doubtful and uncertain in themselves to say no worse but in the judgment of wise and sober men inconsistent one with another 4. It 's granted by all that this Oath cannot be taken without several glosses and explications And these which are commonly offered cannot be admitted for divers Reasons 1. Because they seem to overthrow the genuine sense and meaning of the Oath 2. Because in the Oath we swear That we take it in the plain genuine sense and meaning of the words without any equivocation mental reservation or evasion whatsoever So that altho these glosses should be conceived in the plainest terms and we suffered to write them down under our hands and so cannot come under the notion of equivocation or mental reservation yet that cannot but be considered as evasions it being only by the help of them that we pretend to escape the fearful crime of perjury 3 There is no Authority that can give us Explications but the same who has imposed the Oath that is the King and Parliament For tho the King and Lords of Council and Session be considered as Interpreters and Explainers of the Laws yet that is only in matters of Right or Wrong to which men ought to submit But it 's another thing in matter of an Oath For that is always to be taken only in the sense of the Imposers And we being required not to submit to it but to swear to it no Explication given by any other but by him or them who gives us the Oath can secure or quiet our Consciences 4. These Explications tho given by the same Authority who imposed the Oath seem both useless and unsafe unless published and recorded as the Oath it self otherways the Explication will soon be forgotten whereas the Oath stands still as it was 5. It must be also considered that tho men take this Test it seems it will not secure them in their places For why may not the same alterations be made in the Church which are made in the State the Supreme Power and Prerogative being alike over both And tho this Argument will be of small force unto some yet it may have its own weight unto others 6. If it be said That divers Articles and Parts of the Test are asserted and enacted by former Laws as partly that against meeting conveening or Assembling to treat consult c. which is in the very same terms discharged and forbidden not only by Act. 4. Sess 1. Par. 1 Char. 2. but also by an old Law Act. 31. Par. 8. James 6. It is answered That there is this considerable difference therein in those Acts viz. that the ordinary judgments are excepted And it is not without reason that this clause is left out here and it is one thing to submit to a Law another to swear it 7. But some may say that we have already sworn the Oath of Supremacy to which they who took it before the year 1669. had little or no ground of scruple but by the Act assertory the Supremacy being declared to be quite another thing than ever it was understood before there are many conscientious men and the best friends to Episcopacy who cannot take that Oath now though that alone should be made the Test As for others of the Clergy who have taâ—en it since that Act of Parliament they were told by the Bishop that administred it to them that the Assertory Act had no relation to the Oath and therefore they gave it them only in the old sense whereby they were perswaded to take it But now the matter is put beyond all doubt For the Kings Ecclesiastical Supremacy as it is explained in the Act being declared to be an inherent Right of the Crown and we swearing in the Test to maintain and defend all His Majesties Rights and Prerâ—gatives we do clearly swear to own and maintain the Supremacy as itis there asserted and declared 8. But we are told we should not oppose our sentiments to the wisdom of the Nation And if the meaning of this be that we ought to reverence our Superiours submit to their Laws and live peaceably under their Government it is willingly granted But if the meaning of the Test be that we are to believe whatsoever they say blindly swear whatever they bid us this is to erect an infallible chair in the State in the stead of the Church which is a new unheard of piece of Popery But if we stand out and refuse the Test how shall the Credit and Honour of Authority be saved It were to be wished it did consult its own Credit more before the making of any Laws and Edicts for there cannot be too great deliberation used in enacting such things as are to oblige the whole Nation at present and their Posterity for the time to come And much more heed ought to be had in appointing an Oath to be sworn by the most considerable part thereof If our Ecclesiastik Superiors had been so kind and just to themselves and their Clergy as to have consulted the wisest of their Presbyters within the Kingdom it 's like it might have prevented much of this inconveniency But now that it 's done all who can take this Oath with a clear Conscience let them take it and much good may it do them But as for these who cannot take it let them suffer patiently the penaltly inflicted by the Law and let them behave themselves orderly and peaceably without making any rent in the State or Schism in the Church and without reflecting on their Governours Yeâ— that it may be seen by all men they are acted by Principles of Conscience And this seems to be the best way that is now left for salving the Credit of Authority And yet many wise men think that it would be no reflection on Authority if His Majesty out of his Goodness finding how great a Grievance the urging of the Test is like to prove to his best and most loyal Subjects which could not be so well known till it was tryed should suspend the Execution of the Law till further advice It obligeth us to swear That we believe the Confession recorded in the 1. Par. James 6. is founded on and agreeable to the written Word of God Now if there be but one single proposition in that Confession either false or dubious not exprest in or clearly deduced from the Scriptures can we sweaâ— it with a good Conscience Surely whoever reads it with understanding will find many things doubtful and uncertain at least But it deserves to be particularly remarked that it contains Doctrines which manifestly cross the many ends of the Test This was certainly designed to guard and engage men against Fanatical principles and yet for all that it obliges all that swear it to own the most capital and fundamental principles of those who are called Fanatiks They maintain that our obedience to the supreme Magistrate is to be limited and that if he be an enemy to the Truth and Cause of
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
received the same For we dare not receive nor admit any interpretation which repugnes to any principal point of our faith or to any other plain text of Scripture or yet unto the rule of charity XIX Of The Authority of the Scriptures AS we believe and confess the Scriptures of God sufficient to instruct and make the man of God perfect so do we affirm and avow the Authority of the same to be of God and neither to depend on Men nor Angels We affirm therefore that such as alledg the Scripture to have no other Authority but that which it has received from the Kirk to be blasphemous against God and â—njurious to the true Kirk which always hears and obeys the voice of her own Spouse and Pastor but takes not upon her to be Mistres over the same XX. Of General Councils of their Power Authority and cause of their Convention AS we do not rashly damn that which godly men assembled together in General Council lawfully gathered have proponed unto us so without just examination dare we not receive whatsoever is obtruded unto men under the name of General Councils For plain it is as they were men so have some of them manifestly erred and that in matters of great weight and importance So far then as the Council proves the determination and commandment that it gives by the plain word of God so soon do we reverence and embrace the same But if men under the name of a Council pretend to forge unto us new Articles of our Faith or to make Constitutions repugning to the Word of God then utterly we must refuse the same as the Doctrine of Devils which draws our souls from the voice of our only God to follow the Doctrines and Constitutions of men The cause then why that General Councils conveened was neither to make any perpetual Law which God before had not made neither yet to forge new Articles of our Belief nor to give the Word of God Authority much less to make that to be his Word or yet the true Interpretation of the same which was not before by his holy will expressed in his word But the cause of Councils we mean of such as merit the name of Councils was partly for confutation of Heresies and for giving publick confession of their Faith to Posterity following which both they did by the authority of Gods written Word and not by any Opinion or Prerogative that they could not erre by reason of their general Assembly-And this we judg to have been the chief cause of General Councils The other was for good Policy and Order to be constitute and observed in the Kirk in which as in the house of God it becomes all things to be done decently and in order Not that we think that any policy and order in Ceremonies can be appointed for all ages times and places For as Ceremonies such as men have devised are but temporal so may and ought they to be changed when they rather foster Superstition than that they edifie the Kirk using the same XXI Of the Sacraments AS the Fathers under the Law besides the verity of the Sacrifices had two chief Sacraments to wit Circumcision and the Passeover the despisers and contemners whereof were not reputed of Gods People so do we acknowledg and confess that we now in the time of the Evangel have two chief Sacraments only instituted by the Lord Jesus and commanded to be used of all these that will be reâ—uted Members of his Body to wit Baptism and the Supper or Table of the Lord Jesus called the Communion of his Body and Blood And these Sacraments as well of Old as New Testament were instituted of God not only to make a visible difference betwixt his People and these that were without his League but also to exercise the faith of his Children and by participation of the same Sacraments to seal in their hearts the assurance of his promise and of that most blessed conjunction union and society which the Elect have with their Head Christ Jesus And thus we utterly damn the vanity of them that affirm Sacraments to be nothing else but naked and bare signs No we assuredly believe that by Baptism we are ingrafted in Christ Jesus to be made pertakers of his Justice by which our sins are covered and remitted And also that in the Supper rightly used Christ Jesus is so joyned with us that he becomes very nourishment and food of our souls Not that we imagine any Transubstantiation of Bread into Christs natural Body of Wine into his natural Blood as the Papists have perniciously taught and damnably believed but this Union and Conjunction which we have with the Body and Blood of Christ Iesus in the right use of the Sacraments is wrought by the operation of the Holy Ghost who by true faith carries us above all things that are visible carnal and earthly and makes us to feed upon the Body and Blood of Christ Iesus which was once broken and shed for us who now is in Heaven and appears in the presence of his Father for us And yet notwithstanding the far distance of place which is betwixt his body now glorified in Heaven and us now mortal in this earth yet we most assuredly believe that the bread which we break is the Communion of Christs Body and the Cup which we bless is the Communion of his Blood So that we confess and undoubtedly believe that the faithful in the right use of the Lords Table do so eat the Body and drink the Blood of the Lord Iesus that he remains in them and they in him Yea they are so made flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones that as the eternal Godhead has given to the flesh of Christ Iesus which of its own condition and nature was mortal and corruptible life and immortality so does Christ Iesus his flesh and blood eaten and drunken by us give unto us the same Prerogatives Which albeit we confess are neither given unto us at that time only neither yet by the proper power and virtue of the Sacrament only yet we affirm that the faithful in the right use of the Lords Table has such Conjunction with Christ Iesus as the natural man cannot apprehend Yea and further we affirm That albeit the faithful oppressed by negligence and manly infirmity does not profit so much as they would in the very instant Action of the Supper yet shall it after bring fruit forth as lively seed sown in good ground For the Holy Spirit which can never be divided from the right Institution of the Lord Iesus will not frustrate the faithful of the fruit of that mystical Action but all this we say comes of true faith which apprehends Christ Iesus who only makes this Sacrament effectual unto us And therefore whosoever slanders us as that we affirm or believe Sacraments to be naked and bare signs do injury unto us and speak against the manifest truth But this liberally and frankly
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
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
to own it Cessante enim materia juramenti cessat ejusdem obligatio radice obligationis sublata tollitur â—â—â pullulans inde obligatio according to all Casuists Juramentum sequitur naturam conditionem actus cui adjungitur id est materiae circa quam versatur sicut accessorium sequitur naturam sui principalis accessorium extinguitur cum principale cadit D. Sandersone These who believe Episcopacy to be of Divine Right have no cause to fear that ever the King will alter this specifick form of Church-Government neither inclination nor interest moving him to it The Aphorism so usual with His Majesties Royal Grandfather No Bishop no King cannot but make deep impression on His Majesty and must be considered not only as a sentence full of present truth when it was uttered but a sad prophecy of the Tragical events which after ensued And as the greatest and most politick Underminers of the Monarchy did of late so their successors continue still to make their oblique and first assaults upon it by raising their batteries against the setled Episcopacy 3 If the words of that assertory Act be sedately weighed they will not be found to bear the weight of this Objection for the odds are vast betwixt them a power to order and dispose the external Government and Policy of the Church together with the ordering of the administration of the external Government of the Church which are the words of that Act and the power of altering and changing the specifick and essential Government of the Church the former relating to the Ecclesiastical ordering of Ecclesiastical Persons Matters and Meetings as the Act it self expresly bears The King may and ought to have the ordering and disposing and administration of the external Government of the Church without claiming a power to alter or change the very Species Body and essence of it Nor may we in charity presume that our Gracious King challenges any such power to himself by vertue of that Act assertory nor doth it hinder any to believe Episcopal Government to be institute of God that in the exercise and external administration thereof it is subject to the Orders and Authority of the Prince for the same power may be said to be from Heaven and to be of men under different notions and respects to be from Heaven and of God in respect of the substance of the thing in general and to be of men in respect of the determination of sundry particulars requisite to the lawful and laudable exercise thereof Tho the Ministerial Power be of God yet are the Ministers in executing the Acts proper to their Ministerial Functions regulated and ordered by Ecclesiastical Laws Canons of the Church or Acts of General Assemblies Nor doth the derivation of any power from God necessarily infer the Non-subjection of the persons in whom that power is vested to any others as to the managing and exercise thereof For the power which Fathers have over their Children Husbands over their Wives Masters over their Servants is from Heaven of God and not of Men yet are Parents Husbands Masters in the exercise of their several respective powers subject to the powers Jurisdictions and Laws of the lawful Soveraigns It will prove a very difficult task for any man to find out a clear and satisfying reason of difference in this present case betwixt the Ecclesiastical power Oeconomical why the one because it claimeth to be of Divine Right should be therefore exempted from the Regulation of it in its exercise by humane Laws and not the other which flows from Heaven and is equally of Divine Right with the former 5. In fine All such who have sworn the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy since the assertory Act was made Anno 1669 can have no pretence to scruple the taking of this Test upon account of any thing contained in the Act of Supremacy already sworn by them in as much as they must be understood to have taken that Oath in the sense of the Lawgivers who framed that Act. Before we come to the Third Classis of Objections it will be necessary to say something for satisfaction of the Doubts of some who apprehend contradictions betwixt some expressions in the Consession of Faith and others in the same Consession and betwixt some assertions therein and others in the Test So that they think by taking this Oath they shall he ensnared to swear to contradictory Propositions Two are instanced that in the Article concerning the Immortality of Souls it is said That the Elect departed this life are delivered from all torment And yet in the same Article it is asserted That neither the Elect nor Reprobate are in such sleep after death that they feel no torment To this seeming contradiction it is answered 1. That this flows from the mistake and error of the Printer alone and not from any fault in the Confession For in that History of the Reformation of the Kirk of Scotland of the foresaid Edition the later part of the Article runs thus So that neither the one nor the other are in such sleep that they feel nothing Which clearly takes off all shadow of Contradiction as well as the error of those against whom that Article seemsto be levelled But finally the Latin Paraphrase of it in the Harmony of Confessions takes off all difficultly For there the words run thus Adeo ut neque hi neque illi ita dormiant ut non sentiant in qua conditione versentur Another seeming contradiction is betwixt the Confession and the Test viz. Art 25. it is said That they who resist the supreme Powers doing that which belongs to their charge resist Gods Ordinance and they who deny to them their aid counsel comfort c while the Princeâ— and Rulers vigilantly travel in the execution of their Office these deny their help and support to God which words seem to disallow the resisting of the supreme Magistrate only conditionally and in a limited and restricted sense Again the Oath and Test assert That it is unlawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take up arms against the King or these commissionate by him which doth declare the resisting of the Soveraign power to be simply and absolutely unlawful without any restriction or limitation Ans. Here is no Contradiction if the Logical Rules be observed For to resist the Supreme Powers doing that which pertains to their charge is to resist Gods Ordinance and not to resist the Supreme Powers doing that which pertains to their charge is to resist Gods Ordinance were indeed a contradiction but to resist the Supreme Powers doing that which appertains to their charge is to resist Gods Ordinance and to resist the Supreme Powers upon whatsoever pretence is to resist Gods Ordinance imports no manner of contradiction And so of the other proposition To deny aid counsel c. while Princes and Rulers vigilantly travel c. in the execution of their Office and not to deny aid counsel c. while
certainly no man of sober sense will think that it is fit to insinuate that so high a judicature might have authorized or acquiescedin such Explanations as the Liedges thereafter should be entrapped to have used If the Pannel had officiously or ultrâ—neously offered a sense or Explanation of His Majesties Laws which the Laws themselves could not have born it might justly have been alledged that he was extraordinem and medling in a matter he was not concerned in but where the Act of Council did enjoyn and he was required and cited to that effect It could neither be constructed as ostentation or to move or encourage Scruples or Resistance but it was absolutely necessary either for to have refused the Test or else to have declared what he thought to be the true and genuine meaning of it And there being so many objections publikly moved and known his Explanation was nothing else but to clear That he did not look upon these Scruples and Objections moved by others as well founded and rational in themselves and therefore he was able to take the Test in that sense the Council had heard or allowed And it is not controverted that the sense of the Legislator is the genuine sense both of Laws and Oaths And if a person were only interpreting the meaning of either a Law or an Oath imposed he should deprave and misconstruct the Law and Oath if he rendered it wittingly and willingly in terms inconsistent with the meaning of the imposer But there is a great difference betwixt taking of Oaths and interpreting Oaths For when a man comes to take an Oath except his particular sense did agree with the genuine meaning of the imposer he cannot take that Oath tho he may very well interpret and declare what is the sense of the Legislator which he may know and yet perhaps not be able to take the Oath And therefore when there is any doubtfulness in an Oath and a party is bound to take it if then he gives in an Explication of the sense which he in his private judgment doth apprehend to be the genuine meaning if that private sense be disconform to the Legislators sense in the Oath then the Imposer of the Oath or he that has power to offer it to the party if he consider the parties sense disconform he ought to reject the Oath as not fulfilling the intent of the Law imposing it But it is impossible to state that as a Crime That a party should neither believe what is proposed in the Oath nor be able to take it And he can run no farther hazard but the penalty imposed upon the Refuser And therefore in all Oaths there must be a concourse both of the sense imposed by Authority and of the private Sense Iudgment or Conscience of the party And therefore if a party should take an Oath in the Sense proposed by Authority contrary to his own sense he were perjured whereby it is evident that the sense of Authority is not sufficient without the acquiescence and consent of the private person And therefore it is very strange why that part of the Pannel's Explanation should be challenged that he takes it in his own Sense the posterior words making it as plain as the light that that sense of his own is not what he pleases to make of the Oath for it bears expresly that no body can explain it but for himself and reconcile it as it is genuine and agrees in its own sense So that there must be a Reconciliation betwixt his own sense and the genuine sense which upon all hands is acknowledged to be the Sense of Authority And if the Pannel had been of these lax and debaucht Principles that he might have evaded the meaning and energy of the Oath by imposing upon it what sense he pleased certainly he would have contented himself in the general refuge of Equivocation or Mental Reservation and he would never have exposed his sense to the world in which he took this Oath whereby he became absolutely fixed and determined to the Oath in that particular sense and so had no latitude of shuffling off the Energy or Obligation of the Oath And it is likewise acknowledged That the Cases alledged in the Reply are true viz. That the person is guilty of Perjury si aliquo novo Commento he would elude his Oath or who doth not fulfil the Oath in the sense of the Imposer But that does not concern this Case For in the foresaid Citation a person after he has taken an Oath finding out some new conceit to elude it he is perjured but in this Case the Pannel did at and before his taking the Test declare the terms in which he understood it So that this was not novâ— aliquo commento to elude it And the other Case where a party takes it in the sense of Authority but has some subterfuge or concealed Explanation it is acknowledged to be Perjury But in this Case there was no concealed Explanation but it was publikly exprest and an Explanation given which the Pannel designed and understood as the meaning of Authority and had ground to believe he was not mistaken since upon that Explanation he was received and allowed to sit and vote in Council And as to that part of the Reply that explains the Treason there can be no Treason in the Pannel's Case because the express Act of Parliament founded upon doth relate only to the Constitution of the Parliament And I am sure His Majesties Advocate cannot subsume in these terms And therefore in the Reply he recurs to the general Grounds of the Law That the usurping of His Majesties Authority in making a part of the Law and to make alterations in general and without the King are high and treasonable words or designs and such as the party pleases and such designs as have been practised in the late times And that even the adjection of fair and safe words as in the Covenant does not secure from treasonable Designs and that it was so found in Balmerino's Case tho it bear a fair Narrative of an humble Supplication It is replied That the usurpation of making of Laws is undoubtedly treasonable but no such thing can be pretended or subsumed in this Case For albeit the Pannel declares his Explanation to be a part of his Oath yet he never meaned to impose it as a part of the Law or that this Explanation should be a thing distinct or a separate part even of his Oath For his Explanation being but exegetik of the several parts of the Oath it is no distinct thing from the Oath but declared to be a part of the Oath de natura rei And it was never pretended That he that alledged any thing to be de natura rei did say That that was distinct and separate which were a Contradiction And therefore the Argument is retorted the Pannel having declared this Explanation was de natura rei implied in the Oath he necessarily made this
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