the death demained as a traitour and to underly the paines of Treason other punishments appointed by the lawes of this Kingdom when he shall be apprehended at such a time and place and in such manner as his Majesty in his Royall pleasure shall think fit to declare and appoint And his Name Memory and Honours to be extinct And his Armes to be riven forth and delete out of the Books of Armes swa that his Posterity may never have place nor be able hereafter to bruick or joyse any Honour Offices Titles or Dignities within this Realme in time coming and to have for faulted â—mitted and tint all and sundry his Lands Tenements Annua-rents Offices Titles Dignities Tacks Steedings Rowmes Possessiones Goods and Geere what suâ—ever pertaining to him to our Soveraign Lord to remain perpetually with his Highness in property Which was pronounced for Doom 23 December 1681. After the reading and publishing whereof The Earl's Coat of Armes by order of the Court was also torn and ranversed both in the Court and at the Mercat Cross Albeit some thought that this was rather a part of the Execution which his Majesties Letter discharges then a necessary Solemnity in the Publication and the Advocate himself sayes p 61. of his printed Criminals That it should only be practised in the crime of Perduellion but not in other Treasons The Reasons and Motives of the Earl's escape with the Conclusion of the whole Narrative THE Earl's escape was at first a great surprise both to his friends and unfriends for as it is known that his Process in the beginning did appear to the less concerned more like a piece of pageantry then any reality and even by the more concerned was accounted but a politik design to take away his Offices and lesâ—en his Power and Interest So neither did any of his Friends fear any greater hazard noâ— did most of his unfriends imagine them to be more apprehensive Whereby it fell out that upon report of his escape many and some of his well-wishers thought he had too lightly abandoned a fair Estate and the probable expectation he might have had of His Majesties favour As also some that were judged his greatest adversaries did appear very angry as if the Earl had taken that course on purpose to load them with the odium of a design against his life And truly I am apt to think it was not only hard and uneasie for others to believe that a Person of the Earl's quality and character should upon so slendeâ— a pretence be destroyed both as to life and fortune but also that he himself was slow enough to receive the impressions necessary to ripen his resolution and that if a few Accidents as he sayes himself happening a little before his escape had not as it were opened his eyes and brought back and presented to him several things past in a new light and so made all to operate to his final determination he had stayed it out to the last Which that you may the better understand you may here consider the several particulars that together with what he himself hath since told some frineds apparently occurred to him in these his second thoughts in their following order And first you have heard in the beginning of this Narrative what was the first occasion of the Earl his declining in his Highness favour You may also remember that his Majesties Advocate takes notice that he debated against the Act enjoyning the Test in the Parliament And as I have told you he was indeed the Person that spoke against excepting the King's Brothers and Sons from the Oath then intended for securing the Protestant Religion and the Subjects Loyalty not thinking it fit to complement with a Priviledge where all possible caution appears rather to be necessary And this a reverend Bishop told the Earl afterwards had downright fired the kilâ— What thereafter happened in Parliament and how the Earl was alwise ready to have laid all his Offices at his Majesties feet And how he was content in Council to be held a Refuser of the Test and thereby incurr an intire deprivation of all publik Trust is above fully declared and only here remembred to show what Reason the Earl had from his first coming to Edinburgh in the end of October to think that something else was intended against him then the simple devesting him of his Employments and Jurisdictions And yet such was his Assurance of his Innocence that when ordered by the Council to enter his Person in Prison under the pain of Treason he entered freely in an Hakney coach without either hesitation or noise as you have heard 2ly The same day of the Earl's commitment the Council met and wrote as I have told you their Letter to His Majesty above set down Num. 22. Wherein they expresly charge him with Reproaching and Depraving But yet neither with Perjury noâ— Treason and a few dayes after the Earl wrote a Letter to his Highness Wherein he did endeavour to remove his offence in termes that it was said at first had given satisfaction But yet the only return the Earl had was a criminal Summonds containing an Indictment and that before any answer was come from hiâ— Majesty And then so soon as his Majesties answer came there was a new Summonds sent him with a new Indictment adding the crimes of Treason and â—erjury to these of Reproaching and Depraving which were in the first Libel as you have heard above whereby you may perceive how
Explanation at or before his taking of the Test Which emitting as it plainly differs from the point of Acceptance so was the proving of it justly neglected by the Earl because the Emission notour and the charge of Perjury ridiculous as you have it more fully in the Narrative But these things our Author willfully mistakes that he may the more easily abuse strangers As for what our Author here adds That the Earl's Explanation made the Oath no Oath and the Test no Test and would have evacuated the whole Act as he sayes he will prove shall be noticed when he comes to his proofs Only where he sayes The greatest Fanatiks in Scotland owned they would take the Test in the Earl's Sense without prejudice to their Principles It is a groundless assertion and by all of them utterly denyed He sayes The Mist puts a strange abuse upon the world as if the scruples that he sets down were only the scruples of the conformed Clergy whereas many Papers bearing that title were drawn by the Presbyterians But seeing the Paper that the Mist sets down was certainly emitted by one of the conformed Clergy and doth fully homologat with the Rest above-insert in the Narrative which without doubt are all of their fabrik the pretended abuse is altogether groundless But now our Author comes to make good the Earl's Indictment in point of Law And though here we find nothing new or repeated with any advantage and though all be already fully answered in the Narrative yet lest he complain of neglect I shall run over what he alledges as briefly as I can And having set down the words of the Earl's Explanation The first Crime sayes he charged upon the Earl from this Paper is that albeit it be statut That no man interpret the King's Statuts otherways then they bear and to the intent and effect they were made for And that the King and Parliament did appoint the Test to be taken for securing the Protestant Religion and the King's Prerogative without any evasion Yet notwithstanding thereof the Earl did take the Oath in such a sense as did not only evacuate his own taking but learn others how to do the like and evacuate all Acts of the same nature that can be made But seeing that in matter of crimes Statuts are certainly designed for Beacons Land-marks and the most clear distinctive Directions that could be invented as well to hinder men from transgressing as to guard them against the Pains and therefore are to be understood in the most obvious signification that the words do bear Is it not an odd stretch for our Author to think that a man's taking of an Oath enjoined by a Statut in any sense whether true or false pertinent or impertinent if simply offered by him for expeding of his own Conscience should be look't upon as an interpreting or misinterpreting of the Statute which oftentimes happens to be but to clear when the Oath is confessedly ambiguous Thus as to the sense and meaning of the Act in hand viz. That all men therein comprehended should take the Test in manner and under the certification therein contained the Earl never had the least hesitation about it All his difficulty was to clear himself and his own Oath as to the ambiguities acknowledged even by the Council to be in the Test though not in the Act and this he does by referring explicitly to the Parliaments sense and design as it stands expressed in the Act without ranversing either the words of the Test or meaning of the Act as an other approven Explication doth How is it then possible that for this he should be thought concern'd in this Statute as a Misinterpreter And is it not on the other hand very evident that both the Advocate and our Author and their Associats in wresting this Statute which seems principally to have been made against the misinterpreting and wresting of Laws in Iudgment to so remote and extraneous a case are themselves the only Misinterpreters and Transgressours But waving the connexion let us hear how our Author proves the subsumption viz. That the Earl did take the Test in such a sense as did evacuate his own and teach others to do the like and evacuate all other Acts of that nature And to repeat as little as possible he sayes That the design of Laws and Oaths is to procure a certainty of obedience and performance but the Earl's qualified Oath everts this design Wonderfull The Test is in it self granted to be ambiguous and reaches not this design The Earl that he may deal more clearly with God and the Government declares explicitly a plain and certain sense wherein he is willing to take it and the Council who might and ought to have rejected it if not satisfieing do accept of it And yet hereupon he is immediatly by them staged as an Everter Depraver and Traitour And wherefore Because forsooth the Earl promises only to obey the Act as far as he can A most absurd and ridiculous pretence And tells us not in what he will obey Which albeit no crime though true is yet a great falshood For the Earl immediatly subjoins a very certain and congruous sense in which he is willing to take the Test all the obedience here in controversie 2ly Because the Earl sayes that no body can explain it but for himself and reconcile it as it is geuuine c. which adds our Author implyes that it had no plain genuine sense But though the Council did explain this Oath and in so far grant that it had no plain genuine sense for what is already plain without doubt needs no Explanation yet the Earl goes not so far But all he meant was that in the midst of so many Objections made against the Test he could only clear it for himself Which also he does most safely and soundly in referring to its self-consistency and the Parliaments sense and scope the best Rules of interpretation 3ly Because the Parliament designed the Test as a security for the Protestant Religion But sayes our Author The Earl by saying He did only take it in as far as it is consistent with itself and with the Protestant Religion implyes that in some things it is not consistent But 1. Implications which may be so easily strained and oftentimes are found to be as the Fool thinks are terrible grounds of Crimes 2ly If the Parliament designed the Test as a security for the Protestant Religion and the Earl did take it in so far as it is consistent with the same Protestant Religion what can be more agreeable And 3ly It was neither the Earl's words nor intention that the Parliament had framed a Test in some things not consistent with it self and the Protestant Religion but the true sense of his words was and is That however many did alledge both yet he took it in as far as it was consistent which he vvas sure as our Author sayes vvas the Parliaments purpose 4ly Because the design of this
Arms all Collectors Sub Collectors and Fermers of His Majesties Customes and Excise all Magistrats Deans of Gild Councellors and Clerks of Boroughs Royal Regality all Deacons of trades and Deâ—con-conveeners in the said Burghs all Masters and Doctors in Universities Colledges or Schools all Chaplans in families Pedagogues to children and all Officers and Soldiers in Armies Forts or Militia And all other persons in any publick Trust or office within this Kingdom who shall publickly swear and subscribe the said Oath as follows viz. Archbishops Chief Commanders of the Forces and Officers of the Crown and State and Councellors before the Secret Council all the Lords of Session and all members of the Colledg of Justice and others depending upon them before the Lords of Session the Lords of lustitiary and all these depending upon that Court in the Iustice-Court the Lords and other Members of the Exchequer before the exchequer all Bishops before the Archibishops all the Inferior Clergy Commisaries Masters Doctors of Universities Schools Chaiplans Pedagogues before the Bishops of the respective Diocesses Sheriffs Stewards Baylies of Royalty and Regality and these depending on these Iurisdictions before their respective Courts all Provosts Baylies and others of the Boroughs before the Town-Council all Collectors and Fermers of the Kings Customs and Excise before the Exchequer the Commissioners of the Borders before the Privy-Council all Iustices of the Peace before the Conveeners and the Officers of the Mint before the General of the Mint and the Officers of the Forces before the Commander in chief and common Soldiers before their respective Officers The Lyon before the Privy Council and Heraulds Pursevants and Messengers at Arms before the Lyon And His Majesty with consent foresaid Statutes and ordains that all these who presently possess and enjoy any of the foresaid offices publick Trusts and Imployments shall take and subscribe the following Oath in one of the foresaid Offices in manner before prescribed betwixt and the first of January next which is to be recorded in the Registers of the respective Courts and extracts thereof under the Clerks hand to be reported to His Majesties Privy-Council betwixt and the first of March 1682. and hereafter in any other Courts whereof they are Iudges or Members the first time they shall sit or exercise in any of these respective Courts and ordains That all who shall hereafter be promoted to or imployed in any of the foresaid Offices Trusts or Imployments shall at their entry into and before their exercising thereof take and subscribe the said Oath in manner foresaid to be recorded in the Registers of their respective Courts and reported to His Majesties Privy Council within the space of fourty days after their taking of the same And if any shall presume to exercise any of the faid offices or Imployments or any publick Office or Trust within this Kingdom the Kings Brothers and Sons only excepted until they take the Oath foresaid and subscribe the same to be recorded in the Registers of the respective Courts they shall be declared incapable of all publick trust thereafter and be further punished with the loss of their moveables and liferent-escheats the one half whereof is to be given to the Informer and the other half to belong to his Majesty and his Majesty with advice foresaid recommends to his Privy-Council to see this Act put to due and vigorous execution The TEST Containing the Oath to be taken by all Persons in publick Trust. I Solemnly swear in the presence of the eternal God whom I invoke as Judge and witnesse of the sincere intention of this my Oath That I own and sincerely profess the true Protestant Religion contained in the Confession of Faith recorded in the first Parliament of King James the VI and that I believe the same to be founded on and agreeable to the written Word of God And I promise and swear That I shall adhere thereunto during all the dayes of my life-time and shall endeavour to educate my Children therein And shall never consent to any change or alteration contrary thereto and that I disoun and renounce all such Principles Doctrines or practices whether Popish or Fanatical which are contrare unto and inconsistent with the said Protestant Religion and Confession of Faith And for testification of my obedience â—o my most gracious Soveraign Charles the II. I do affirm and swear by this my solemn Oath that the Kings Majesty is the only Supreme Governour of this Realm over all persons and in all causes as well ecclesiastical as civil And that no forreign Prince Person Pope Prelate State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preheminency or Authority Ecclesiastical or Civil within this Realm And therefore I do utterly renounce and forsake all foreign Jurisdictions Powers Superiorities and Authorities And do promise that from henceforth I shall bear Faith and true Allegiance to the Kings Majesty his Heirs and lawful Successors and to my power shall assist and defend all Rights Jurisdictions Prerogatives Priviledges Preferments and Authorities belonging to the Kings Majesty his Heirs and lawful Successors And I further affirm and swear by this my solemn Oath That I judge it unlawful for Subjects upon pretence of Reformation or any other pretence whatsoever to enter into Covenants or Leagues or to convocar conveen or assemble in any Councils Conventions or Assemblies to treat consult or determine in any matter of State Civil or Ecclesiastick without his Majesties special command or express licence had thereto or to take up arms against the King or these Commissionate by him And that I shall never so rise in arms or enter into such Covenants or Assemblies And that there lies no obligation on me from the National Covenant or the Solemn League and Covenant commonly so called or any other manner of way whatsoever to endeavour any change or alteration in the Government either in Church or State as it is now established by the Laws of this Kingdom And I promise and swear That I shall with my utmost power defend assist and maintain his Majesties Jurisdiction foresaid against all deadly And I shall never decline his Majesties Power and Jurisdiction as I shall answer to God And finally I affirm and swear That this my solemn Oath is given in the plain genuine sense and meaning of the words without any equivocation mental reservation or any manner of evasion whatsoever and that I shall not accept or use any dispensation from any creature whatsoever So help me God Act J. 6. P. 1. C. 3. Anno 1567. Anent the annulling of the Acts of Parliament made against God His Word and for maintainance of Idolatrie in any tymes bypast ITem our Soveraigne Lord with advice of his dearest Regent and three Estates of this present Parliament ratifies and approves the Act under-written made in the Parliament holden at Edinburgh the 24. day of August the year of God anâ— thousand five hundred threescore years And
we consess that we make a distinction betwixt Christ Iesus in his Eternal substance and betwixt the Elements in the sacramental signs so that we will neither worship the signs in the place of that which is signified by them neither yet do we despise and interpret them as junprofitable and vain but do use them with all reverence examining our selves diligently before that so we do because we are assured by the mouth of the Apostle that such as eat of that Bread and drink of that Cup unworthily are guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ Iesus XXII Of the right Administration of the Sacraments THAT Sacraments be rightly ministred we judge two things requisite the one that they be ministred by lawful Ministers whom we affirm to be only these that are appointed to the preaching of the word into whose mouths God has put some sermon of Exhortation they being men lawfully chosen thereto by some Kirk The other that they be ministred in such Elements and in such sort as God has appointed else we affirm that they cease to be the right Sacraments of Christ Jesus And therefore it is that we fly the Doctrine of the Papistical Kirk in participation of their Sacraments First because their Ministers are no Ministers of Christ Jesus yea which is more horrible they suffer Women whom the Holy Ghost will not suffer to teach in the Congregation to Baptize And secondly because they have so adulterated both the one Sacrament and the other with their own inventions that no part of Christs Action abides in the original purity For Oyl Salt Spitle and such like in Baptism are but mens inventions Adoration Veneration bearing throw Streets and Towns and keeping of bread in boxes are Prophanation of Christs Sacraments and no use of the same For Christ Jesus said Take eat c. do ye this in rememberance of me By which words and charge he sanctified Bread and Wine to the Sacrament of his Holy Body and Blood to the end that the one should be eaten and that all should drink of the other and not that they should be keeped to be worshipped and honoured as God as the Papists have done heretofore who also commited Sacriledg stealing from the people the one part of the Sacrament to wit the blessed Cup. Moreover that the Sacraments be rightly used it is required that the end and cause why the Sacraments were institute be understood and observed as well of the Ministers as the Receivers For if the opinion be changed in the Receiver the right use ceases which is most evident by the rejection of the Sacrifice as also if the Teacher plainly teach false Doctrines which were odious and abominable before God albeit they were his own Ordinance because that wicked men use them to another end than God has ordained The same affirm we of the Sacraments in the Papistical Kirk in which we affirm the whole action of the Lord Iesus to be adulterated as well in the external form as in the end and opinion What Christ Iesus did and commanded to be done is evident by the Evangelists and by Saint Paul What the Priest does at his Altar we need not to rehearse The end and cause of Christs institution and why the selfsame should be used is expressed in these words Do ye this in rememberance of me as oft as ye shall eat of this bread and drink of this cup ye shall shew forth that is extol preach magnifie and praise the Lords death till he come But to what end and in what opinion the Priests say their Mass let the words of the same their own Doctors and Writings witness to wit that they as Mediators betwixt Christ and his Kirk do offer unto God the Father a Sacrifice propitiatory for the sins of the quick and the dead Which Doctrine as blasphemous to Christ Jesus and making derogation to the sufficiency of his only sacrifice once oftered for Purgation of all these that shall be sanctified we utterly abhor detest and renounce XXIII To whom Sacraments appertain WE confess and acknowledg that Baptism appertains as well to the Infants of the faithful as unto them that be of age and discretion and so we damn the error of the Anabaptists who deny Baptism to appertain to children before that they have Faith and Understanding but the Supper of the Lord we confess to appertain to such only as be of the houshold of Faith and can try and examine themselves as well in their Faith as in their duty towards their Neighbours Such as eat and drink at that holy Table without Faith or being at dissension and division with their brethren do eat unworthily And therefore it is that in our Kirk our Ministers take publick and particular examination of the knowledg and conversation of such as are to be admitted to the Table of the Lord Jesus XXIV Of the Civil Magistrate WE confess and acknowledg Empires Kingdoms Dominions and Cities to be distincted and ordained by God the powers and authority in the same be it of Emperors in their Empires of Kings in their Realms Dukes and Princes in their Dominions and of other Magistrates in the Cities to be Gods holy Ordinance ordained for manifestation of his own Glory and for the singular profit and commodity of Mankind So that whosoever goeth about to take away or to confound the whole state of Civil Policies now long established we affirm the same men not only to be enemies to mankind but also wickedly to fight against God's express will We farther confess and acknowledg that such persons as are placed in Authority are to be loved honoured feared and holden in most reverent estimation because that they are the Lieutenants of God in whose Sessions God himself does sit and judg yea even the Iudges and Princes themselves to whom by God is given the sword to the praise and defence of good men and to revenge and punish all open malefactors Moreover to Kings Princes Rulers and Magistrates we affirm that chiefly and most principally the conservation and purgation of the Religion appertains so that not only they are appointed for Civil Policy but also for maintenance of the true Religion and for suppressing of Idolatry and Superstition whatsoever as in David Iehosaphat Ezechias Iâ—sias and others highly commended for their zeal in that case may be espied And therefore we confess and avow that such as resist the supreme Power doing that thing which appertains to his charge do resist Gods Ordinance and therefore cannot be guiltless And farther we affirm that whosoever denies unto them their aid counsel and comfort whist the Princes and Rulers vigilantly travel in execution of their Office that the same men deny their help support and counsel to God who by the presence of his Lieutenant does crave it of them XXV Of the gifts freely given to the Kirk ALbeit the word of God truly preached and the Sacraments rightly ministred and Discipline executed according to the
nane shall be repute as loyal and faithful Subjects to our said Soveraign Lord or his Authority but be punishable as Rebellars and Gainstanders of the samine quhilk shall not give their confession and make their profession of the said true Religion And that all sik as makes profession thereof and yet hes made defection fra their dew obedience ought to our Soveraign Lord shall be admonished be the Pastors and Ministers of the Kirk to acknowledge their offence and turn to their dutieful obedience And if they failzie therein to be excommunicat and secluded from the Society of the Kirk as rebellious and corrupt Members betwixt and the first of Jun nixt to come and that alwayes before sik persons as hes made defection be received to our Soveraign Lords mercie and favour they shall give the Confession of their Faith of new and promise to continue in the Confession of the true Religion in time coming and maintaine our Soveraign Lords Authoritie and that they shall at the utmost of their power fortifie assist and maintaine the true Preachers and Professors of Christs Religion against whatsomever enemies and gainstanders of the same and namely against all sik of whatsomever Nation Estate or degree they be of that hes joyned and bound themselves or hes assisted or assist to set forward and execut the cruel decreits of the Councel of Trent quhilk most injuriously is called by the adversaries of Gods Truth the halie league contrary the Preachers and true Professors of the Word of God Many other Acts and these most peremptory and strict against the Popish Religion as Idolatrie and very pernicious to the Kingdom might here be added But these are set down as most apposite to the purpose and the rest may be seen at length in the printed Acts of Parliament Act Ch. 2. P. 2. C. 1. Anno 1669. Act asserting His Majesties Supremacy over all Persons and in all Causes Ecclesiastik THE Estates of Parliament having seriously considered how necessary it is for the good and peace of Church and State that His Majesties Power and Authoritie in relation to maters and Persons Ecclesiastical be more clearly asserted by ane Act of Parliament Have therefore thought fit it be enacted asserted and declared Likeas His Majestie with advice and consent of his Estates of Parliament doth hereby enact assert and declare that His Majesty hath the supreme Authority and Supremacie over all Persons and in all causes Ecclesiastical within this his Kingdom And that by vertue thereof the ordering and disposal of the external Government and Policie of the Church doth properly belong to His Majestie and his Successors as ane inherent right of the Crown and that His Majesty and his Successors may setle enact and emit such Constitutions Acts and Orders concerning the administration of the external Government of the Church and the Persons imployed in the same and concerning all Ecclesiastical meetings and maters to be proposed and determined therein as they in their Royal Wisdom shall think fit Which Acts Orders and Constitutions being recorded in the Books of Councel and duelie published are to be observed and obeyed by all His Majesties Subjects any Law Act or Custom to the contrary notwithstanding likeas His Majesty with advice and consent foresaid doth rescind and annull all Lawes Acts and Clauses thereof and all Customs and Constitions Civil or Ecclesiastick which are contrary to or inconsistent with His Majesties Supremacy as it is hereby asserted and declares the same void and null in all time coming The Bishop of Aberdeen and the Synods Explanation of the Test. I. WE do not hereby swear to all the particular Assertions and Expressions of the Confession of Faith mentioned in the Test but only to the uniform Doctrine of the Reformed Churches contained therein II. We do not hereby prejudg the Church's Right to and Power of making any alteration in the said Confession as to the ambiguity and obscure expressions thereof or of making a more unexceptionable frame III. When we swear That the King is Supreme Governour over all Persons and in all Causes as well Ecclesiastick as Civil and when we swear to assert and defend all His Majesties Rights and Prerogatives this is reserving always the intrinsick unalterable power of the Church immediately derived from Jesus Christ to wit the power of the Keys consisting in the preaching of the Word administration of the Sacraments ordaining of Pastors exercise of Discipline and the holding of such Assemblies as are necessary for preservation of Peace and Unity Truth and Purity in the Church and withal we do not hereby think that the King has a power to alter the Government of the Church at his pleasure IV. When we swear That it is unlawful for subjects to meet or conveen to treat or consult c. about matters of State Civil and Ecclesiastick this is excepting meetings for Ordination publick Worship and Discipline and such meetings as are necessary for the conservation of the Church and true Protestant Religion V. When we swear there lyes no obligation on us c. to endeavour any change or alteration in Government either in Church or State we mean by Arms or any seditious way VI. When we swear That we take the Test in the plain and genuine sense of the words c. we understand it only in so far as it does not contradict these Exceptions The Explanation of the Test by the Synode and Clergy of Perth BEcause our Consciences require the publishing and declaring of that express meaning we have in taking the Test that we be not mis-interpreted to swear it in these glosses which men uncharitable to it and enemies to us are apt to put upon it and because some men ill affected to the Government who are daily broachers of odious and calumnious slanders against our Persons and Ministry are apt to deduce inferences and conclusions from the alledged ambiguity of some Propositions of the Test that we charitably and firmly do believe were never intended by the Imposers nor received by the Takers Therefore to satisfie our Consciences and to save our Credit from these unjust imputations we expresly declare That we swear the Test in this following meaning I. By taking the Test we do not swear to every Proposition and Clause contained in the Confession of Faith but only to the true Protestant Religion founded upon the Word of God contained in that Confession as it is opposed to Popery and Fanaticism II. By swearing the Ecclesiastick Supremacy we swear it as we have done formerly without any reference to the assertory Act we also reserve intire unto the Church it s own intrinsick and unalterable power of the Keys as it was exercised by the Apostles and the pure primitive Church for the first three Centuries III. By swearing That it is unlawful to convocate conveen or assemble in any Councils Conventions or Assemblies to treat consult c. in any matter of State Civil or Ecclesiastick as
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
us were judged by all both in Articles and Parliament and that after long and strenuous application and endeavour in contriving ane new Act for these ends not only sufficient but the best security for our Religion against all hazards and contingencies in which the best and wisest part of the Parliament acquiesced till the importunity and repeated clamours of some who needs would appear more warmly concerned in this mater than others they offering new overtures to the Articles for the securing of the Protestant Religion of which they often received an account in open Parliament did awaken a more narrow inspection into this more concerning Affair And therefore for the farther security of Religion from the danger of Popery on the one hand and of Principles and Practices of Rebellion and fanatical Schism on the other did judg it necessary that ane Act should be past disabling Papists and Fanaticks from any power or capacity to subvert or overthrow it which in their deep wisdom they found could never be so effectually done as by keeping all such out of places of publik Trust and Employment Civil Ecclesiastik or Military And in regard that the good and wholesom Laws and the steady and vigorus execution thereof are the best and most firm human security of Religion Therefore such wise provisions were piously made by that Act as might bar all disaffected to the Protestant Religion from electing or being elected Members of Parliament wherein the Law making power is lodged or from creeping into any Office or Trust whereby the execution of the Law is managed So that our established Religion might never be endangered or subverted by evil or corrupt Laws or by the remiss and negligent execution of good ones Notwithstanding such is the fate of the best of human Constitutions that nothing can be so piously intended or prudently contrived but either through ignorance or malice misprision or mistake it may be misrepresented misconstrued and many groundless and unaccountable jealousies by scruples and prejudices entertained against it as is but too clearly instanced in the matter of the present Oath and Test which the wisdom of our Governours hath enacted and appointed to be taken by all persons employed in Offices of publik Trust as the best fence of the Church and security of the Protestant Religion against the invasion and encroachments they stand in danger of from the restless adversaries Some of the Regular and Orthodox Clergy and other well-meaning Subjects having entertained some jealousies which far exceed their causes and vented some scruples and objections against it which are most part founded on mistakes and unnecessary not to say uncharitable stretching and extending the meaning thereof far beyond either the genuine sense of the words or design and intention of the Parliament in framing and enjoyning that Test tenderness and compassion towards these conform and loyal persons who may either be imposed upon by the malice and craft of the Church's Adversaries to stumble at or by their own fears and misapprehensions may be led into mistakes of the meaning and design of this excellent mean for securing our Church and Religion hath prevailed with us to endeavour a short Essay for vindicating this Oath and Test from all mistakes and scruples by answering and satisfying the Objections which are commonly moved against it and that thereby the plain and genuine sense in which this Oath is required by Authority to be taken by all persons in Trust may be clear and apparent Pursuant to this it will be fit to read and consider the Oath or Test it self as it is contained in the sixth Act of the last Session of this Currant Parliament In the next place it will not be amiss to rank up the doubts and objections moved against it in their several Heads and Classes and to resolve and answer them accordingly in their respective place and order Of these Scruples and Objections some are founded upon the Consession of Faith contained in the foresaid Oath others arise from the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy and the asserting therein of the Kings Prerogative some are taken from that part of the Test wherein the unlawfulness of assembling in any Councils or Conventions to treat consult or determine in any mater of State Civil or Ecclesiastik without the Kings special command and license had thereto is asserted and sworn and finally others arise from the Clause asserting that no obligation lyes from the late Covenants or any other manner of way whatsoever to endeavour any change or alteration in the Government either in Church or State as the same is now established by the Laws of this Kingdom It is beyond all peradventure that as Conscience is the most tender thing in the Soul of man so Oaths are of the strictest force and obligation and are to be taken in Truth Righteousness and Iudgment which is the Doctrine of all sound Casuists Juramenti obligatio est stricti juris yet this strictum jus is not so to be understood as if it did exclude all sensing and interpreting of it the interpretation thereof amounting to no more than meerly to make clear and plain any word or sentence therein which may seem to be dark doubtful and ambiguous It is excellently said by that judicious Casuist Doctor Sandersone Prel 2. De juramenti obligatione p. 8. De lege Charitatis aliena dicta facta praesertim Principum Parentum aliorumque Rectorum sunt benignae interpretationis Juxta id quod dici solet dubia esse interpretanda in meliorem partem That is by the Law of Charity the words and deeds of others especially of our Princes Parents and other Governours are to be moderated by a favourable interpretation according to the usual maxim That things doubtful are to be interpreted to the best sense This being premised the Objections of the first Classis arising upon the Confession of Faith are to be first considered and in order to this it must be remembered that this Confession is not to be lookt upon as fully comprehensive of all the Protestant Doctrine in opposition to all the Errors and Superstition of the Romish Church and other Heresies nor is there any one amongst the Harmony of the Confessions of the Reformed Churches which can challenge this perfection to it self nor is it to be thought strange that in many things it should be defective if we consider that it was hastily compiled in the short space of four days by a select number of Barons and Ministers in the very Infancy of our Reformation as the History of the Reformation of the Church of Scotland commonly ascribed to John Knox Printed at London in the Year 1644 in Fol. p. 252. doth inform Nor are the Authors of the foresaid Confession so prositive as to look upon all therein contained as infallible or to be received as Articles of Faith as appears from the Preface prefixed thereto as it is set down in the History of the Reformation
by the Churh in as much as Edicts are served whereby the peoples consent is legally obtained before the person presented be collated or inducted to the particular Flock or Congregation And that by this Article Laik Patronages are not annulled appears evident by the seventh Act of the Parliament 1667. wherein the same Confession of Faith and all its Articles are authorised and therefor cannot be supposed by any Article of the foresaid Confession to have been intended to be cast and overturned It is objected 6. That in the 15. Article amongst works which are reputed to be good before God to repress Tyranny is enumerate for one which seems to encourage resistance and rebellion against the Supreme Civil Powers Answ. Besides what may be said concerning Tyranny in inferior Judges Magistrates and other subordinate Superiors the repression whereof is certainly a good work If we consider Tyranny in the Supreme Magistrate it can only be said repressable by fair just and lawful means For iâ— possumus quod jure possumus To suppress Tyranny by resistance or rebellion were to do evill that good may come of it contrary to the Apostolical Rule and injunction but to suppress Tyranny by a regular assisting to make good Laws by devout prayers and pious Instructions and exhortations may well be reckoned among good works It is objected 7. That in the 23. Article the Popish Ministers are no Ministers of Jesus Christ which is contrary both to the doctrine and practice of all sound Protestant Churches Answ. 1. That Assertion is not contained in the doctrinal part of that Article 23. but is a Corollary illogically deduced from the first part thereof and we are not concerned in the ill Consequences and Paralogisms which may be found in any of these Articles 2. All Protestant Churches do acknowledg the Bishops Priests and Deacons in the Romish Church to be real and ordained Ministers of the Catholick Church owning the Ordination of their Ministers to be derived in its succession from them So that without unchurching themselves they must needs believe these to be really Ministers and the practice of Protestants doth universally demonstrate this Inso much that when a Romish Priest comes over from them and reconciles himself to the Protestant Church he is allowed to exercise all the parts and functions of the holy Ministry without any new ordination So that the meaning must be either 1. That many are reputed Ministers in the Romish Church which indeed â—â—o no Ministers of Jesus Christ viz Deacons Acolyths and Exorcists c. and as follows in the Article even women among them are allowed to baptize who sure are none of Christs Ministers Or 2. That they are no pious and faithful Ministers nor such as Christ will own to be his as is insinuate in the foresaid History of Reformation of the Church of Scotland p. 251. where it calls all Popish Ministers then in this Kingdom Thieves Murderers Rebels Traitors c Or 3. That they were not duely elected Ministers as is asserted ibid. Or in fine That they are not sound or incorrupted Ministers For according to the harmony of the Protestant Confessions among which this Confession of ours is inserted the Ministers of the Popish Church are owned to be true and real Ministers in the same sense wherein that Church is acknowledg'd to be a true and real Church tho not a sound and pure one even as we say that a Leprous or Paralitik man is a true and real man tho not a healthful and sound man as this same Confession Article 17. calls the Church at Jerusalem consisting of Priests Scribes Pharisees c. no Church of God by reason of the corruptions thereof wherein must be meaned no sound or incorrupt Church of God as appears from the Title viz. Of the Notes by which c. Many other Particulars may perhaps be excepted against which are contained in that Confession besides these which are here considered and which we are not concerned much to notice or to dip upon the Authority enacting or authorising that Confession at the first forming thereof since it is inserted in the Test only designative as pointing to that Ancient system wherein the substantials of the Protestant Religion are to be found as was declared openly in Parliament when some more zealous than considerate would needs press the mentioning of it in this Oath which must be presumed to be the alone use of that Confession in this Test since upon this account the Articles thereof were refused so much as to be read in Parliament as being no part of our Oath and formerly ratified by Law at the passing of the Act enjoyâ—ing the same For if the words of the Oath be seriously weighed we shall find that by this Test we swear to own prosess and believe not every Article or every Proposition or every Consequence in that Confession but only the true Protestant Religion contained therein and which Religion we believe to be founded on and agreeable to he written word of God to the which Religion we bind our selves to adhere all the days of our life and to educate our children therein c So that if there be any Article or proposition or consequence contained in that Consession which is contrary or repugnant to the true Protestant â—eligion to be found in the harmony of Confessions We do not swear to own oâ— believe it If it be replied that by that Oath and Test we swear to disown and renounce all Principles Doctrines and Practices which are contrary to and inconsistent with the said Protestant Religion and Confession of Faith and that therefore we are bound to own and believe all Principles and Doctrines which are contained in the Confession foresaid Ans 1. The Confession of Faith repeated in this clause cannot be supposed to be understood otherways than as it is taken in the former which is only designative and denoting the system where the Protestant Doctrine is to be found ut supra 2 The words of the Oath do sufficiently clear up this seeming difficulty which are That I disown and renounce all such Doctrines Principles and Practices Popish or Fanatical which are contrary to c. So that unless there be errors or Heterodox Doctrines which are neither Popish nor Fanatical discovered to be contained in the Confession foresaid no shadow of scruple can be rationally entertained upon this account and tho there were yet it is apparent that the intention of the Parliament in inserting that Confession into this Oath was only so far as it stands in opposition to Popery and Fanticism and no further So that if there be any Doctrines which oppose any part or Article of that Confession which are neither Popish nor Fanatical we are not bound by this part of the Oath to renounce them and no sound loyal Protestant will scruple to renounce all such Doctrines and Principles which are either Popish or Fanatical which are repugnant to this Confession foresaid To
close up this Head of Objections drawn from the Confession foresaid it is to be considered that the famous and â—earned Doctors of Aberdeen Anno 1638. in their Demands and Duplys do in Demand 11. declare and take God to witness that they and other people were willing to subscribe this very Confession of Faith And 11 Duply They assert that they are ready not only to subscribe but to swear this National Confession of Faith so they call it ratified and registred in Parliament To which Declaration they add the Oath sworn by them when they received the degree of Doctorat in Theology which Oath they solemnly again renew in the 7. Duply And this they judged necessary for them to do to satisfie the world that they were no favourers of Popery which as then so now is the Engine whereby to calumniate loyal Subjects and soundest Protestants as Papists in masquerade By which we understand that these learned loyal Divines and Orthodox the glory of the Reformed Church in their Age who well understood the Protestant Doctrine the unlawfulness of resisting the supreme Magistrate upon any pretence whatsoever the intrinsik power of the Church together with the Interests and Rights of Episcopal Government did not scruple to subscribe and swear this Confession of Faith and that as a Test against Popish Errors and Supersition So that they who shall now refuse to swear to own and believe the true Protestant Religion reformed from Popery contained in this Confession do occasion too much umbrage of suspicion and jealousie that they are not sound nor solid Protestants As to the second Head or Classis of Objections drawn from the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy which together with the maintenance of the Kings Prerogative is asserted and sworn in the Test the great stress of the Objections founded thereupon lies in these two Particulars That the Kings Supremacy as it is asserted by the Act of Parliament viz 16 Anno 1669. seems to deprive and devest the Church of all its intrinsick Power as if all Ecclesiastical Authority were derived not from Jesus Christ the alone Prince and Vital Head of his Church but from secular Princes and Magistrates And 2. That by the foresaid Act there seems to be a Power lodged in the King to alter and change the established Episcopal Government of the Church at his Royal pleasure which they can never swear to maintain as a Prerogative of the Crown who believe Episcopacy to be of Divine Right and Apostolical Institution and by consequence an oecumenick and unalterable Government by any power on earth For the more clear satisfaction of these Objections it will be convenient to read and consider that Act of Parliament November the 16th 1669 in which upon due perusal and examination nothing new or dangerous to the setlement of our National Church will be found comprehended Our Saviour was very unconcerned to regulate the bounds of Soveraign Powers he doth not examine Pilate's Power to judg of Blasphemy or Treason but acknowledgeth and submits unto it And so his Apostles neither enquire into the Rights of the Roman Emperors nor limit the exercise of their Power but seriously recommend to all good Subjects as their duty submission and obedience to the higher Powers and they leave the secular Powers of the world in possession of whatever Authority either over persons or matters they found them invested with The Magistrate doth not intitle himself to the Spiritual Function in preaching the Word administring the Sacraments exercising the Power of Ordination or the Keys c. Our gracious King never challenged these spiritual Powers which indeed belong to the Bishops and other Ministers of the Church The holiest and best Kings of Israel and Judah are famous for abolishing false Worship asserting and setling of the Truth Many excellent Ordinances concerning Religion were made by Moses Ioshua David Solomon Asa Iosiab c. which are recorded and applauded by the Spirit of God in the Scriptures These ordered and regulated divine worship Sacraments and Covenants with God they erected Altars Temples and Tabernacles and dedicated them to God They destroyed Idolatry reformed abuses in Gods House and service and both setled the standing worship and ordained Thanksgivings and Humiliations so that the ordering of matters of Religion was not exempted from the supreme secular Power under the Law nor did the Emperors and Sovereign Princes of the earth by imbracing Christianity lose their Power injoyed by all their Predecessors which if they had they should have been thereby inevitably exposed to the disturbances of their Government by Seditions and Rebellions upon every frantick eruption of religious Melancholy If Constantine had not interposed his Authority for suppressing the Arrian Heresie what had become either of Government or Religion The drawing up of Canons for regulating Religion our Lord committed to the Apostles and their Successors the Bishops with other Ecclesiastical persons but that these Canons should be inforced as Laws by temporal sanctions and penalties this flowed from the authority of the Civil Power And accordingly in the second oecumenical Council the Bishops and Fathers assembled at Constantinople beseech Theodosius the elder to ratifie the Decrees of that Synod Justinian established the main Canon or Codâ—x of the Universal Church consisting of the Canons of the first general and five Ancient provincial Councils commanding them to be keept as Laws As matters of Religion have not been exempted from the cognizance and regulation of the Supreme Civil Powers much less can the exemption of Ecclesiastical persons be pretended Under the Law we find Solomon judging an High Priest offending viz. Abiathar whom he turned out and placed Zadock in his Room and Office 1 King 2. 27 35. and as single persons so if we consider Church-Officers in their Ecclesiastical Meetings and Assemblies we find the Calling thereof lodged in the supreme Magistrate for Moses not Aaron David not Abiathar Solomon not Zadock summoned the Priests and Levites to the Meetings so under the Gospel in the pure and primitive times we find no Councils nor Synods called by the Bishop of Rome nor by any other Bishop or by any other Ministers forming themselves into Classical and Synodical Meetings against or without the Consent of the Christan Prince or Magistrate To any who will be at the pains to consult Antiquty or Ecclesiastical History it will evidently appear that the indiction of times and places the convocating of persons the precedency the ordering of debates the dismission of Assemblies the confirmation of Canons so as to enforce them as Laws in the General or Provincial Councils were all performed by the supreme Magistrate St. Paul himself appealed to Caesar when arraigned and called in question for his Religion and Athanasius appealed from the Synod at Tyre to Constantine to whom were two appeals made in the case of Cassianus and Donatus besides many other instances of the like nature And it were heartily to be wished that all Church-men and Ministers
whatsoever were throughly convinced of the doctrine and duty of their obedience to the Supreme Powers otherways as they grow popular they become dangerous Sacerdoces eo quidem sunt ingenio ut ni pareant territent St. Chrysostom comments excellently on Rom. 13 v. 1. 2. Let every soul be subject saying whether he be an Apostle or Evangelist a Prophet c. let him be subject to the higher Powers Our blessed Saviour and the Apostles were the most eminent Ecclesiastical persons yet did not think themselves exempted from the Authority and Jurisdiction of the Civil Powers and if the 24th Article of the Confession of Faith mentioned in the Test be considered it will be found to grant as much to the Civil Magistrate as here is asserted and yeelded Yet all this power belonging to the supreme Magistrate over religious persons and matters doth not interfer with nor suppress the intrinsik and essential Power and Authority of the Church for the Church's power is internal and spiritual and the power of the supreme Magistrate is external coercive and temporal which when duely weighed in a just balance will be found not only to be poised of just different kinds and natures but so far from interfering with or destroying one another that if duely and rightly managed they do mutually assist and support each other Beside the sense of the Oath of Supremacy asserted in a Speech delivered by B. James Usher then Bishop of Meath and afterwards Primate of Ireland at Dublin Novemb. 22. 1622. for which he received the thinks of King James the sixth the Solomon of his Age by a Letter from His Majesty dated the 11. day of January 1623. is so clear and plain that it leaves no place for any manner of scruple concerning the intrinsick power of the Church as if it were invaded and incroached upon by the foresaid Oath where it is said That the Kings Supremacy reacheth the outward man only but the spiritual and intrinsick power of the Church reacheth to the inward this binding or loosing the soul that laying hold only on the body and things belonging thereto Yea there is an Act of the Parliament of England 13. Eliz. declaring That by the supreme Government given to the Prince is understood that kind of Government only which is exercised with the Civil Sword So that there is nothing can be more evident than that by the Kings Supremacy as asserted by the Act November 16. 1669. no incroachment or invasion is made upon the spiritual intrinsick power of the Church Besides by the very express words of that assertory Act No more is declared to belong to the King save the ordering and disposal of the external Government and Policy of the Church And again The administration of the external Government of the Church where not a syllable can be found touching upon the internal spiritual and essential power and iurisdiction thereof And as to the word matters contained in that Act the Kings emitting Orders concerning religious matters as well as persons it needs stumble no thinking person as if our Religion were thereby exposed to dangers at the pleasure of the Prince if we consider the following words viz. Matters to be proposed and determined in Ecclesiastical Meetings or Assemblies which reserves the power of determining matters of Religion still in the hands of that Meeting or Assembly So that tho the King may by vertue of his RoyalSupremacy propose any matter of Religion to a National Asâ— Yet it is not to pass unto an act till first it be determined by the deliberate and free consent vote and suffrage of the major part of that Ecclesiastical Meeting And now let the Impartial Judg if any so great security for the true Protestant Religion can be devised as to have all Bishops Ministers and Members of a National Synod to whom the determining of matters of Religion by Law belongs solemnly sworn and bound by this Oath and Test to adhere to the same Protestant Religion all the days of their lives and never to consent to any alteration or change thereof As for the other Objection of these who think that by this assertory Act 1669. there is a power declared to be vested in the King to alter and change the Established Episcopal Government of this National Church which these who believe Episcopacy to be of Divine Right and Apostolical Institution and by consequence unalterable by any humane Authority can never swear to belong to the Crown as an Inherent Right and Prerogative thereof For answer Tho this point of the Divine Right of Episcopacy is tenderly to be touched the Phrase of Jus Divinum being in terms subject to misconstruction yet it must be acknowledged that no form of Church Government was ever yet modelled or set up which hath not claimed to a Jus Divinum as well as Episcopacy tho every one of them with far more noise but with far less reason than this hath done For the Papists ground the Popes Oecumenical Supremacy upon Christs Commands to St. Peter to execute it and to all the Flock of Christ Soveraign Princes as well as others to submit to him as to their Universal Pastor The Presbyterians cry up their model of Government tho of a very late Edition as the very Scepter of Christs Kingdom to which all Kings are bound to submit theirs making it also unalterable and as inevitably necessary to the being of a Church as the Word and Sacraments The Independents assert that any single Confederate Congregation is Jure Divino free and absolute within it self to govern it self by such Rules as shall be consented to by its Members without dependance from any except Jesus Christ alone or subjection to any Prince Bishop or any other Person or Consistory whatsoever So that all these other flatly deny the Kings Supremacy and claim a Power and Jurisdiction over him The Presbyterians agreeing with the Papists in this branch of Antichristianism and claiming to their Consistories as full and absolute Jurisdiction over Princes even to the highest censure by Excommunication as the Romanists challenge to belong to the Pope or pleading at least a priviledg of exemption from the Kings Authority and Jurisdiction The Independents exempting their Congregations from all Ecclesiastical subjection to Christian Kings in asample manner as ther Papists do their Clergy whereas the Protestant Bishop and regular Ministers as becometh good Christians and dutiful Subjects do neither pretend to any Jurisdiction over the King nor withdraw their Subjection from him but humbly acknowledg His Majesty to have Soveraign Power over them as well as over his other Subjects and that in all matters Ecclesiastical as well as Temporal But for a more closse Answer to this Objection They who believe the Indifferency of the forms and models of Church-Goverment cannot have any scruple on this Head in regard of the present Church-Government For should it be changed by Authority then are they not obliged by this Oath any longer
studying the peace of this Church and Kingdom will receive without peevishnesse prejudice or partiality the satisfaction which herein is with so much affection and charity endeavoured and tendered then the pains herein taken shall be thought well placed and imployed EDENBURGH Sederunt tertio Die Novembris 1681. His Royal Highness c. Athol Praeses Montrose Argyle Winton Linlithgow Perth Strathmore Roxburgh Ancram Airley Balcarres Lorn Levingston Bishop of Edenburgh Elphinston Rosse Dalziel President of Session Treasurer Deputy Register Advocate Justice Clerk Collintoun Lundie This day the Earl of Argyll having first openly declared his sense as you have it hereafter set down in his explication took the Test as a Privy Councellor and after he was called to and had taken his place the Councils explication which I have already mentioned having been formerly read and debated was put to the vote and passed the Earl not voting thereto as hath been remarked Edenburgh the 3d day of November 1681. The Privy Councils Explanation of the Test. FOrasmuch as some have entertained jealousies and prejudices aganst the Oath and Test appointed to be taken by all persons in publik Trust. Civil Ecclesiastical or Military in this Kingdom by the Sixth Act of His Maje 〈…〉 ies Third Parliament as if thereby they were to swear to every Proposition or Clause of the Confession of Faith therein mentioned or that invasion were made by it upon the intrinsik spiritual Power of the Church or Power of the Keys or as if the present Episcopal Government of this National Church by Law established were thereby exposed to the hazard of alteration or subversion All which are far from the intention or design of the Parliament's imposing this Oath and from the genuine sense and meaning thereof Therefore His Royal Highness His Majesties High Commissioner and Lords of Privy-Council do allow authorise and impower the Archbishops and Bishops to administer this Oath and Test to the Ministers in their respective Diocesses in this express sense 1. That tho the Confession of Faith ratified in Parliament 1567. was framed in the Infancy of Reformation and deserves its due praise yet by the Test we do not swear to every Proposition or clause therein contained but only to the true Protestant Religion founded on the word of God contained in that Confession as it as opposed to Popery and Fanaticism 2. That by the Test or any clause therein contained no invasion or encroatchment is made or intended upon the intrinsik spiritual power of the Church or power of the Keys as it was exercised by the Apostles and the most pure and primitive Church in the first three Centuries after Christ and which is still reserved intirely to the Church 3. That the Oath and Test is without any prejudice to the Episcopal Government of this National Church which is declared by the first Act of the second Session of His Majesties first Parliament to be most agreeable to the word of God and most suitable to Monarchy and which upon all occasions His Majesty hath declared he will inviolably and unalterably preserve And appoint the Archbishops and Bishops to require the Ministers in their respective Diocesses with their first conveniency to obey the Law in swearing and subscribing the foresaid Oath and Test with certification that the refusers shall be esteemed persons disaffected to the Protestant Religion and to his Majesties Government and that the punishment appointed by the foresaid sixth Act of His Majesties third Parliament shall be impartially and without delay inflicted upon them By me Pet. Menzeis Sederunt quarto Die Novembris 1681. His Royal Highness c. Montrose Praeses Perth Ancram Levingston President of Session Advocate Winton Strathmore Airley Bishop of Edenburgh Treasurer Deputy Lundie Linlithgow Roxburgh Balcaras Elphynstoun Register This day the Earl of Argyle being about to take the Test as a Commissioner of the Treasury and having uponcommand produced a paper bearing the sense in which he took the Test the preceeding day and in which he would take the same as a Commissioner of the Treasury Upon consideration thereof it was resolved that he cannot sit in Council not having taken the Test in thesense and meaning of the Act of Parliament and therefore was removed The Earl of Argyle's Explication of the Test vvhen he took it I Have considered the Test and I am very desirous to give obedience as far as I can I 'm confident the Parliament never intended to impose contradictory Oaths Therefore I think no man can explain it but for himself Accordingly I take it as far as it is consistent with it self and the Protestant Religion And I do declare That I mean not 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 And this I understand as a part of my Oath But the Earl finding as hath been narrated this his Explication though accepted and approven by His Highness and Council the day before to be this day carped and offended at and advantages thereupon sought and designed against him did immediatlie draw up the following Explanation of his Explication and for his own vindication did first communicat it to some privatlie and thereafter intended to have offered it at his trial for clearing of his defences The Explanation of his Explication I Have delayed hitherto to take the Oath appointed by the Pa 〈…〉 ent to be taken betwixt and the first of January nixt but now being required 〈◊〉 two moneths sooner to take it this day peremptourly or to refuse I have considered the Test and have seen several Objections moved against it especially by many of the Orthodox Clergy notwithstanding whereof I have endeavoured to satisfie my self with a just explanation which I here offer that I may both satisfie my conscience and obey Your Highness and Your Lordships commands in taking the Test though the Act of Parliament do not simply command the thing but only under a certification which I could easily submit to if it were with Your Highness favour and might be without offence but I love not to be singular and I am very desirous to give obedience in this and everything as far as I can and that which clears me is that I am confident whatever any man may think or say to the prejudice of this Oath the Parliament never intended to impose contradictory Oaths and because their sense they being the framers and imposers is the true sense and that this Test injoyned is of no privat interpretation nor are the Kings Statuts to be interpreted but as they â—ear and to the intent they are made Therefor I 〈…〉 nk no man that is no privat person can explain it for another to amuse or trouble â—im with it may be mistaken glosses But every man as he is to take it so is to ex 〈…〉 ain it for himself and to endeavour
to understand it notwithstanding all these exce 〈…〉 on s in the Parliaments which is its true and genuine sense I take it therefore notwithstanding any scruple made by any as far as it is consistent with it self and the Protestant Religion which is wholly in the Parliaments sense and their true meaning which being present I am sure was owned by all to be the securing of the Protestant Religion founded on the word of God and contained in the Confession of Faith recorded I. 6 p. 1. c. 4. And not out of scruple as if any thing in the Test did import the contrary but to clear my self from all cavils as if thereby I were bound up further then the true meaning of the Oath I doe declare that by that part of the Test that there lyes no obligation on me c. I mean not to bind up my self in my station and in a lawfull way still disclaming all unlawful endeavours to wish and endeavour any alteration I think according to my conscience to the advantage of Church or State not repugnant to the Protestant Religion and my Loyalty and by my Loyalty I understand no other thing then the words plainly bear to wit the duty and allegiance of all Loyal Subjects and this explanation I understand as a part not of the Test or Act of Parliament but as a qualifying part of my Oath that I am to swear and with it I am willing to take the Test if Your Royal Highness and Your Lordships allow me or otherwise in submission to Your Highness and the Councils pleasure I am content to be held as a refuser at present The Councils Letter to His Majesty concerning their having committed the Earl of Argyle May it please your Sacred Majesty THE last Parliament having made so many and so advantageous Acts for securing the Protestant Religion the Imperial Crown of this Kingdom and your Majesties Sacred Person whom God Almighty long preserve and having for the last and as the best way for securing all these appointed a Test to be taken by all who should be entrusted with the Government which bears expresly That the same should be taken in the plain and genuine sense and meaning of the words We were very careful not to suffer any to take the said Oath or Test with their own Glosses or Explications but the Earl of Argyle having after some delays come to Council to take the said Oath as a Privy-Councellor spoke some things which were not then heard nor adverted to and when his Lordship at his next offering to take it in Coâ—ncil as one of the Commissioners of your Majesties Tresury was commanded to take it simply he refused to do so but gave in a Paper shewing the only sense in which he would take it which Paper we all considered as that which had in it gross and scandalous Reflections upon that excellent Act of Parliament making it to contain things contradictory and inconsistent and thereby depraving your Majesties Laws misrepresenting your Parliament and teaching your Subjects to evacuate and disappoint all Laws and Securities that can be enacted for the preservation of the Government suitable to which his Lordship declares in that Paper That he means not to bind up himself from making any alterations he shall think fit for the advantage of Church or State and which Paper he desires may be looked upon as a part of his Oath as if he were the Legislator and able to add a part to the Act of Parliament Upon serious perusal of which Paper we found our selves obliged to send the said Earl to the Castle of Edenburgh and to to transmit the Paper to your Majesty being expresly obliged to both these by your Majesties express Laws And we have commanded your Majesties Advocate to raise a pursuit against the said Earl forbeing Author and having given in the said Paper And for the further prosecution of all relating to this Affair we expect your Majesties Commands which shall be most humbly and faithfully obeyed by Your Majesties most Humble most Faithful and most Obedient Subjects and Servants Edenburgh Nov. 8. 1681. Sic Subscribitur Glencairne Winton Linlithgow Perth Roxburgh Ancram Airlie Levingstoun Io. Edinburgen Ross Geo. Gordoun Ch. Maitland G. M ckenzie Ja. Foulis I. Drumond The Kings Answer to the Councils Letter C. R. Novemb. 15. 1681. MOst dear c. having in one of your Letters directed unto us of the 8. Instant received a particular account of the Earl of Argyle's refusing to take the Test simply and of your proceedings against him upon the occasion of his giving in a Paper shewing the only sense in which he will take it which had in it gross and scandalous Reflections upon that excellent late Act of our Parliament there by which the said Test was enjoyned to be taken we have now thought fit to let you know that as we do hereby approve these your Proceedings particularly your sending the said Earl to our Castle of Edenburgh and your commanding our Advocate to raise a Pursuit against him for being Author of and having given in the said Paper so we do also authorize you to do all things that may concern the further prosecution of all relating to this Affair Nevertheless it is our express will and pleasure That before any Sentence shall be pronounced against him at the Conclusion of the Process you send us a particular account of what he shall be found guilty of to the end that after our being fully informed thereof we may signifie our further pleasure in this matter For doing whereof c. But as notwithstanding the Councils demanding by their letter His Majestie 's allowance for prosecuting the Earl they before any return caused His Majestie 's Advocat exhibit ane indictment against him upon the points of slandering and depraving as hath been already remarked so after having receaved His Majestie 's answer the design growes and they thought fit to order a new indictment containing beside the former Points the crimes of treason and perjury which accordingly was exhibit and is here subjoyned the difference betwixt the tvvo indictments being only in the particulars above noted The Copy of the Indictment against the Earl of Argyle Archibald Earl of Argyle YOU are indicted and accused That albeit by the Common Law of all well-govern'd Nations and by the Municipal Law and Acts of Parliament of this Kingdom and particularly by the 21 and by the 43d Act Par. 2 James 1. and by the 83d Act Par. 6. James 5. and by the 34th Act Par. 8. James 6. and the 134th Act Par 8 James 6. and the 205th Act Par. 14. James 6. All leasing-makers and tellers of them are punishable with tinsel of Life and Goods like as by the 107th Act. Par. 7. James 1 it is statuted That no man interpret the Kings Statutes otherwise than the Statute bears and to the intent and effect that they were made for and as the makers of them understood and
evident from that learned Vindication published and spread abroad by an eminent Bishop and which was read in the face of the Privy-Council and does contain expressions of the same nature and to the same import contained in the pretended Explication libelled as the ground of this Indictment libelled against the Pannel And it is positively offered to be proven That these terms were given in and read and allowed to be Printed and without taking notice of the whole tenor of the said Vindication which the Lords of Justiciary are humbly desired to peruse and consider and compare the same with the Explication libelled the same acknowledgeth that Scruples had been raised and spread abroad against the Oath and also acknowledgeth that there were Expressions therein that were dark and obscure and likewise takes notice that the Confession ratified Par. 1 James 6. to which the Oath relates was hastily made and takes notice of that Authority that made it and acknowledges in plain terms that the Oath does not hinder any regular endeavour to regulate or better the Establisht Government but only prohibits irregular endeavours and attempts to invert the substance or body of the Government and does likewise explain the Act of Parliament anent His Majesties Supremacy that it does not reach the alteration of the external Government of the Church And the Pannel and his Proctors are far from insinuating in the least that there is any thing in the said Vindication but what is consistent with the exemplary Loyalty Piety and Learning of the Writer of the same And tho others perhaps may differ in their private opinion as to this interpretation of the Act of Parliament anent the Kings â—upremacy yet it were most absurd and irrational to pretend that whether the mistake were upon the interpretation of the Writer or the sense of others as to that point that such mistakes or misapprehensions upon either hand should import or infer against them the Crimes of Leasing-making or depraving His Majesties Laws For if such Foundations were laid Judges and Lawyers had a dangerous employment there being nothing more ordinarâ— than to fall into differences and mistakes of the sense and meaning of the Laws and Acts of Parliament But such Crimes cannot be inferred but with and under the qualifications above-mentioned of malicious and perverse designs joyned with licentious wicked and reproachful speeches spread abroad to move sedition and dislike of the Government And the said Laws were never otherwise interpreted nor extended in any case And therefore the Explication libelled neither as taken complexly nor in the several expressions thereof nor in the design of the ingiver of the same can in Law import against him all or any of the Crimes libelled In like manner the Pannel conjoins with the grounds above-mentioned the Proclamation issued forth by His Majesties privy-Council which acknowledges and proceeds upon a Narrative that scruples and jealousies were raised and spread abroad against the Act of Parliament enjoyning the Test. For clearing and satisfaction whereof the said Proclamation was issued forth and is since approved by His Sacred Majesty The Kings Advocate 's Argument and Plea against the Earl of Argyle HIS Majesties Advocate for the foundation of his Debate does represent That His Majesty to secure the Government from the Rebellious Principles of the last Age and the unjust Pretexts made use of in this from Popery and other Jealousies as also to secure the Protestant Religion and the Crown called a Parliament and that the great security resolved on by the Parliament was this excellent Test in which that the old jugling Principles of the Covenant might not be renewed wherein they still swore to serve the King in their own way the Parliament did positively ordain That this Oath should be taken in the plain genuine meaning or the words without any evasion whatsoever Notwithstanding whereof the Earl of Argyle by this Paper does invent a new way whereby no man is at all bound to it For how can any person be bound if every man will only obey it as far as he can and as far as he conceives it consistent with the Protestant Religion and with it self and reserve to himself notwithstanding thereof to make any alteration that he thinks consistent with his Loyalty And therefore His Majesties Advocate desires to know to what the Earl of Argyle or any man else can be bound by this Test what the Magistrate can expect or what way he can punish his Perjury For if he be bound no farther than he himself can obey or so far as this Oath is consistent with the Protestant Religion or it self quomodo constat to whom or what he is bound And who can determine that Or against what alteration is the Government secured since he is Judg of his own alteration So that that Oath that was to be taken without any evasion is evaded in every single word or Letter and the Government as insecure as before the Act was made because the taker is no farther bound than he pleases From which it cannot be denied but his Interpretation destroys not only this Act but all Government since it takes away the security of all Government and makes every mans Conscience under which Name there goes ordinarily in this Age Humour and Interest to be the rule of the takers obedience Nor can it be conceived to what purpole Laws but especially Oaths needed to be made if this were allowed or how this cannot fall under the 107th Act Par. 7. James 6. whereby it is statuted That no man interpret the Statutes otherwise than the maker understood For what can be more contrary to the taking of them in the makers sense than that every man should obey as far as he can and be allowed to take them in a general sense so far as they are consistent with themselves and the Protestant Religion without condescending wherein they do not agree with the Protestant Religion and that they are not bound not to make any alteration which they think good for the States For all these make the rule of obedience in the taker whereas the positiue Law makes it to be in the maker Oâ— how could they be punished for Perjury after this Oath For when he were quarrelled for making alterations against this Oath and so to be perjured he might easily ansvver That he took this Oath only in so far as it was consistent with the Protestant Religion and with a Salvo that he might make any alteration that he thought consistent with his Loyalty And as to these Points upon which he were to be quarrelled he might say he did not think them to be inconsistent with his Loyalty think we what we pleased and so needed not be perjured except he pleased to decide against himself For in these Generals he reserves to himself to be still Judg. And this were indeed a fine security for any Government And by the same rule that it looses this Oath it shews a way of loosing
more strongly be said against the General 2. The 130. Act. Par. 8. James VI. is expresly founded on because nothing can be a greater diminution of the power of the Parliament than to introduce a way or mean whereby all their Acts and Oaths shall be made insignificant and ineffectual as this Paper does make them for the Reasons represented Nor are any of the Estates of Parliament secure at this rate but that they who reserved a general power to make all alterations may under that General come to alter any of them 3. What can be a greater impugning of the Dignity and Authority of Parliaments than to say That the Parliament has made Acts for the security of the Kingdom which are in themselves ridiculous inconsistent with themselves and the Protestant Religion And as to what is answered against invading the Kings Prerogative and the Legislative Power in Parliaments in adding a part to an Oath or Act is not relevantly inferred since the sense of these words And this I understand as a part of my Oath is not to be understood as if any thing were to be added to the Law but only to the Oath and to be an interpretation of the Oath It is replied That after this no man needs to add a Caution to the Oath in Parliament But when he comes to take the Oath do the Parliament what they please he will add his own part Nor can this part be looked upon as a sense For if this were the sense before this Paper he needed not understand it as a part of it for it wanted not that part And in general as every man may add his own part so the King can be secure of no part But your Lordships of Justitiary are desired to consider how dangerous it would be in this Kingdom and how ill it would sound in any other Kingdom That men should be allowed to reserve to themselves liberty to make any alteration they thought fit in Church or State as to the legality of which they were themselves to be Judges And how far from Degree to Degree this at last may come to absolute Anarchy and how scandalous a thing as well as unsecure this new way may look in an Age wherein we are too much tracing the steps of our rebellious Progenitors in the last whose great detection and error was That they thought themselves and not the King the Authors of Reformation in Church and State And no man ever was barred by that that the way he was upon was not a lawful way For if it be allowed to every man to take his own way every man will think his own way to be the lawful way As to the Perjury it is founded on this first That perjury may be committed not only by breaking an Oath but even in the swearing of it viz. to swear it with such Evasions as make the Oath ineffectual For which Sandersone is cited Pag. 138. Alterum Perjurii genus est novo aliquo excogitato Commento Iuramenti vim declinare aut eludere Iurans tenetur sub poena Perjurii implere Secundum Intentionem deferentus both which are here For the Earl being bound by the very Oath to swear in the genuine meaning without any evasion he has sworn so as he has evaded every word there being not one word to which it can be said particularly he is bound as is said And it is undeniable that he has not sworn in the sense of the makers of the Law but in his own sense which is Perjury as is said And consequentially whatever sense may be allowed in ambiguous Cases yet there can be none where the Paper clearly bears Generals And where he declares That he takes it in his own sense His Majesties Advocate declares he will not burden himself that Copies were disperst tho it is certain since the very Paper it self by the giving in is chargeable with all that is above charged upon it Sir John Dalrymple's Defence and Plea for the Earl of Argyle by way of Reply upon the King's Advocate SIR John Dalrymple replies for the Pannel That since the solid grounds of Law adduced in the Defences have received no particular Answers in relation to the common consent of all Casuists viz. That a party who takes an Oath is bound in Conscience to clear and propose the terms and sense in which he does understand the Oath Nor in relation to the several Grounds adduced concerning the legal and rational Interpretation of dubious Clauses And since these have received no Answers the Grounds are not to be repeated but the Proctors for the Pannel do farther insist on these Defences 1. It is not alledged That any Explanation was given in by the Pannel to any person or any Copy spread before the Pannel did take the Test in Council So that it cannot be pretended That the many Scruples that have been moved concerning the Test did arise from the Pannel's Explication But on the contrary all the Objections that are answered and obviated in the Pannel's Explication were not only privately muttered or were the thoughts of single or illiterate persons but they were the difficulties proposed by Synods and Presbyteries long before the Pannel came from home or was required to take the Test So that the general terms of the Acts of Parliament founded upon in the Libel are not applicable to this Case For as these Laws in relation to Leasing makers are only relative to atrocious wilful Insinuations or misconstructions of His Majesties Person or Government or the open depraving of his Laws so the restrictive Clause whereby sedition or misconstructions may be moved raised or engendered betwixt His Majesty and his Liedges cannot be applied to this Case where all these Apprehensions and Scruples were on foot and agitated long before the Pannel's Explanation As it cannot be pretended That any new dust was raised by the Pannel's Explanation so it is positively offered to be proved That there is not one word contained in this Explanation but that either these individual words or much worse had been publikly proposed and verbatim read in Council without the least discouragement or the least objection made by any Member of the Council And where a Writing ex proposito read in so high a Court was universally agreed upon without the alteration of a Syllable how can it be pretended That any person thereafter using the said in â—ividual terms in any Explanation and far easier terms that they shall incur the high and infamous Crimes libelled And the question is not here Whether the Council was a proper Judicature to have proposed or imposed a sense or allowed any Explanation of the Test to be published but that it is impossible that a sense they allowed or being publikly read beâ—ore them and which the Kings Advocate did not controll that this should import Treason or any Crime And tho the Pannels Advocate will not pursue or follow the Reply that has been made to this point yet
is neither just nor equall so to all interested it is the meanest of Securities For His Majesties Advocate hath already told us that His Majesties Officers can never wrong him And although the Lords and He should conceal what others had done it might make themselves more guilty But not prove any Exoneration to those concerned without a down-right Remission Whereas it is manifest that if their Lordships had admitted the Earl's Exculpation upon the sure and evident grounds therein contained it would not only have answered the Justice of his case but vindicated all concerned And lastly he was to tell them that possibly they might be inclined to go on because they were already so far engaged as they knew not how to retreat with their honour but as there can be no true honour where there is manifest wrong and injustice so in the frail and fallible condition of human things there can be no delusion more dangerous and pernicious then this that unum scelus est alio scelere tegendum And here the Earl thought to lay before them very plainly and pertinently some remarkable and excellent Rules whereby L. Chief justice Hales a renouned judge of our nighbour nation tells he did govern himself in all criminal cases which adds the Earl if they took a due impression would certainly give them peace and joy when all the vain considerations that now amuse will avail them nothing The Rules are these I. Not to be rigid in matters purely consciencions where all the harm is diversity of judgment II. That Popular or Court applause or distaste have no influence on any thing is to be done in point of distribution of justice III. In a criminal case if it be a measuring cast then to incline to mercie and acquital IV. In criminal things that consist only of words where no more harm ensues moderation is then no injustice V. To abhor all privat solicitations of what kynd soever and by whomsoever VI. In maters depending not to be solicitous what men will say or think so long as the rule of justice is exactly kept VII And lastly never to ingage themselves in the begining of a cause but reserve themselves un-prejudged till the whole bussines be heard Then the Earl goes on and makes notes for additional defences reducible to these heads I. The absolute innocence of his Explication in its true and genuine meaning from all crime or offence far more from the horrible crimes libelled II. The impertinency and absurdity of His Majesties Advocat's arguings for inferring the crimes libelled from the Earl's words III. The reasonableness of the Exculpation IV. The Earl's Answers to the Advocat's groundlesse pretences for aggravating of his case As to the first the Earl waving what hath been said from common reason and humanity it self and from the whole tenour and circumstances of his life comes closs to the point by offering that just and genuine Explanation of his Explication which you have above Num. 21. I have delayed hitherto to take the Oath appointed by the Parliament to be taken betwixt and the first of January nixt But now being required near two moneths sooner to take it this day peremptorly or to refuse I have considered the Test and have seen several objections moved against it especially by many of the Orthodox clergie notwithstanding whereof I have endeavoured to satisfie my self with a just explication which I haâ—e offer that I may both satisfie my Conscience and obey Your Highness and Your Lordships Commands in taking the Test though the Act of Parliament do not simply command the thing but only under a certification which I could easily submit to if it were with Your Highness favour and might be without offence But I love not to be singular and I am very desirous to give obedience in this and every thing as far as I can and that which clears me is that I am confident what ever any man may think or say to the prejudice of this Oath the Parliament never intended to impose contradictory Oaths and because their sense they being the framers and imposers is the true sense and that this Test enjoyned is of no privat interpretation nor are the Kings Statuts to be Interpreted but as they bear and to the intent they are made therefore I think no man that is no privat Person can Explain it for another to amuse or trouble him with It may be mistaken glosses But every man as he is to take it so is to explain it For himself and to endeavour to understand iâ— notwithstanding all these exceptions in the Parliaments which is its true and genuine sense I take it therefore notwithstanding any scruple made by any As far as it is consistent with it self and the Protestant Religion which is wholly in the Parliaments sense and their true meaning Which being present I am sure was owned by all to be the securing of the Protestant Religion founded on the Word of God and contained in the Confession of Faith recorded I. 6. p. 1. c. 4. And not out of Scruple as if any thing in the Test did import the contrair But to clear my self from Cavils as if thereby I were bound up further then the true meaning of the Oath I doe declare that by that part of the Test that there lyes no Oblgation on me c. I mean not to bind up my self in my station and in a lawfull way still disclaiming all unlawfull endeavours To wish and endeavour any alteration I think According to my conscience to the advantage of Church or State not repugnant to the Protestant Religion and my Loyalty And by my Loyalty I understand no other thing then the words plainly bear to wit the duty and allegiance of all Loyal Subjects and this Explanation I understand as a part not of the Test or Act of Parliament but as a qualifying part of my Oath that I am to swear and with it I am willing to take the Test if your Royall Highness and your Lordships allow me Or otherwise in submission to Your Highness and the Councils pleasure I am content to be held as a refuser at present Which Explanation doth manifestly appear to be so just and true without violence or straining so clear full without the least impertinency so notour and obvious to common sense without any Commentary so Loyal and honest without ambiguity and lastly so far from all or any of the crimes libelled that it most evidently evinceth that the words thereby explained are altogether innocent And therefore it were lost time to use any arguments to enforce it Yet seing this is no trial of wit but to find out Common sense let us examine the Advocats fantastical paraphrase upon which he bottoms all the alledged crimes and see whether it agrees in one jot with the true and right meaning of the Earl's words and as you may gather from the indictment It is plainly thus I have Considered the Test which ought not to be done
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
Wonderfull reasoning All men know that Parliaments neither are nor pretend to be infallible And in our present case hundreds of Loyall subjects complain of contradictions and inconsistencies some way or other creept into this Oath And even the Council have yeelded so far to their Exceptions as to make an alteration upon it for satisfying those scruples far beyond any thing the Earl said and such an alteration as I beleeve few dreamed of and I am certain none durst have attempted without their express command and Authority and yet in the midst of all this the Farl's charitable and honest Opinion in behalf of the Parliaments good intentions must be perverted to a direct slander But the Earl sayes That every man must explain it for himself And so no doubt he must if the Test be either in it self or in his apprehension ambiguous otherwise how can he swear in Iudgment But this the Advocate will have to be a mans own sense and thereupon runs out That Hereby this Law and Oath and all Laws and Oaths are rendered useless and to no purpose And further the legislative Power is taken from the Imposer and setled in the Taker of the Oath Which certainly is a most treasonable presumption But first although there be no Reason to strain or mistake the Expression yet the Earl did not say That every man must take the Test in his own sense II. The Council hath now explained the Test for the clergy Might not then the Earl before their Explanation was devised say by the Councils allowance which he had That he might explain it for himself For if an ambiguous proposition the Test for example may be reconciled to it self two different wayes must not the Taker reconcile it as in his own sense he thinks it doth best agree with the genuine meaning of the words themselves and with the sense he conceaves was intended by the Parliament that formed it especially before the Parliament emitt their own Explanation And is it not juster to do it so then in any other mans sense which he thinks agreesless with the words abeit they may be thought by others to be reconciliable another way III. All this looks like designed mistakes and traps for should any man swear unless he understand And where an Oath is granted to be ambiguous can any man understand unless in want of the imposers help he explain it for himself IV. Was ever a man's Explaining an Oath for himself before taking it far less his bare saying that he must explain it before he take it alledged to be The overturning of all Laws and Oaths and the usurping of the Legislative power and making of new Laws certainly to offer to answer such things were to disparage common Reason And lastly this is strange Doctrine from the Advocate who himself in Council did allow not only the Earl his Explanation but that Explanation to the Clergie contrary as appeares by their Scruples to what they that took it thought either the Parliaments design or the plain words of the Test could bear and certainly different from the sense many had already taken it in and wherein others were commanded to take it And whatever the Advocate may cavil to insnare the Earl sure he will not allow that by his explaining this Oath he himself hath taken on him the Legislative power of the Parliament far less though he should acknowledge it will any beleeve that he hath or could thereby make all Laws or Oaths useless By this you see what strange stuffe he pleads which deserves no answer But sayes the Advocate the Earl affirms He takes the Test only as far as it consists with it self and with the Protestant Religion by which he most maliciously insinuats that it is inconsistent with both But first this only is not the Earl's but the Advocat's addition 2 ly I would soberly ask the Advocate or any man whether the Test as it includs the Confession in general and consequently all contained in it was not either really or at least might not have been apprehended to be inconsistent with it self Else what was the use or sense of the Councils explanation wherein it is declared that men doe not swear to every proposition of the Confession but only to the Protestant Religion therein contained And if it was either inconsistent or apprehended to be so how could the Earl or any honest man swear it in other terms with a safe Conscience But thirdly If Parliaments be fallible and this Oath as being ambiguous needed the Councils Explanation to clear it from inconsistencies must the Earl's words when he was to swear that he took it in so far as it was consistent be in this case understood as spoken maliciously and with a criminal intent when all Sense Reason and Religion made this caution his duty And if it be so criminal for one going to swear to suppose a possibility of inconsistencies in it Is it not manifestly more criminal in others plainly to confess and grant that there are inconsistencies in it after they have swallowed it in gross without any explanation whatsoever But sayes the Advocate The Earl hath invented a nevv vvay vvhereby no man is at all bound to the Test For hovv can any man be bound if he vvill obey only as far as he can And yet it will be hard even for the Advocate tho hesometimes attempts indeed more then he and all the World with him can do to tell how a man can obey farther and I am sure that in a matter of this kind viz. the free tender of an Oath all discreet men will Judge the Earl's offer both frank and obliging Then he asks To vvhat the Earl is bound if he be bound no further then he himself can obey manifest confusion and never either spoke by the Earl nor at all pertinent to his case besides he freely acknowledges that all men are bound to more then they can do or so far as the Test is consistent vvith it self and the Protestant Religion a strange doubting or yet I dare say imports as much as his Majesty expects of any and more then the Advocate will ever perform But sayes the Advocate vvho can determine to vvhat the Earl is bound Which sayes plainly that either the Test agrees with it self and the Protestant Religion in nothing or that the Protestant Religion is nothing Both which the Earl thinks far from truth But the Advocat's reasoning reflects far more on the Councils Explanation where it is plainly said That the Confession is not svvorn to in the Test but only the Protestant Religion contained in the Confession so that the Protestant Religion indefinitly is that which is said to be sworn to Now pray is it not much worse for a man to say that by taking the Test he svvears only to the Confession as it contains or agrees vvith the Protestant Religion which is in effect to set the Protestant Religion at variance with its own Confession and so to
reproach and ranverse the standard make void the very security that the Parliament intended then to say That he swears the Test as it agrees with it self the Protestant Religion which imports no such insinuation But from these pleasant Principles He jumps in to this Fantastik Conclusion That therefore it cannot be denyed but the Earl's interpretation destroyes not only this Act but all Government and makes every mans conscience or humour the Rule of his obedience But first as to the whole of his arguing the Earl neither invents sayes nor does any thing except that he offered his Explanation to the Council which they likewise accepted 2ly What mad inferences are these You say you will explain this Oath for your self therefore you overturn all Government and vvhat not Whereas it is manifest on the other hand that if the Earl apprehending as he had reason the Oath to be ambiguous and in some things inconsistent had taken it vvithout explaining it for himself or respect to its inconsistency it might have been most rationally concluded that in so doing he was both impious and perjured 3ly It is false that the Earl doth make his Conscience any other way the rule of his obedience then as all honest men ought to do That is as they say To be Regula regulata in conformity to the undoubted Regula regulans the eternal rules of truth and righteousness as is manifest by his plain words As for what the Advocate insinuats of humour insteed of Conscience it is very well known to be the Ordinary reproach whereby men that have no Conscience endeavour to defame it in others But the Advocate is again at it and having run himself out of all consequences he insists and inculcats that the Earl hath sworn nothing But it is plain that to swear nothing is none of the crimes libelled 2ly The Earl swears positivly to the Test as it is consistent vvith it self and the Protestant Religion which certainly is something unless the Advocate prove as he insinuats that there is nothing in the Test consistent with either And 3ly if the Protestant Religion and the Earl his reference to it be nothing then is not only the Council sadly reproached who in their Explanation declare this to be the only thing sworn to in the first part of the Test but our Religion quite subverted as far as this Test can do it But next for the treason the Advocate sayes That the Earl expresly declares he means not by the Test to bind up himself from vvishing or endeavouring in his station and in a lavvful vvay any alteration he shall think for the advantage of Church or State whereby sayes he the Earl declares himself and others loosed from any obligation to the Government and from the duty of all good Subjects and that they may make vvhat alterations they please A direct contrariety insteed of a just consequence as if to be tyed to Lavv Religion and Loyalty were to be loosed from all three can there be a flatter and more ridiculous contradiction Next the Advocate pretends to found upon the fundamental Laws of this and all nations whereby it is treason for any man to make any alteration he thinks fit for the advantage of Church or State But first The Earl is not nor cannot be accused of so much as wishing much less endeavouring or making any alteration either in Church or State only he reserves to himself the same freedom for wishing which he had before his Oath and that all that have taken it do in effect say they still retain 2ly For a man to endeavour in his station and in a lavvful vvay such alterations in Church or state as he conceives to their advantage not repugnant to Religion and Loyalty is so far from being treason that it is the duty of every subject and the Svvorn duty of all His Majesties Councellors and of all Members of Parliament But the Advocate by fancying and misapplying Lavvs of Nations wresting Acts of Parliaments adding taking away chopping and changing words thinks to conclude what he pleases And thus he proceeds That the treason of making alterations is not taken off by such qualifications of making them in a lavvful vvay in ones station to the advantage of Church or State and not repugnant to Religion or Loyalty But how then Here is a strange matter Hundreds of alterations have been made within these few years in our Government in very material points the Kings best Subjects and greatest Favourits have both endeavoured and effectuat them And yet because the things were done according to the Earl's qualifications insteed of being accounted treason they have been highly commended rewarded The Treasury hath been sometimes in the hands of a Treasurer sometimes put into a Commission backward and forward And the Senators of the Colledge of Iustice the right of whose places was thought to be founded on an Act of Parliament giving His Majestie the Prerogative onely of presenting are now commissioned by a Patent under the great Seal both which are considerable alterations in the Government which some have opposed others have vvished and endeavoured and yet without all fear of treason on either hand only because they acted according to these qualifications in a lawful way and not repugnant to Religion and Loyalty But that which the Advocate wilfully mistakes for it is impossible he could do it ignorantly is that he will have the endeavouring of alteractions in general not to be of it self a thing indifferent only determinable to be good or evil by its qualifications as all men see it plainly to be but to be forsooth in this very generality intrinsecally evil a notion never to be admitted on earth in the frail and fallible condition of human affairs And then he would establish this wise Position by an example he adduces That rising in arms against the King for so sure he means it being otherwise certain that rising in arms in general is also a thing indifferent and plainly determinable to be either good or evil as done with or against the Kings Authority is treason and sayes If the Earl had reserved to himself a liberty to rise in arms against the King though he had added in a lavvful manner yet it would not have availed because and he sayes well This being in it self unlavvful the qualifications had been but shamms and contrariae facto But why then doth not his own reason convince him â—here the difference lyes viz. That rising in arms against the King is in itself unlawful whereas endeavouring alterations is only lawful or unlawful as it is qualified and if qualified in the Earl's Terms can never be unlawful But sayes the Advocate The Earl declares himself free to make all alterations and so he would make men beleeve that the Earl is for making All or Any without any reserve whereas the Earl's words are most express that he is Neither for making all or any but only for wishing and
for an honest expression of a commendable tenderness without any imputation of reproach against either King or Parliament How much more then is his part clear and innocent when albeit so many thought the contradictions to be undeniable yet such was his well tempered respect both to God and man to his own conscience and his Majesties Authority that before and not after the taking of this Oath to clear himself in the midst of the many exceptions and scruples raised of all ambiguities in swearing he first applies himself for a satisfying Explanation to the Parliament the prime imposers their true intentions and genuine meaning and then gathering it very rationally from the Oaths consistency with it self and with the Protestant Religion the Parliaments aim and scope and so asserting the King and Parliaments truth and honour he places the reliefe and quiet of his own Conscience in his taking the Test with this Explanation and in declaring its congruity with his Oath and duty of Allegiance The third Head of the Earl's additional defences is the further clearing and improving of his grounds of Exculpation above adduced and repelled Which were first that before the Earl did offer his Explanation to the Council a great many Papers were spread abroad by some of the Orthodox Clergy charging the Test with contradictions inconsistencies 2ly That there was a paper penned by a reverend Bishop and presented and read in Council and by them allowed to be printed which did contain the same and far more important things then any can be found in the Earl's Explanation And consequently far more obnoxious to all His Majesties Advocat's accusations 3ly That the Explanation upon which he was indicted was publikly by himself declared in Council and by the Council allowed so that the Oath was administrat to him and he received to sit in Council and vote by His Highness and the rest of the Members with and under this express qualification But to all urged for the Earl's Exculpation the Advocate makes one short answer viz. That if the Earl's paper did infer the crimes charged on it a thousand the like offences cannot excuse it And his Majesty is free to pursue the offenders when and in what Order he thinks fit which answer doth indeed leave the Council and all concerned in his Majesties mercy But that it doth no way satisfie the Earl's plea is manifest For the first ground of Exculpation viz. that before the Earl did offer his Explanation a great many papers writ by the Orthodox Clergy and others were abroad charging the Test with Contradictions c. was not alledged by the Earl merely to justify his Explanation by the multitude of the like papers and so to provide for an escape in the croud But the Earl having most rationally pleaded that his Explanation was given in by him after these many Scruples and Objections raised by others were abroad it was a good Plea from a most pregnant circumstance clearing both the design and sense of his words from the soul aspersions of reproaching and depraving thrown upon them Seing the words spoken by him under the motive of such a circumstance by all fair rules of interpretation insteed of being judged misconstrueing and depraving could only be understood as a seasonable asserting of the integrity of the Parliaments intentions and the uprightness of the Earl's Conscience which argument being in reason unanswerable it necessarly follows that the Advocat's return to the first ground was neither sufficient nor pertinent and that therefore the Exculpation was unjustly repelled But next the second ground of Exculpation is so far from being answered by the Advocate that it does not appear it was so much as understood For the Earl's argument being That words allowed approven by the Council can never fall under the accusation either of Leasing-making or slandering his Majeslies proceedings or depraving Laws and Acts of Parliament as is evident in it self and granted by the Advocate where he say's that an Explanation though reflecting on the King and Goverment which the Earl's was not yet if allowed by the Council is to be sustained But so it is that the Council hath allowed the words contained in this Explanation contraverted both in themselves and also in their equivalent and far more important expressions As for instance not only by accepting the Earl's Explanation as shall be cleared in the next place but by giving warrand for the publication of the Bishop of Edinburgh his Vindication wherein First for obviating the contradictions objected from the Confession of Faith he positively asserts that by the Test men do not swear to own every Article of that Confession and yet the Test binds expresly to beleeve that Confession to be founded on and agreable to the Word of God and never to consent to any alteration contrary thereto or inconsistent therewith So that he gives both the Test and the Parliament the Lye And then for removing another Scruple he tells us that By the Test men are not bound up from regular endeavours to rectify or better the established government both of Church and State which is clearly the same thing but not so well cautioned with that which in the Earl's case is made a ground of treason From which it unquestionably followes that the Earl's words having been allowed and approven by the Council could never in Law or reason be thereafter made a ground of accusation by any much less by themselves Now I desire to know where the Advocate in all his Plea doth so much as notice far less answer this defence or what his telling us A thousand offences of the like nature doth not excuse one either doth or can signify seeing this argument for the Farl insteed of pleading excuses doth justify the matter and for ever purge all shadow of offence or ground of quarrel which will be yet more apparent when you shall adde to this the third ground of the Earl's exculpation viz. That the explanation whereupon the Earl was indicted was publikly by himself declared in Council and by the Council allowed and accepted In so much as after he had given his Explanation as the sense wherein he was free to swear the Test the Oath was thereupon administrat to him and he received to sit and vote as a Councellour Whereby it is evident That by this allowance and acceptance the Earl's Explanation became the Councils as much as if after the Earl's pronouncing the words they had verbatim repeated them and told him they were satisfied he should swear the Test in these terms And whether this ought not to be a sufficient exoneration to the Earl let all men judge The Advocate makes a noise That in the case of an Oath required the taker ought to swear it in the sense of the imposer which none doubts and then runs out That The Earl in place of taking it in the imposers sense did unwarrantably intend a sense of his own to the eluding and frustrating of the
Confession was designedly left out of it But it being again debated that the bare naming of the Protestant Religion without condescending on a Standard for it was not sufficient the Confession of Faith was of new added And after the affirmative clause for owning it and adhering to it was insert upon a new motion the negative never to consent to any alteration contrary to or inconsistent with the said Protestant Religion and Confession of Faith was also subjoyned But not without a new debate and opposition made against the words And Confession of Faith by the Bishop of Edinburgh until at length he also yeelded All which it is hoped was done for some purpose And if at that time any had doubted of the thing he had certainly been judged most ridiculous For it was by that addition concluded by all that the Confession was to be sworn and further it appears plainly by the Bishop of Edinburgh his vindication that when he wrote it he believed the Confession was to be sworn to for he takes pains to justify it though calumniously enough alledging That it was hastily compiled in the short space of four dayes by some Barrons and Ministers in the infancy of our Reformation Where by the by you see that he makes no reckoning of what the Act of Parliament to which the Test refers expresly bears viz. That that second Ratification 1567. which we only have recorded was no less then seven years after this Confession was first exhibited and approven Anno 1560. But moreover he tells us That the Doctors of Aberdeen who refused the Covenant vvere yet vvilling not only to subscribe but to svvear this Confession of Faith Which again to answer the Bishops critik of four dayes was more then 70. years after it was universally received It 's true that when the Bishop finds himself straitned how to answer objections he is forced to make use of the new Gloss I shall not call it of Orelans whereby the Protestant Religion is made to be sworn to only as far as every man pleases to interpret as far as may be consistent with any new principles of state But the Parliament certainly I do not speak ironically did intend by this Test to swear assert the True Protestant Religion and the said Confession of Faith whatever may be now pretended The Earl could not also but very well remember what His Highness had said to himself about the inserting of the Confession and no doubt the Advocate if ingenuous knows all this For the thing was at that time mater of common talk and indeed till Papers objecting contradictions and inconsistencies betwixt the Confession and the rest of the Test began to be so numerous which was about the end of October that there was no possibility left to answer them but by alledging That in the Test men do not swear to every article and proposition of the Confession but only to the Protestant Religion therein contained this point was never doubted And whether this answer be true and a solid Vindication consonant to the words of the Test or a circulating evasion enervating all its force let others judge But the Advocate sayes When it was moved in Parliament to read the Confession it was waved Most true the reason given by the Bishops for it was that it was notour they knew it and it was already insert in the Acts of Parliament And the truth was the reading of it would have spent more time then was allowed on examining the whole Test. It was likewise late after a long Sederunt and it was resolved to have the Act passed that night so it went on But it was likewise moved to read the Covenant seing it was to be disclaimed and this was flatly refused And will the Advocate thence infer That by the Test the Covenant is not abjured albeit it be most certain that many in the Parliament at that time had never read the one or the other But to follow the Advocat's excursions and answer them more particularly The motion for reading the Confession being made on this very occasion because it was to be insert in the Test and sworn to concluds enough against him For no body can be so effronted as to say it was used in Parliament as an argument not to read it because it was not to be sworn to but though it cost a debate it was plainly agreed to be sworn to and therefore insert 2ly Can any man doubt the Confession was to be sworn to when it is notour that severalls who were members of Parliament and by reason of offices they enjoyed were called to swear the Test pretending with reason tenderness of an Oath did before swearing make a fashion at least of reading and studying the Confession to satisfy themselves how far they might swear it And that this was done by an hundred I can attest themselves Lastly it is certain that vvhen in the end of October the Bishop of Edenburgh did quarrel S r George Lockhart for causing the Confession to be insert in the Test he answered that without it a Turk might sign the Test it vvas not then pretended by the Bishop that the Confession vvas not to be svvorn to and therefore he at that time had no reply But this is a debate I confess not altogether necessary for my present task only thereby you may see ground enough for the Earl to believe the Confession vvas svvorn to And all that did svvear before the Councils Explanation having svvorn in that sense and for ought I knovv all except the Clergy being by the Councils Act still bound to do so It vvas not strange the Earl might be of this Opinion And seeing that many of the Contradictions vvere alledged to arise hence and the Earl being a dissenter it vvas yet less strange that the Earl did scruple nor is it unreasonable that his modest Explanation should have a most benign acceptance The second pretence of aggravation is That his Majesty did not only bestow on the Earl his Lands and Iurisdictions fallen into his Majesties hands by the forfaulture of his Father but also pardon him the crimes of Leasing-making and Misconstruing whereof he was found guilty by the Parliament 1662. And raised him to the title and dignity of an Earl and to be a member of all his Majesties Iudicatories All vvhich the Earl as he hath ever doth still most thankfully acknovvledge But seeing the Advocate hath no vvarrand to upbraid him vvith his Majesties favours and that these things are novv remembred vvith a manifest design to raise dust and blind strangers and to add a very ill thing Ingratitude to the heap of groundless calumnies cast upon him I must crave leave to ansvver a little more particularly and refute this new tout as the scots proverb is in an old horn This old Leasing-making is then novv brought in seriously after it hath been treated in ridicule for 18 years by the very Actors vvho did never pretend
Oath being to preclude the Takers from reserving a liberty to rise in arms upon any pretext whatsoever The Earl sayes our Author by his Explication reserves to himself a power to make any alterations that he shall think for the advantage of Church and State But not to stay you here with what you have so fully cleared in the Narrative Dare any man even our Author not excepted say That he who reserves a liberty to himself in his station and in a lawfull way to wish and endeavour any alteration he thinks to the advantage of Church and State not repugnant to the Protestant Religion and his Loyalty which are the Earl's words eo ipso reserves to himself a liberty to rise in arms upon any pretext whatsoever Certainly to assert this as our Author here does is not only to deny common sense but desperatly to affirm That to rise in arms upon any pretence whatsoever is a lavvful thing advantageous to Church and State and agreeable both to Religion and Loyalty The most traiterous and irreligious Position that can be devised and which one day or other our Author may be more straitned to answer then at present he is to maintain the grosâ—est absurdities Now whether by all these fyne Remarks our Author hes concluded as he alledges that the Earl hes interpret his Oath otherwise then it bears although this be also a wide and weak impertinency as to the inferring of any crime let the world judge But. 2ly Sayes our Author If the Earl's glossing vvere allovvable then there vvere no need to propose doubts in Parliament but Oaths might be left to be formed at the Takers pleasure But. 1. Is not this consequence far more clearly deducible from the Councils emitting their Explanation 2ly What sense or non-sense could induce our Author to dream that because Inadvertency may necessarily occasion Explications therefore men should be still Inadvertent Our Author desires to knovv from any man of sense if the Earl vvould have obtained from the Parliament at the passing of the Test That everyman should be allovved to take it as far as it was consistent with it self and the Protestant Religion and with the Earl's other Qualifications And if I in this contest may pretend to this quality I would answer him roundly That albeit I think hardly any man of sense could make a proposition in thir terms to that soveraign Court that had full power to change the Test at their pleasure Yet I am very confident that had any man suggested the half of the objections that have since been started against it they would very readyly have endeavoured to obviat all reasonable exceptions of Inconsistency though neither by our Author 's wise Expedient nor yet by reserring them to the Councils just and accurate Explanation And for the other Qualifications in the Earl's words I am most assured and have his Highness for my Voucher that had the Parliament been ask't Whether or not the Test did bind up a man in a lawfull way and in his station c They would have answered Not and that therefore though they might have judged the Reservation not necessary yet for the greater ease of conscience they would never have stuck to allow any honest man in swearing to express it or not at his pleasure 3ly Our Author asks If a man should by Oath oblige himself simply to make me a Right to Lands could this sense be consistent with it I 'le make it as far as I can Or would a Right so qualified satisfy the Obligation But if I were to oblige a man simply by his Oath to make me a Right and he should answer I le do all I can to satisfy you and then tell me distinctly what he would sweat to do and what not which is the plain parallel of the Earl's case cleared from our Author's Inversions I should think my self bound whether I accepted his offer or not to judge him a fair plain-dealing man But if once I accepted and should afterward call him a Cheat certainly all men would esteem me the greater Cheat of the two 4ly 5ly and 6ly Sayes Our Author Oaths should be so taken as that the Taker may be persued for perjury That the Covenanters would not have suffered a man to take the Covenant as far as consistent with his Loyalty And are not the enemies of the King's Supremacy content to swear in so far as is consistent with the Word of God So that if the Earl's sense were allowed every man should swear upon his own terms and upon contrary terms But 1. Without question the Earl turning either Papist or Disloyal might have been persued for perjury upon his Oath as qualified 2ly Albeit the Covenanters might have laughed at a man for adjecting a caution which they thought expressed yet I am sure at worst they would never have judged the offer a crime much less accused the offerer after having accepted it 3ly It is nothing to the purpose what Declarations the enemies of the Supremacy make But if these our Author mentions be criminal as he would have us to believe I would intreat him to tell us why their makers are not persued and unless he say It is because these Declarations were not made before accepted by the Council I hope he will be so ingenuous as to confess that it is because albeit these Declarations be judged eversive of the Oath yet they are not accounted Crimes in respect they are only well mean't proposals which when rejected evanish And 4ly Our Author's Consequence If the Earl's sense be allowed then every man should swear upon his own terms as it doth not at all concern the Earl so hath it no connexion except in so far as it reflects on His Majesties Council the alone Masters of such Allowances 7ly Sayes Our Author Former Statuts having discharged Conventions or Convocations and Bonds or Leagues without the Kings consent The Covenanters protested that their Covenant was not against these Acts because they could not be meaned of Meetings and Bonds for preservation of the King Religion and Laws And the 4. Act Par 1661. Declares all such glosses false and disloyal And therefore the Earl's gloss must be so too But 1. The Earl's gloss is no such gloss it doth not at all touch these Conventions or Bonds said to be discharged therefore it must not be so 2ly The Earl's Explanation is expresly qualified in a lawful way and not repugnant to his Loyalty which words plainly respect the Act 1661. as well as all other Acts made for defining our allegiance and duty And therefore it cannot possibly fall under its compass as a Contravention But now after we have done with our Author's Critique which he sayes makes his subsumption clear and undeniable I freely appeal to all men of ordinary ingenuitie whether he hath proved so much as the first Article of it viz. That the Earl took the Test in such a sense as did evacuate his own Oath much less the
doth still retain its outmost and best Security viz. The Fidelity of such as it intrusts without whose allowance all senses and Explications are utterly insignificant In the 3d. place Our Author offends at the Mist for saying That the Legislator is surest of those who give Explanations plain dealing is alwayes honest dealing Because sayes our Author If this prove any thing it vvill prove that any man may adject any quality and so render all Oaths useless c. But. 1. You have just now heard That the Takers adjecting without the Administators accepting signifies nothing 2ly Our Author acknowledges That vvhere the sense is previously offered to and accepted by the Legislator or such who are by him authorized to administrate which certainly in Law and sense is the same thing it secures the Taker Which notwithstanding of our Author 's reasonless denial is in terminis the Earl's case But 3ly Our Author adds That the Earl's saying He is content to take the Test as far as it is consistent with it self and the Protestant Religion condescends to nothing Strange The Parliament in the Test expressly make the Confession the standard of the Protestant Religion The Council in their Explanation ran verse this and make the Protestant Religion the standard of the Confession and the very fixed point of the Test. And yet when the Earl swears the Test without the least reflection on the Confession as far as it is consistent vvith it self and the Protestant Religion All this must be nothing As to what our Author adds That he is desirous to knovv in vvhat part of Europe such Qualities vvere ever allovved Would he allow me the like liberty I would ask him 1. In what part of Europe was ever such a Test framed 2ly In what part of it was ever such an Explanation as the Earl's after acceptance made a crime And 3ly In what part of the whole world was ever such an Indictment contrived and Judgment past And in the mean time he may find in the Narrative just such a quality as the Earl's allowed in a far plainer Oath by a far severer Prince and in a far more publik manner to Archbishop Cranmer in England And. 2. ly A much more odd One in the same matter by the Scotch Council to the Scotch Clergy Our Author repeats And sayes It vvere most absurd to think that misinterpreting of Laws and defaming of Parliaments should be suffered because thrown in into Explications and that adjected Qualities are worse then Equivocations and mentall Reservations But there being neither Misinterpreting nor Defaming in the Earl's case and the Quality by him adjected being in itself sound and congruous and by the Council accepted Notwithstanding our Author's foolish pretence That it was not first offered by vvay of Petition I cannot stand to refute all impertinencies And as to what he adds about the Councils Explanation emitted in favours of the Clergy that it doth not unsecure the Legislator not admitt the Takers to be Judges as he falsly insinuats that the Earl's doth all these things are already fully examined The second Crime sayes our Author fixed upon the Earl from his Explanation vvas grounded on the Act Ja 6. Par 10. c. 10. Made against defaming of King and Parliament and depraving their Laws But this Crime and all that our Author sayes for enforcing it being so largely and clearly answered in the Narrative I freely grant That Defaming and Depraving are great Crimes That it is one of the principal Concerns of Governours to have themselves esteemed by their People That Lavvs for this effect have been consented to by our Parliaments to serve as our Author loves to speak instead of Armies though yet we have the misfortune to have both That even Insinuations and Inferences if plainly tending to the Reproach and Slander of Rulers may be in so far criminal as to deserve an extraordinary though not the ordinary pain And lastly That in Crimes Dolus malus is for the most part presumed from the nature and circumstances of the Deed it self And shall only adde 1. That where our Author asserts That the forementioned Act of Parliament was made against Words and Papers in general vvhereby misliking might be moved betwixt the King and his Subjects And that it regards the effect only vvithout respect to the Author's design the same is false inconsistent and dangerous False because it is a known Maxime of Lavv and Reason That Maleficia Voluntas Propositum Delinquentis distinguit l. 53 ff de Furtis And to think that the Lavv punishes any thing without either apparent or presumed dole and malice is to confound Crime and Chance Guilt and Innocence 2. Inconsistent because albeit our Author do here tell us that the Parliament look't only to the effect yet afterwards He not only alledges that the Earl's malice may be gathered from the nature and strain of the Paper but endeavours to clear it by several circumstances And lastly Dangerous because thereby a man's best security Innocence and a Conscience void of offence is quite taken away and the man and his words and writings exposed to every perverse Inference that Madness prompted by Malice may suggest 2ly That notwithstanding all the evil inferences and worse consequences that our Author charges upon the Earl's words yet it is impossible for any man considering without prejudice the Circumstances wherein they were emitted not to acknowledge that as they were plainly intended by the Earl for the Exoneration of his ovvn Conscience so in place of Defaming Depraving they evidently contain a very seasonable Vindication of the Parliaments honour and integrity If the Test had been unanimously concluded in Parliament and universally received by the People without hesitation or exception And if in that case a man had idlely and officiously said That he believed that the Parliament did not intend to impose contradictory Oaths and that he for his part could take it as far as it is consistent vvith it self and the Protestant Religion I grant that a nice or malicious Hearer might possibly have formalized and made it a matter of Explication But when it was notour and offered to be proven that contradictions in the Test were the common discourse That almost a third of the orthodox Clergy did on this account scruple at it And severall of them had published their scruples in writing That the Earl when desirous to absent was ordered to be called to the Council either to take the Test or refuse it And that the very day he appeared before them they voted their own Explanation in favours of the Clergy I appeal to all impartial men if the Earl's Asserting publikly his Confidence and Willingness as you have heard instead of a Reflection was not in such a juncture a most just and fair Declaration as well in behalf of the Parliament as of his ovvn Conscience But our Author strains and insists upon Consequences from the precise and abstract words without regaird
to either occasion time place manner or end albeit the principal significators in cases of this nature and in effect the main hinges of all morality A Logick capable to pervert the best words and subvert all ingenuity and honesty amongst men For put the case that to satisfy the apprehensions and doubts that were so frequent of Contradictions and Inconsistencies in the Test His Highness himself or the President of the Council had said to these Scruplers in these or the like words That he was confident the Parliament had no intention to impose contradictory Oaths It is evident That by our Author 's reasoning this very apology how fairly soever intended in charity to these dissenters and for the Parliaments vindication might as well as the Earl's words be urged with all our Author's misconstructions and made a mortall Crime But leaving things so obvious and already so fully cleared take a short account of the Circumstances wherewith our Author doth further charge the Earl And first He sayes That the Earl's Father and Family had owned eminently the Principles against which this Oath was taken But our Author cannot deny that they owned yet more eminently the Protestant Religion the only subject of this Part of the Test and of the Earl's Explanation now questioned And for the other Principles here named they owned them no otherwise then the Parliaments of both Kingdoms did 2ly He says The Earl himself had taken the Covenant And so did And many thousands of his good Subjects beside 3ly He tells us The Earl had all along opposed the Test in Parliament But therefore there was the greater reason that his offer to take it with an Explanation should have been favourably accepted 4ly Our Author adds The Earl had positivly told his Royal Highness he would not take the Test. But this is both false and impertinent 5ly He says Neither the Ministers nor others in the Earl's countrey upon whom he had influence had taken the Test. But beside that this is not true absolutly and that in effect Few Ministers in Scotland had at that time taken the Test in respect there were about two moneths of the time allowed by the Act of Parliament then to run how iniquous is it to make the Earl accountable for other mens inclinations 6ly The Concern and Kindness the Fanatiks shew for the Earl is also objected but with the same truth and pertinency as all the rest And yet our Author concluds All which demonstrate That he had an aversion from the Test. Which indeed might very well have been without this demonstration But that therefore what he said about it or as our Author speaks did against it was done dolo malo is just as much as to say that he who in candid and honest dealing goes about to explain an ambiguous Oath before he take it speaks maliciously against it But our Author tells us That the Lords of Justitiary had a clear Precedent for what they did against the Earl in the like Iudgment given in the same Court against the Lord Balmerino Who for a Petition presented to and accepted and once read by his late Majesty vvas found guilty upon far remoter inferences of Misconstruing his Majesties Proceedings But this being particularly answered by the Earl's Lawyers in the Process I shall only here add 1. That Balmerino's Petition containing many positive alledgeances reflecting on several passages of the Government in order to a redress wherein his design might very readily fall under suspicion holds no parallel with the Earl's Explanation on his part a mere Proposal made with all due respect to the Parliament and simply tendered for the clearing of his Oath and Conscience and not indeed capable of another construction 2ly The King never accepted Balmerino's Petition by way of Approbation nor was it so much as delivered to him by Balmerino But our Author by this false phrasing of the King 's having seen and read this Petition would take off the Councils formal and direct Acceptance of the Earl's Explanation And 3ly That albeit Balmerino's Petition and the Earl's Explanation hold no manner of proportion yet even Balmerino's case was generally judged so hard that his Jurours themselves divided upon it and he was only found guilty by eight of them against seven that assoiled him and immediatly after Sentence he was freely pardoned As to what our Author adds Of this same Earl's being formerly found guilty Anno 1662. Of the like Crime upon the like Ground It is very true He was indeed then found guilty of the like Crime and upon the like Ground And not only by the same partie but by some of the same Persons who semel semper are and will be in eodem genere But of this you have already had a large and full account Our Author comes to review the Mist's Justification of the Earl's words To which opposing his former Perversions he only repeats with some new extravagancies what is already answered Thus for instance where the Earl in duty and civility sayes by way of Preface That he was desirous to give obedience as far as he could which clearly refers to the Act of Parliament and the Councils Requisition whereunto he professes his willingness to give all possible satisfaction Our Author to shew his good Breeding and better sense tells us That these words vvere intended by the Earl for a quality and part of his Oath as if he had said that though he vvas content to svvear yet he vvas only minded to keep so as far as he could Whereas it is evident as the sun-light that the quality that the Earl adjects and which he would have understood for a part of his Oath begins after these words And therefore I take the Test And that this quality is both certain sound and most genuine But having already told you that before the Earl's appearance the Countrey was filled with the noise of Contradictions and Inconsistencies in the Test So that the Earl's words in stead of Reproaching were in effect a direct and very seasonable Vindication of the Government as well as of his own Conscience And that the Security of the Government as to Oaths is not concerned in the senses that men devise or propose as our Author perpetually mistakes but in such as it pleaseth the Council the grand Administrators to accept I shall not trouble you with further Reflections on this head Specially seeing that albeit the importunity of the Earl's Accuser have occasioned what in the Narrative and what in this Preface a sensing and resensing of his words almost ad Nauseam Yet the plain truth and my opinion is that the Earl's words never had nor can have but two senses and these most distinct and constant The one genuine just and honest which all indifferent men ever did and do acknowledge The other most strained crooked and calumnious which yet his Adversaries will alwise adhere to But sayes our Author these words I take it in so far as it
is consistent with it self and the Protestant Religion do so openly import that in some things it is inconsistent that vvhosoever vvould persuade him to the contrary must think him Fool or Idiote But. 1. Since the Earl doth not say what our Author would have openly imported either positively or designedly it is impossible he could say it Criminally 2ly Since his words do manifestly referr to the many Exceptions that were abroad against the Test And that it is no less evident that by his Explanation he singlely intended to clear his own Conscience and deal candidly with the Government Whosoever would perswade that there is in it any ground of Offence or Crime specially after it was accepted by the Council must be really either Fool or Worse Our Author indeed tells us That the words vvere spoke by the Earl to inflame the people That they reflect upon the Prudence and Conduct of the Parliament and so prove Defaming and Depraving unansvverably And vvhat can be more Depraving of a Law then to make it Pravam Legem And vvhat Law can be more prava or pernicious then that vvhich is inconsistent vvith the Protestant Religion and vvhich tyes to svvear things contradictory And the having svvorn and dispersed his Explications shevves a firm and passionat Design to poyson the People vvith a belief of all these ill things of the Parliament But seeing the common and certain understanding of Depraving is to wrest by a false and malicious construction to a bad end what was designed for a good That for certain there is no falshood so much as alledged by our Author to be in the Earl's vvords And for malice all the circumstances above adduced do undoubtedly purge them of it That no man in a studied Apology can say The Parliament did not intend contradictions but his vvords by this calumnious Logick may be charged with the same train of absurd Consequences That the Councils Explication is in every respect more obnoxious to them then the Earl's That our Author knows Dispersing neither was nor could be proven And that in effect the Earl's Explanation was accepted by and so became the Councils more then his as you have fully heard in the Narrative This groundless violent Invective is already answered But if I may take a little more liberty then my Narrator thought fit to use Dare our Author state the controversie upon this issue Whether there be Contradictions and Inconsistencies in the Test or not Or if they be as the Council hath implicitly granted and all men may explicitly see in the Paraphrase above set doun will he have it a Crime for a man to say He believes the Parliament intended no Contradictions and that he is content to take the Test in so far as it is consistent Or would he have us to believe either that all Scotch Parliaments or at least the Last by reason of an extraordinary assistance are infallible Or if they be fallible as they confess themselves thinks he the People either so Blockish as not to see their Failings tho never so palpable and also important to mens salvation or so Brutal as to break all Measures if once they conceive their Rulers to be but Men But though here you may indeed perceive the Grounds whereupon all our Author's discourses in this Pamphlet do proceed Yet seeing they are manifestly calculate to some mens unhappy Designes who on purpose inveigh against the People as either ignorant or insolent that they may be arbitrary and would have all Dissenters from their designes to be Suspect and all Suspect to be Traitors that they may be uncontrollable I hope men are not yet brought to that pass either of Simplicity or Terrour as to be cajolled or cudgelled into a complyance with such pernicious Insinuations The third Crime wherewith the Earl was charged was Treason A Crime now become with us and so much the more pity that we live under a Prince so quite different as it was of old said to be under Tiberius Omnium accusationum complementum And which sayes our Author was inferred against the Earl from these words I doe declare I mean not to bind up my self in my station and in a Lawfull way to wish and endeavour any Alteration I think to the advantage of Church and State not repugnant to the Protestant Religion and my Loyalty And this I understand as a part of my Oath And this our Author tells us he will make out in a plain familiar unanswerable way And for that effect gives us this demonstration in Mode and Figure He that reserves to himself the power of reforming Church or State commits Treason But the Earl in his Explication reserves to himself a povver of reforming Ergo. And not to amuse you with repeating what is already so fully said in answer to this Pretence equally ridiculous and pernicious To this formal Argument take this formall Answer He that reserves to himself the povver of reforming c. By asserting or assuming to himself the povver of reforming either proper to the Prince alone or in a way without his line or without warrant of Law or to the hurt of Church and State and repugnant to the Protestant Religion and his Loyalty commits Treason Transeat be it so He that reserves to himself the povver of reforming c. By declaring he minds not to bind up himself in his Station and in a lawfull way to endeavour Alterations he thinks to the advantage of Church and State not repugnant to the Protestant Religion and his Loyalty commits Treason Is denyed Nay in effect this is so far from being Treason that the thing thus reserved is the indispensible duty of our Allegiance And for a subject specially a privy Councellor not to wish and endeavour in his station and in a lawfull way such Alterations as he thinks to the advantage of Church and State and not repugnant to the Protestant Religion his Loyalty were a Lash Disloyalty and plain Perjury But so it is that the Earl in his Explication reserves to himself a povver of reforming in the former sense is false and the very thing denyed by his vvords In the later and second sense it is indeed true but in steed of being a Crime a most clear and certain duty But our Author sayes That any is as comprehensive as all which he gravely proves by several instances and thence infers That therefore the Earl has reserved to himself to endeavour all Alterations And sayes he If that be not Treason nothing can be Treason But albeit to endeavour any or all Alterations simply as our Author sophistically and calumniously divides the Earl's words may be Treason dare he affirm That for a man in his station and in a lawfull way to endeavour any or all alterations to the better and not repugnant to Religion and Loyalty which are the Earl's words is Treason Or can he or any man deny that the doing of this very thing may be the necessary duty 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 ☜ ☞ ☞ ☜ ☜ ☜ ☜ ☞ ☜ ☜ ☞ ☞ ☜ ☜ ☞ ☞ ☜ ☜ ☜ ☜ ☜ ☜ ☞ ☞ ☞ ☞ ☞ ☜ ☜ ☜ ☜ ☜ ☜ ☜ ☜ ☜