then upon the Injunction as may be favourable to his Scruples and yield it his Submission Ex Libro Praedict p. 125. 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 * When the Scripture is said not to be of private Interpretation the Meaning is that we must not put any Sense of Man upon it let it be never so reasonable but we must still take the Sense of the Holy-Ghost that inspired it and if you ask What is or How shall we know what is the meaning of that Divine Author The way is to compare one Text with another and all with the Analogy of Faith and Oeconomy of the Gospel We must say the same of Laws The Law is not of Private Interpretation but the Meaning of the Lawgiver and if you ask how we shall know their meaning we say likewise by this as one way the comparing one Act with other Acts and all of them by their Universal Consent with the Fundamental Constitution See Ibid. 125. 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 * The only Objections here which are of weight may be reduced to two Cases One is the Case of Private violence as suppose a Prince should go to Ravish a Virgin and she catches up the next Weapon or Instrument to defend her self In this Case or the like we answer this Defence is not to be accounted taking Arms in the sense of this Act. The other is a Case of Publick violence as suppose a Prince should go about to alienate his Kingdom or ruine his Country or the like We anwer we are not for all that to return violence upon his Person and as for his Officers Followers or Armies the Solution must be attended in the next Clause of the Oath 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 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 * It may be said the Parliament raised Armes before they declared Endeavours to Extirpate Prelacy and condemn the whole Parliament War when they would have us declare it unlawful to do that Now which they did Then or as of late hath been Practised to use the Words of the Militia Acts But let this be granted it follows then must their Meaning here indeed be that we are not to endeavour any Alteration of Government in the Way they did then which being out of doubt of the Sheriffs can Swear but nothing more we are sure is condemned in This Clause of the Oath whatsoever else be intended in the former Clauses of it and the Militia Acts in regard to the Beginning of the War as well as
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 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 'T is 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 't is 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 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
in Dowglas Sermon I CHARLES King do assure and declare by my solemn Oath my Allowance of the Solemn League and engage my self to Prosecute the ends thereof with other words set down there p. 19. 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 â—t It is in it self unlawfull to do so and the Imposition of it was * It must be confessed that the voluntary Omission of these words that are to be understood in this Declaration and the designed Opposition to the whole Proceeding of the Parliament in those times without distinguishing Right from Wrong in the Oath and the high Strain of the Militia Acts which seems to dispossess the Subject of all Defence against any Commission of the King be it what it please are enough to make any searching Man indeed believe that the Meaning of the Contrivers Hatchers and Compilers of such Impositions who for promoting their own Interest could find in their hearts to be Villains to the Common-wealth and the Souls of Men was more than thus But we Answer By distinguishing onely These are not the Lawgiver The Lawgiver is the Generality of Beth Houses with the King who are never to be supposed Underminers of our Rights or to have any evil Meaning but to convene for Consultation about the Common Good and whatsoever Laws do pass they are to be believed to carry in them the Reason of Publick Benefit or else they are no Laws Quod non habet rationem publici commodi non potest pracipi lege humana say the Schools and it is a Rule laid down to satisfy all by the Lord Coke Quando Lex generaliter lequitur restringenda tamen est ut cessante ratione ipsa cesset Cum enim ratio sit anima vigorque ipsius legis non videtur Legislator id sensisse quod ratione careat etiamsi generalitas prima facie aliter possit snadere Inftitut Par. 4. C. 74. 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 * In Mr. Baxter's Funeral Sermon upon that holy Citizen Mr. Ashhurst we take notice of this passage Some may think that he wanted a Publick Spirit beeause he avoided being a Magistrate and payed his Fine rather than take an Aldermans Place but it was only to keep the Peace of his Comscience Yet I never heard him speak uncharitably of those Worthy Men who do what he refused supposing that they in words or writing declared as openly as they sware and took the Declaration that they took it but in such or such a lawful sense though he could not do so himself 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 The Second Sheet Being The MINISTERS CASE WITH THE SHERIFFS In Regard to the Five Mile Act of Oxford 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 The Third Sheet With Respect to the More Scrupulous WHETHER Sheriffs Ministers or Others That are Concern'd For this Fuller Confirmation about the Oath 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 stood upon this Foundation That the Law is above the
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 'T is 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 this Parliament that All Endeavour to Alttr the Government when any thing is grievous in the Church should be Vnlawful and when we are brought to distinguish of such an Endeavour of Alteration which is Warrantable by Law and that which is Vnwarrantable 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 Vniformity 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 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 Man 's 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 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