rdained, that
none shall bear any place of public trust in the nation, but such as
have the qualifications God requires in his word. Thus, in the prefatory
part of the act, they say, "The estates of parliament taking into
consideration, that the Lord our God requires that such as bear charge
among his people, should be able men, fearing God, hating covetousness,
and dealing truly: and that many of the evils of sin and punishment,
under which the land groans, have come to pass, because hitherto they
have not been sufficiently provided and cared for," &c. (And afterward
in the statutory part), "Do therefore ordain, that all such as shall be
employed in any place of power and trust in this kingdom, shall not only
be able men, but men of known affection unto, and of approved fidelity
and integrity in the cause of God, and of a blameless Christian
conversation," &c. To the same purpose, _Act_ 11th, _Parl._ 2d, _Sess._
3d, entitled _act for purging the army_. See also the coronation oath,
of _Scotland_, as subscribed by _Charles II_, at _Scoon_, 1650. All
which, and many other fundamental laws of the like nature, made in time
of reformation, show the principles of our reformers to have been quite
different from those of _Seceders_ anent civil government: and that to
constitute lawful magistrates, they must of necessity have scriptural
and covenant qualifications, besides the consent of the people. With
what face then can they pretend to have adopted a testimony for
reformation principles, and to be of the same principles with our late
reformers? The vanity of this pretense will further appear, by comparing
their principles with the Solemn League and Covenant, with every article
of which they are inconsistent. They profess the moral obligation of the
covenants, and yet at the same time maintain the lawfulness of every
providential government, whether popish or prelatic, if set up by the
body politic. But how opposite this to the _first_ article, obliging
constantly to endeavor the preservation of the reformed religion? Can it
be consistent therewith, to commit the government of the nations to a
sworn enemy to the reformation? or, with that sincerity which becomes
the professors of Christ, to plead the lawfulness of an authority raised
upon the overthrow of the reformed religion? No less opposite is it to
the _second_ article, which obliges, and that without respect of
persons, to endeavor the extirpation of popery, prelacy--to m