About the Burgeſs-Oath.              19

tion, I can ſee no difference. This Oath, there-
fore, takes it for granted, That the religion eſta-
bliſhed by law, and profeſſed in the National
Church, is the true religion. The perſon who
ſwears it proteſts, upon oath, That he profeſſes
that religion, and allows it with his heart; and,
That he ſhall abide by it, and defend it to the end
of his life. It cannot be ſuppoſed that any magi-
ſtrate, who himſelf adheres to the eſtabliſhed reli-
gion, will administer it in a different ſenſe: Nor
would any unconcerned ſpectator conſider the
ſwearer as meaning any thing elſe. Nay, it ad-
mits not of a doubt, That, during the time when
Prelacy was the eſtabliſhed religion in Scotland,
the ſame oath, administered by Prelatical magi-
strates, was conſidered as binding the ſwearer to
that religion. Thus, however lawful, or conſiſt-
ent it may be, for a man to ſwear that oath, 'who
adheres to the Established Church, and ſincerely
reſolves to continue in her communion (and with
this the Synod's act does not meddle), for a Sece-
der to ſwear it, reſolving to continue in a ſtate of
ſeparation from the Eſtabliſhed Church, and to
bear testimony againſt any part of the established
religion, muſt amount to the moſt ſhameful juggling
with God and man. Such a perſon ſwears a false-
hood, in relation to the time paſt; and, in reſpect.
of the time to come, he lays himſelf under a ſo-
lemn engagement which he reſolves to break every
day of his life. If this be not to ſwear deceitfully,
let thoſe who plead for it tell what it is.

Our Brethren, we know, have various excep-
tions againſt this reaſoning: They ſay, for inſtance,
" In the Burgeſs-Oath we ſwear only to the true
" religion; that is, To the Proteſtant religion,
" as oppoſed to Popery; and not to any particu-
                                 C                                   " lar