IN this Act there are Two things imposed, An Oath, and A Renunciation of the Covenant. And we must lay down this ^* Rule at firsT, That all Impositions of our Superiours, must be taken in the Sense and Meaning of those that Impose them: There need be no Scruple else in Submission to any thing enjoyned. The bottom is this; The Law is the Will of the Lawgiver; and it is the Lawgiver's Meaning, which is his Will, howsoever the Words of the Law is expressed.

Not that when we distinguish the Words and the Meaning, we do divide them. An Imposition must be taken in the ve­ry Words, and the Sense of the Words, but the Sense of the Words must be the Meaning of the Lawgiver: Although there are Words sometimes also to be understood, when it is appa­rent either from the Subject-matter, or from other Acts where that Meaning is fully, or fuller declared. The law it self now (we know) hath no Meaning or Intention, but the Lawgiver, or They that make it. The Parliament here is the Lawgiver, and this Oath then must be taken, and Renun­ciation made in the Sense and Meaning of the Major Part of the Parliament which passed the Act.

Here we must also premise thus much, That it is not for any Sheriff, Alderman, or any other Person upon whom this Oath is imposed, (for we must begin with That) to put a Mean­ing of his Own upon it, which is to be taken only in Theirs that passed the Act; but to consider verily, what he believes to be that Meaning, which is indeed the Lawgivers. Not to determine neither and say, This is the Meaning; but to be able to say, I ^* Believe this to be their meaning, which is necessary to every one that takes it, to determine for himself, that he may act in Faith in what he does.

We must add, That when we say the Parliament is the Lawgiver, we understand by the Parliament, the King, Lords and Commons; and consequently, that the Sense of the Law, (and so of this Oath) must be always that Sense, wherein the House of Lords did concur with the House of Commons, and the King with Both. If there be any Sense therefore of an Imposition, which may be supposed to be the Meaning of the King, and not of the Houses; or of One of the Houses, and not the Other; or a lesser part of either Houses, and not the majori­ty of both; that Sense must be still lookt on as too narrow, and ought not to scruple the Conscience: the true Sense ob­liging the Subject, being the concurrent Sense of the King, Lords and Commons, who as assembled joyntly to this end of Legislation, not One without the Other, but all Three toge­ther as One Corporation (and not otherwise) are the Lawgiver.

Neither is this sense to be collected, from the first floating Apprehensions of any one, that moves a matter in the House, but from the digested Thoughts of both Houses, after a ma­ture Debate, and the thing hath thrice passed in them both; so that no Sense of any Imposition, but that which is agreable to Reason, and more especially to the Fundamental Laws of the Constitution, must be received as the ^* Meaning of a Par­liament; the Reason being, because the nature of the Consti­tution is such, as it cannot be infringed by an Act or Law for the Administration.

This is a Note to be laid in here, that by and by will be needful: And thus much therefore farther, and no less being premised, we proceed.

By taking Arms, Let us suppose the Sheriffs believe the Par­liament meant the raising an Army, or War; and by the King, the King's own Sacred Person, as there is nothing else in­deed can be meant: And we can see no ^* Objection, which may not be answer'd from this Little, in the First Clause of the Oath. I A. B. do swear, That I hold (These words, I hold, I believe, or the like, must doubtlesly be understood) it is unlawful to Take up Arms against the King, (His Authori­ty, or Rightful Government) upon any Pretence whatsoever.

If David's Heart smote him for cutting off but Saul's Skirt, when he was actually in Arms to defend hemself against Saul's Forces, only because he was the Lord's Anointed: It is not in this first Clause (any one may conjecture) but in the ensuing, where the chief Scruples against the Oath are to be removed.

In the Second Clause, By those Commissionated by Him, let us suppose they beleive the Parliament meant, & could mean, no other than such as have a due Authority from HIm, and exercise it only according to Law: And so long as the King's Authority, and such Commissions are one, (or the same,) we can see no more difficulty remaining in the Second Clause, than in the former: And I do abhor (that is, disown or disclaim) that Trayterous Position, of taking Arms by his Authority against [Page 5]His Person, or against any Commissionated by Him, in the pur­suit of such Commissions: That is, Legally Commissionated by Him, in the Legal pursuit of such Commissions.

It is not to be imagined, that the Parliament, when they passed this Act, (that is, the Major part of them) should de­sign the setting up an Arbitrary Government in the Nation: But if the meaning of those Commissionated by Him, be other­wise than thus, they must design it. An Arbitrary Power, as soon as they passed this Clause in any Act, must be ac­counted to Commence, or be declared to be alwayes the Right of the King. A thing most absurd to be believed, and in the contrary Belief whereof, the most scrupulous Man (we thank God) may resolvedly take this Oath.

In the Third Clause, we distinguish an Endeavour to change or reform any thing in Church or State, which we think conducive to the good of the Nation in a Parliamentary way only, as is allowed by the Fundamental Law and Course of the Realm, from an Endeavour in any other way that is not warranted by the same: to wit, in a seditious way, or in such manner as they did in the late Times, when they endea­voured the Extirpation of Frelacy by force against, and with­out the King's Consent in Parliament, (which may be be­lieved to be the assured Sense of the Majority in the Houses, when they passed this Act) and so long as to do so ^* now, may be acknowledged (as assuredly) to be unlawful, and what ought to be disclaimed, the offence must be over in the last part of the Oath also: And that I will not endeavour any Alter­ation of Goverment either in Church or State; to wit, in any manner not warranted by the Constitution of the Land, or any otherwise, than by Act of Parliament. [Page 6]The Preamble of the Oxford Act, (where the same Oath is Imposed on the Nonconformist Ministers) declaring it to be made, for the preventing the Opportunity of their in­stilling into Folks the Principles of Schism and Rebellion, may give some Credit to this Exposition: But it is this one clear Reason or Argument we rest pon, for our Confirmation in it. The great Thing intended by this Oath, is the Pre­servation of the Government, in the Fundamental Constitu­tion, against all Alteration. But the Constitution of our Go­vernment being such in the Foundation, that whatever is need­ful or convenient to be altered, it may be proposed to that end in Parliament: to take away that Liberty which is universal­ly radicated in the whole Nation in order thereunto, were a piece of the greatest Alteration that could be, and conse­quently never to be understood, as intended by the Lawgiver.

As for the Solemn League and Covenant (the Renunciation whereof, is the Second thing here imposed) it is an Oath so long since in Being, that, 'tis two to one but Both the Sheriffs that shall be Chosen, (as well as those of late before them) never took; so that they may safely say, there lies no Obli­gation upon them at all from it; And as for others that did, we humbly conceive, that being taken in it's Complex Consi­deration, as it was pressed and used at that time, for the en­gagement of the People to the Extirpation of the Bishops, and Change of Church-Government without the King, against [Page 7]His Consent and Publick Declarations, and by Force; it must needs be Ʋnlawful, and could not bind any body to do so: and consequently we trust, that such Gentlemen shall not of­fend God, or any good Men, if they farther subscribe this Declaration, which is also required: I. A. B. do declare, Taht I hold there lies no Obligation on me, or on any other Person, from the Oath commonly called, The Solemn League and Co­venant, to endeavour any Change or Alteration of Government either in Church or State; And that the same was in it self an unlawful Oath, and imposed on the Subjects of this Realm, a­gainst the known Laws and Liberties of the Kingdom.

We confess here, that these Words, [to endeavour any Al­teration of Government in Church or State] were put in by the Author, unwittingly thinking them to be in this Act, be­cause they are in others, and it passed two Impressions, with­out any Knowledge of ours, that it was otherwise: But now do we let them stand, de Industria, because it appears, they are to be ^* understood, both from other Acts, The Ʋniformity Act, The Vestry Act, The Oxford Act, which have the same Declaration with these words in it (wherein we are yet more confirm'd by that Act, where it is made a Premunire to say, There lies an Obligation upon any from this Oath, the Obligation being expressed, to do thus): As also, from the Nature of the Thing; for so long as the Meaning of the Law­giver is the Rule we go by, let us but suppose we could go to the same Parliament, Man by Man, & ask them, Was it your Meaning by this Declaration, that any man, who took that Co­venant, should profess, that he is not bound to reform his Life, to repent to his Sins, to eschew Profaneness, Popery, & Schism, or the like things they then covenanted to do, because that Oath in some respect otherwise was unlawful; the Genera­lity, without Question, would Answer NO, by no means; but our meaning was onely, that there lies no Obligation on any from that Covenant, to endeavour to Extirpate Prelacy, as it was there, or any Alteration of Government, as it is ex­pressed [Page 8]by us in other Acts. This being supposed then the undoubted Meaning, we go on.

By some of the last words of the Declaration it appears, that this Oath was framed for the Subjects of the Realm, (we say, that this Oath ( i.e. the Covenant) was, in the meaning of the Imposers of this Declaration, the Subjects Oath, and consequent­ly by the words, or any other Person, they must mean, or any o­ther Subject:) which appears also manifestly in the preamble of it; We Noblemen, Barons, Knights, Gentlemen, Citizens, Bur­gesses, Ministers of the Gospell, and Commons of all sorts, be­ing under the King. There is one part of it moreover express for the preservation of the King; we do suppose therefore, that though an Oath to the same main effect, or one like it, was imposed on this King by the Scots, that Oath must be con­ceived another than this, and not the very same, being not so in every point, but an Oath indeed (as they call'd it) to confirm the Covenant, when He offer'd this very Exception against ta­king the Covenant it self, because it was an Oath for the Sub­jects only. ⁷

And this being enough to save the Conscience in one chief Scruple, (and chiefest one,) we will gather up again what is said before into one Argument (which we fix upon) for a ful­ler satisfaction in regard to all others. To own the KIng and his Authority in the same Oath, and yet to swear to change the Government without His Will, and against it, is (we think) in it self unlawful. Such an Oath was the Covenant; and Qua unlawful, it must be unobligatory.

And what indeed shall now hinder these Sheriffs to sub­scribe, That there lies no obligation upon them, or others, from the Covenant, to endeavour any Alteration of Government; in that sense as they swear before, that they will not endeavour any, in the third clause of the Oath preceding? For so long as the meaning of the Lawgiver, is no other than That which is made to appear there, upon the account given, and the En­deavour which is here, and which is there, is the same out of doubt, we do not see but the Reason which does satisfie a­ny Man upon the Point about taking the Oath, must be suffi­cient for the Declaration also. In short, There lyes no obliga­tion upon any from this Oath, to do as they sware [...]t; It is in it self unlawfull to do so; and the Imposition of it was ^* illegal.

In the Sacred Story concerning Rahab and the Spies, it ap­pears that no body can be engaged any farther by an Oath, then what he agrees or consents to in the taking it. Where he declares before-hand he will not be bound, he is free. We cannot tell how much larger, or how much narrower a Com­pass others may draw to themselves from that Instance, than we: But we will come to this Conclusion. We have laid down the Rule we are to walk by in these Impositions, and applied it to this Oath and Subscription. If any Man is per­swaded in his Conscience, that the Meaning of the Lawgiver was no more than thus, he may submit to them Both, and make no stand: But if he believes their Meaning was other­wise (or doubts that it was more than thus,) he cannot Swear or Subscribe, but with Limitations; and he must declare those Limitations, or Forbear. But if he shall Swear or Subscribe (sup­posing him one that doubts) w ^th making a Declaration for himself (if this Paper will not serve for All) when he Takes the Oath, and Subscribes the Renunciation enjoyn'd, that he does it in this Meaning, which we have all along expressed, supposing it true, and with these Explanatory Limitations to the meaning, if in any thing indeed it be otherwise, and so give (or throw) in this Paper to the Persons before whom he is to do it; we are persaded, that his Conscience may receive Satisfaction there­by in his complyance with the ^* Law in these Impositions.

Whether they receive the Paper, and admit of your sense or not, it is no matter; for they have no Power about it, and the thing will be alike known. And thus have we lent our hands to get the Concern'd over these blocks, and yet so, as to deliver also our Souls.

BY the Act at oxford there is this Oath enjoyned every Nonconformist Minister, upon the Penalty of debarring him the com­ing within Five Mile of any Corporation. J. A. B. Do Swear, that it is unlawful to take Armes against the King, upon any pretence whatsoever: And that I abhor that Trayterous Position, of Taking Armes by the King's Authority against his Person, or any Commissionated by him: And that I will not at [Page 12]any time Endeavour any Alteration of Government, either in Church or State. In which Oath there are three Clauses.

The First and Second Clause of it, comes to this, That it is not Lawful to take Armes against the King, or any Commissionated by Him, upon any Pretence; No, not upon the Pretence of His Authori­ty in the Law. It is a Trayterous Position, to hold e­ven that lawful. And all this is true, plain, and to be granted, as soon as we do but under­stand onely what to be Commissionated is. To be Commissionated by the King, is to have his Au­thority, or Authority from him, to do such a thing. If we take Armes against one that does do any thing by the Kings Authori­ty, we take Armes against His Authority, and that is all one with taking Armes against the King; and consequently, to declare it un­lawful to take Armes against the King, and against those Commissionated by him, is in effect also but the same. The Authority of the King, and His Person, are both alike Sacred, and both these must be held alike inviolable on all hands. The question then only will be this, What is the King's Authority? Authority (Potestas) is jus imperandi, a Right or Power to command: This Right or Power is given the [Page 13] King by Law. It is the Law makes the King, (says Bracton), Lex facit Regem; the meaning whereof is, that the Authority which the King hath, can be no other but what the Law does grant him. The Government (we know) with us is Regal, and not Despotical, and the King's Power, a Power onely to Govern by the Laws. If the King then shall Commissionate any to do that which is against Law, that Commission is void; it is a Writing, but no Commission; that is, it is without Authority; For the King hath none to give against the Law, but For the Law, who is the Executioner of it. For a Man then to act in such a Matter wherein the King hath none to give, it is in­vain to plead a Commission. If he be taken, and punished, he must thank himself: this is no resisting the King, or any Commissionated by Him. For instance, a Prince gives Commis­sion to Levy Money, without a Tax by Par­liament; His Officers or Souldiers come here­upon, and takes a Mans Goods; the Man runs for the Constable, and the Consta­ble Charges the Neighbourhood in the King's Name to assist him, and so apprehends them, and brings them to the Justice; the Justice send them to Goal; and then the Judg Hangs them: And all this is justifiable, be­cause [Page 14]such Authority is none; and they be­ing therefore no Commissionated Officers, are but Thevies and Robbers; who, when the King can do no wrong, yet they do, and are justly Execu­ted for it. We see then here plainly, how we may declare it unlawful to take Armes a­gainst the King, and against those that are Commissionated by Him, upon one and the same Reason: For when no Man may take Armes against the King, or his Rightful Authority, and no body is indeed Commissionated by Him, but he that acts according to the Law, and so hath his Authority; it is, and must be unlawful to take Armes against those that are Commissi­onated by him, as well as against Himself. Not­withstanding that, if any act against the Law, and plead his Commission, they be re­sisted by the Law, because such are not indeed Commissionated by him.

For the third Clause of the Oath, the Con­stitution of the English Government is such, as every Freeman hath a fundamental Liberty by the same, to endeavour the Redress of any Grievance, which he feels in the Administra­tion; which Administration comprizes under it the whole Government of the Church, as Exter­nal, and may make any Alteration thereof, when Monarchy it self belongs to the Constituti­on. [Page 15]This Part then of the People, which they have in our Government, reaches thus far. The Body do choose their Burgesses for Parliament; they may inform them of these Grievances; we may Petition them for Alteration; we may out of doubt, pray to God for their suc­cess. Our Representatives, then are to prefer the Bills, and get them passed, if they can do it. Thus much (let us say) is the Right of the People, no less than the bearing the Sword, (that is, the Execution of the Government) is the Prerogative of the King, or a Negative Voice is the Priviledge of Both Houses. It is not now ever to be imagined therefore, that it was the Meaning of a Parliament, to divest any English-man of this Right, to which he was Born, because he is a Nonconformist; neither can they indeed do it. It is not to be imagi­ned, that an Endeavour for the Government to act, or to exercise its proper acts, or to put its proper Power into Act, which is but to keep it alive, or keep it in motion, should be that Endeavour, which the Majority of Parlia­ment would have abjured in this Oath. It is not to be imagin'd, that the Parliament when they go about to preserve the Government from any Alteration, should have any such Meaning, as must destroy its very Constituti­on. [Page 16]We determine consequently, it must not be an Endeavour of any Alteration (supposed needful) in this way, that is, in a Parliamenta­ry way onely, which they intended we should renounce; but all Endeavour of altering Go­vernment in any other way or manner, than what is warranted by the Fundamental Law of this Kingdom. And if this Radical Liber­ty be left us, we see how we may, and must do as much towards Reformation of the Church, after such an Oath is taken, as we may, or can do before we have taken it. We cannot endeavour any thing in a Seditious way, but we sin against God, and the King, which we dare not do; and the way which is lawful to be taken, is open to us still. It follows, so long as we go by the Meaning of the Lawgiver, which is the Rule laid down to go by, we may both take the Oath, and it will do us no hurt to take it.

For Surplusage, it was proposed in the Lords House upon occasion of the Test, and a­greed upon generally, that the Meaning of the Commissionated was Legally Commissionated, though they thought it not best to put it into a Bill for some prevailing Reasons. The like was in the House of Commons also, as it is said. Now though a Vote of either House be not e­nough [Page 17]to repeal a Law, it is enough to tell us the Meaning of the Lawgiver, which does re­solve this Case of Conscience: Unto which, when we can add this also, that it is known to some, that the King hath said it Solemnly more than once, in publick, and in private both, that he was not for an Arbitrary Pow­er, but such an one onely, as the Law gives him, (we mean in words to that purpose) what is there any Man can desire more for his full Satisfaction in this Matter? What hinders, but this Oath may be taken? And when they had read the Epistle, they Rejoyced for the Consolation.

WE are not unsensible of what moment an Oath is, and the Declaration enjoyned, who have set our selves, as in the presence of God, that must give an account before his Tribunal for every Word that we write, in our Underta­king so solemn a Determination as this is. We warn every Man therefore, to be true to our Rule, and to take heed that he acts nothing, till he is first perswaded in his own mind of what he does; For while we endeavour to give a Resoluti­on to the Conscience, of others, we must have a care of our own Souls.

There are two main Objections in the Case.

The First is this. The Oath, and Renunciation of the Co­venant, which are here imposed, seem to be framed in direct Opposition to the late Parliament-Cause. The Parliament-Cause [Page 19]stood upon this Foundation, That the Law is above the Will or Commissions. Upon the King's Restauration to his Throne, a New Parliament is called, and they by this Oath, and the like Impositions, are supposed to decide the controversy. When we are put therefore here to renounce the Position of taking Armes by the Law, or the Kings Au­thority, against any Commissionated by him, we must (upon this supposition) conceive the Parliament meant, that Position should be abjured, whether those Commissions be Legal or Illegal; for otherwise the Controversy is not deci­ded. The Position of taking Armes by the Authority of the Law, against any Commissionated by the King, was not maintained on the Parliament side, but onely in Case those Commissions were against Law; and unless we renounce the Position of taking Armes by the Law, against all Commissi­ons, though illegal, we renounce ot the Position of that Parliament.

To this Objection, we Reply in the First place; If the Par­liament must be conceived to put thus much upon us, then must we believe that they took this for granted, that no Com­mission of the King, indeed may be resisted, whether ac­cording to the Law, or against the Law; and if so, that the King's Commissions consequently must be above Law, and his Power Absolute. But to believe, that any Parliament should intend to allow the King such a Power, is quite be­yond sober Reason. Let him believe this who can, upon ma­ture Deliberation.

In the Second place, we say therefore, There is here two or three Suppositions, that are not to be yielded. It is but a false Supposition, that the Parliament intended a Decision [Page 20]of the Controversie between the Kings side, and Parliament side, by this Oath. It were a very inadaequate Intention. It is a false Supposition, That this was any of the Controver­sie between the Judicious (or those that understood them­selves) of both sides, who did certainly agree in this, That the Authority of the King is Royal, not Arbitrary; and conse­quently, that his Commmissions are valid, when according to Law, and not else. It is a false Supposition again, That those few Men that contrived these Impositions, or compiled these Acts, were the Parliament. 'Tis true, that what is here urged may be sufficient to suggest to a Man a belief, That the Intention of those that were the Contrivers of these Acts (this Oath, and the Militia Preambles) might be no less, than to make the Kings Will equal to Law; at least in the Matter of the Militia: but we say, and have said in the Margine of one of these Sheets before, That these Contrivers or Compilers (a few mischievous Men perhaps) were not the Lawgiver. The Lawgiver we have premised, and set out in the first Sheet, in the beginning, with advantage against this Supposition. We are by no means, to think that the Majority of the Two Houses, as they agree to an Act, could consent in this to make the King's Commissions above, or equal to Law, which were to change the Government which is Regal, into Despotical. The Law is the Will of the King, in conjunction with his Parliament; His Commissions are His Single Will only, and therefore less than the Law is.

In the Third place, we answer hereupon, That if an appre­hension from this Argument should sink into the Mind of any particular Person so far as to perswade him to think it probable, that this was the meaning of the Parliament; yet if a contra­ry Apprehension sinck deeper, or another Argument be more prevailing, he must follow the more Praedominant Conviction. But there is no Argument so probable, but, that an English Par­liament should intend to make the King Arbitrary, is more improbable. That they never meant this, will have the deeper impression.

In the Fourth place, We may therefore believe rather, that the Parliament thought not of these Positions, on both sides, and the determination of them, (which indeed is not to be imagin'd of the Majority, whatsoever the Contrivers, or a few, might do) but in general, they thought of such a Po­sition, which in the ill Construction they would have abjured; or they intended to decry the Position upon which War was raised, but in such a confused Understanding of it, as that they would have it renounced indefinitely, without intending the Renunciation of that implicite Truth in it, which they on all sides hold to be the very Fundamental Right of the Eng­lish People, according to the Constitution of the Kingdom.

In the Fifth place, we will enlarge a little this Answer, The Parliament-side ('tis true) held it lawful by vertue of the Law, (that is, by the Kings Authority) to resist such as are in Com­mission by the King; but the Wise of them could distinguish the Case, when those Commissionated did act according to Law, and when they did things contrary to Law; and though they held it lawful in One Case, they did not hold it so in the Other. The King's side, on the contrary, held it unlawful to resist the Kings Commissions by his Authority, or by Law; but the Wise of these knew how to distinguish likewise these two cases; and it is not to be belevied, but such as Judge Jenkins (who declares the Laws to be above the Kings Commissions) knew and held, that in case any should come by the Kings Commissions to take our money by force, without an Act of Parliament, or the like, they might legally be resisted. Now, when such a Position of the Unlawfulness to take Arms by the King's Authority, against such as are Commissionated by Him, is required to be renounced, it is necessary to distinguish accordingly, in regard to the meaning of the Parliament: For though some might be willing to have it renounced univer­sally, they that understood themselves could not be of that mind: And if we could go to them all, and ask them one by one, Whether they understood the Oath so as that they would [Page 22]have it held unlawful to resist the King's Officers, or Forces, that came particularly to raise Money, without any Parlia­ment-Tax; who can beleive, the Majority would say, it was their meaning? I do not think one Man of the whole Compa­ny would have the face to say it, whatsoever privately he in­tended. When the Position then is indefinite, but in a mat­ter necessary to be distinguished, and the Question is, What was the Meaning of the Majority? it can come only to this, That they would have the Position renounced in One Sense, and that Sense must be such certainly, as the Government of the Nation, which is Regal, may be still maintained, and not turned to Tyranny; for the Generality, beyond doubt, never once intended to do that by any of these Impositi­ons.

In the Last place, We will add this, to strengthen us in the rest. That it is unlawful to take Arms against any Commissionated by the King, according to Law, is a Sense wherein the King, and the Two Houses must agree, out of doubt: But that it is unlawful to take Arms against any Commissionated by Him, if they shall come with a Commissi­on to do that which is contrary to Law, it was not the Sense of Both Houses, we may be sure, because the House of Lords (as we have said in the Second Sheet) declared, That by the Commissionated, they all meant Legally Commissionated: And also, which is more, when it seemed not fit (for Reasons otherwise, which they had) to have that word [Legally] put into the Oath, (though they agreed in their Judgment, Nemine Contradicente, that it was meant) they threw the Test out of the House. Had the Major Part been of the mind, that the Comissions of the King may never be resist­ed, Why should this Clause be explained? Had not the Major Part been of another mind, Why did not the Test pass? Now, if a Man be but assured, that any one of the Houses, or the King alone, be against such or such a Sense, it is e­nough to conclude for the Negative, This was not the Sense: [Page 23]When a Man must find out such a Sense as that, wherein we can believe they all Three did agree, to conclude for the Affirmative, that This was it. The Reason of this was premised at the Beginning of the First Sheet.

And so much for the First Objection, the Second fol­lows. By Government of the Church, we understand not E­piscopacy only in the Substance, which the Scripture approves; but our Diocesan Episcopacy, as now Established: Neither do we distinguish between Alteration in the Government, and of the Government, to come off so, which were Chil­drens Play. No, if any shall go about to take away the Bishops Courts, or Officers, as their Lay-Chancellors, Commis­saries, the Arch-Deacons Courts, their Canons by which they act, or any of their Established Authority; This we account an Endeavour to alter the Government. Now, when these are things we would have altered, how can we swear we will not Endeavour any Alteration of Government in the Church? How can this Oath be taken?

For Answer to this, we have in the beginning laid down our Rule, and we must have our Recourse to it, and accord­ingly we must consider what indeed we verily believe in our Hearts, the Lawgiver intended. Was it their Meaning then, by such Impositions to fix the Church so, as nothing of this kind should ever be altered, though by Parliament, and though there should be never so much Reason for a Redress? We cannot think so far; and if they intended not this, then cannot All Endeavour be understood here, ( viz. that which is such only) but an Endeavour otherways. Their Meaning must be to debar us all Endeavour of altering even such things as these in any way, but this only, (the way of Parliament) which is warrantable by the Constitution of the Kingdom. This we have said, and must say it over. A Parliament is never to be believed to consent to that which is not in their Power. The English Government is such in its Constitution, as that Part thereof, so far as this [Page 24]comes to, (an Endeavour to alter such things as these, when they are Grievances) does still lie in the Body of the Peo­ple; and the Meaning of a Parliament must never beconstru­ed so, as to destroy that Liberty, which is Fundamental to the Kingdom. That which belongs to Every Body by vertue of the Constitution, (we must inculcate) cannot be taken a­way from Any by a Law for the Administration, 'Tis true again, perhaps, that something in this Objection, as in the former, may be expressed, as to make some Men believe, that the Contrivers of this Oath had yet a farther Meaning, and might intend to bind us so by it, as to retrench this Liberty; but we are to break those Bonds, and cast away their Cords, by remembring only, These are not the Lawgi­ver. The greater Number is the Parliament, and they are to be believed always to have a fair and equal Meaning in their Acts, and never disagreeable to the Fundamental Con­stitution. We will add,

As for the very Contrivers of these Impositions, those few malicious Men that designed by them to exclude such as are now Nonconformists, they must be thought yet to intend the Admission of the Loyal Party, and the Judicious and Consci­entious among them that suffered for the King more especi­ally. But if the Meaning of these Injunctions be otherwise (in the main purpose) than we interpret them; Those Judici­ous and Conciencious Men of the Conformists themselves, could not submit to them. It will follow, by the leave even of the Contrivers of these Acts, that the meaning which we offer (whatsoever they might harbour in their By-purpose) must be indeed the Meaning of the Lawgiver.

To comfirm this, which hath been said above (we con­fess) as well as here, we will suggest something for new Strength to it. In an Act of the Thirteenth of the King, there are two things may be inquired. One is, Whether Petition­ing in the Case of Greviance (for so much, at least as these things we speak of) by any, not exceeding the number of [Page 25] Ten, is not allowed the Subject? Turn to the Statute-Book, and examine it; and if it be, then could not All Endeavour, but such only, which is not permitted, be intended in this Ab­juration, by that One, and the Same Parliament that passed both Acts. The other is, Whether after it is there, Cap. 1. made a Premunuire to say, That there lies an Obligation up­on any from the Covenant, to Endeavour the Alteration of Government in Church or State, there be not yet an express Exception, as to all Parliament Speeches, and Endeavours to repeal Statutes, or redress Grievances? And if there be, then cannot any one use his Reason, but he mus believe our choosing Parliament-Men, this Petitioning them, and doing the like things which lie in our Sphere to do, in Order only thereunto, are also included. It follows still, that it is an Endeavour consequently in some other way, and not this, (which is Parliamentary, and granted) must be that which the Parliament intended we should abjute, when they put us upon such Impositions.

To enlarge here a little. In that Decimo Tertio, Car. 2. Cap. 5. After it is enacted, That no Persons shall procure Hands above the number of Twenty, to any Petition for Al­teration of Matters Established by Law in Church or State: we have a Provided always, That this Act shall not be construed to extend to debar, or hinder any Person or Persons, not exceed­ing the number of Ten, to present any Publick Grievance to any Member, or Members of Parliament. There are Two Questi­ons now will here go to the Quick. One is, Whether un­der these Matters Established by Law, there be any Excepti­ons to be understood, and what are those Exceptions? And we must distinguish (we think) thus only. Matters Esta­blished by Law, are such as belong to the Constitution of the Government, or the Administration. Those Matters, or Laws, which belong to the Original Constitution, (that is according to what the People, at first (we must suppose) agreed, when they consented to a Government) are not indeed within the [Page 26]Cognizance of a Parliament to Alter them; and for that reason, such Matters must be excepted: But as for any Matters Established by Law, that belong only to the Admini­stration, there is no Exception to be apprehended, when the Words are so general without any Limitation. If any other Law or Statute be pleaded for putting in such Exception, it must be answer'd by the Distinction offer'd. There are no Matters (we must say) excepted by any other Statute, or rather can (with reason) be excepted, unless they belong on­ly to the Constitution, and not the Administration. The O­ther Question is, Whether the taking away any of the Au­thority of the Bishops, and Arch-Deacons Courts, their Offi­cers, Canons, and the like, is such an Alteration as belongs to the Administration of the Government in England; that is, Whether it comes within the Cognizance of a Parliament, or is in their Power to do it? We know, that such a thing as the Changing of our Monarchy into another sort of Go­vernment, were not to be proposed to Parliament, being out of their Cognizance, if the King and the Houses were willing to have it: But do the Bishops, and their Courts stand upon the same Foundation? 'Tis true, that Magna Charta may be pleaded; but Magna Charta it self is but a Law for the Ad­ministration. It is, beyond all doubt, in the Power of the King, and His Houses, ( i. e. the Parliament) to regulate the whole External Polity of the Church, and so take away Diocesan Episcopacy it self, if they pleased: And can any one indeed question, whether the taking away some Power from their Courts, or some Officer belonging to them, or the like, (which yet were to Alter the present Government fo the Church) is not within their Cognizance, or that this Mat­ter is not contained in those Matters Established by Law, that in general may be Altered; and, in case of Grievance, be Pe­titioned for, to be Altered? And if this be still permitted, the People, according to the Statutes made in the Reign of this King, then could it not be the Intent or Meaning of [Page 27]this Parliament, that All Endeavour to Alttr the Government, when any thing is grievous in the Church, should be Ʋnlaw­ful; and when we are brought to distinguish of such an Endea­vour of Alteration, which is Warrantable by Law, and that which is Ʋnwarrantable, then are we come to the right Un­derstanding of the Lawgiver's Meaning, (viz.) That the En­deavour which they require us to abjure in the Oath, is the One, and not the Other. This is what we say all along, and stand upon it. Reader, lay thy Hand upon thy Heart, and as thou believest this Interpretation, or believest it not, either Take or Forbear the Oath, in the Name of God.

And what think we (after some pause upon this) of those Sheriffs and Ministers, who are Conformists? Are there not many of them (which is before hinted) Men of Reason and Conscience, judicious, and that fear God? And in what sense (judge we) have the One subscribed, according to the Act of Ʋniformity, the same words which the Other swears according to the Act for Corporations? It is strange, the Non­conformist should make such a stand at that Sense of the Oath and Subscription proposed in this Paper, as singular and doubtful, which the Conformist receives as the undoubted and common Sense of the Kingdom, with all the Judges and Law­yers of the Realm. If they received not this Sense, they would refuse them no less than we; and if we received it as freely as they, we should submit to them as they do. In like manner, for renouncing the Covenant, What is it also they intend by it? Is it nor this, that the Covenant was an unlawful Oath, and therefore binds no body? But let us ask again, do they think that the Covenanting to maintain the King (which indeed helpt to bring him in again) and the Protestant Religion, and to Reform our Lives, or the like things, is unlawful; and that therefore no Man is bound thereunto? Certainly, they cannot think so; but the Covenanting, to Change the Go­vernment, or extirpate Prelacy, and that without, and against the Will of the King, (which is consequently in a way Un­parliamentary) [Page 28]this is it they judge unlawful, and that such an Oath can oblige no body. And is there any Nonconformist, that understands himself, who does herein disagree with them? In the name of God then, let us come to a right un­derstanding on both sides, of the Oath, and of the Declarati­on. Let the meaning of the Oath be no more than this, that it is unlawful to take Armes against the King, or his Authority, any where exerted according to Law; and that we will ne­ver go about to make any Change, either in Church or State Af­fairs, but by King and Parliament. And let the meaning of the Declaration also, be no more than this (as in the First Sheet,) That, there lies no Obligation upon any from the Cove­nant to do as they Swear it; It was unlawful in its self to do so; and the imposition of it was illegal. And when we come to an Agreement in the sense, what should hinder us, but we may come also to agree in practise, and do, as one another?

If any Man indeed remains yet unsatisfied in his Consci­ence, to do as the Conformist does, (it may be only because he does it) we charge him, notwithstanding all this which we have said, to forbear: But if indeed he be satisfied as to the Sense, and pretends dissatisfaction in his Conscience, and fear of loosing his Soul for the saving onely of his Purse, we must in this Case (or in this Cause rather, at this season) lay upon him this Charge also, that in refusing his Compliance with the Law, he must give an account to God for the refu­sing his Duty with it, both to him, and to his Country.

For our selves, if our Arguments satisfy any Man, and so he complies, we edify that Man, and not scandalize him: If they do not, and he forbears, we do him no hurt. It is a Mans own Conscience, is the Discerner to him of his Duty, and he is not to regard another Mans any further than to a­void active Scandal; which upon such a warning, that no man follow his Example, unless he be satisfied with his Rea­sons, he does prevent as much as he can, in this business.

We have done after one Acknowledgment, That the Ma­terials [Page 29]of these Sheets are borrowed very much from a Book (that one of us does think, he may make bold with), whose design is greatly to offer such a kind of Resolution to the Con­science, touching our present Impositions, that both they that Conform to them, and they that cannot, may see reason to re­tain a fair Opinion of one another, and to hope that neither of them do wilfully depart from is, in what they do. The Book was written many years, but Printed onely about three since, and is quoted in the Margine of the First Sheet. We have reason to tell this, both because that which is here of­fer'd may not appear to be written (as some may think) on­ly to serve an Occasion, having been really the fruit of seve­ral years digested Thoughts; and also because we may not be ashamed, if we should confess, that we had used that Book, and made this Collection to serve so honest an End. For, if our Conscientious and Substantial Citizens be put off Publick Offices, and the Ministers be discharged their Con­gregations, upon the account of these Impositions: Either the Snare must be broken by a general Reception of such a plain, clear, open Interpretation of them as is here presented to all Men, or they will hold us to these Grindstones, and we shall, both in regard to Soul and Body, to Religion and Property, first or last, be all undone. Now, when Mattathias, and his Friends understood hereof, they mourned for them right sore: And one of them said to another, If we all do as our Brethren have done, they will quickly root us out of the Earth.