THE SHERIFFS CASE Whether and How they may lawfully Qualifie themselves for their holding the Office according to the Act for Corporations IN this Act there are two things imposed an Oath and a Renunciation of the Covenant And we must lay down this * To this Rule there is a double Extreme The one is of those who think a man must take every Imposition in the strict literal construction can submit to it no otherwise The other is of such who suppose that if a man can frame any interpretation of his own that is but reasonable he may take the words in that sense and be satisfied The first of these is so rigid that there is nothing can be imposed but we shall strain at it and the last so loose that nothing can be imposed but we shall swallow it The true Medium is this we must sit down and consider what we believe to be the meaning of the Lawgiver and if we can submit to an Imposition in that sense or meaning which we believe theirs we must do it but if we believe their sense to be such as we cannot take it in that sense we must forbear it and suffer Rule at first That all Impositions of 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 because the Law is the Will of the Lawgiver and it is the Lawgiver's Meaning which is his Will howsoever the words of a Law is expressed The Parliament here we know 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 Where we must also premise thus much that it is not for any Sheriff Alderman or 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 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 House 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 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 agreeable 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 which is a Note to be laid in here that by-and-by will be needful 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 ArArmy 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 herself 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 answer 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 answered from this Little in the first Clause of the Oath I A. B. do swear That I hold it unlawful to take Arms against the King or his 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 himself against Saul's Forces onely 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 believe the Parliament meant and could mean no other than such as have a due Authority from Him and exercise it onely 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 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 onely as is allowed by the fundamental Law and Course of the Realm from an Endeavour in any other away 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 Prelacy 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 * That the meaning of the Parliament in this Oath and Declaration was that we should declare it to be unlawful for us to do that now which they did then or as of late hath been practised to use the words of the Militia Act we are out of doubt but whether in the peculiar case of those times there was any thing might be lawful or any way justifiable to be done then when the King and Houses the One Corporation were divided and he had passed an Act not to Dissolve them without their consent which is a case never like to happen any more and so no danger to put it which now is certainly unlawful is a question we have nothing to do with and interpose nothing to offend any 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 Government 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 We confirm this Exposition with one clear Reason 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 whatsoever 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 't is two to one but both these Sheriffs as well as the last 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 its Complex Consideration as it was pressed and used at that time for the engagement of People to the Extirpation of the Bishops and change of Church-Government without the King against His Consent and Publick Declarations and by Force it must needs be Unlawful 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 That 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 By some of which last words it appears that this Oath was framed for the Subjects of the Realm we say that this Oath 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 that League We such and such 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 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 Quà 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 it It is in it self unlawful to do so 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 than 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 this we will say That upon the supposal of either of these Sheriffs making a Declaration for himself if this Paper will not serve when he takes the Oath and subscribes the Declaration enjoyned 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 indeed in any thing it be otherwise we do apprehend that his Conscience may receive satisfaction thereby in its compliance with the Law in these Impositions which he cannot refuse without the refusal also of his Duty After this there is an Act of Parliament intituled An Act for preserving His Majesty An. 13. Car. 2. Regis c. 1. wherein this Covenant is declared peremptorily to be unlawful and null that gave one of the Sheriffs last year a peculiar satisfaction We argue from thence thus As we find in the Law of Moses when a Wife or a Daughter made a Vow if the Husband or the Father disallowed it that Vow was * We lay down this Rule here that if any man makes a Vow to God which he cannot perform without the consent of
another who is his Superiour and much more if through him it must be done if that Other Reclaims the thing as soon as he hears of it the Authority of God by the equity of this Law given by Moses does as we suppose dissolve the Obligation though else it could not be dissolved by the Authority of a Superiour only rescinded So may we apprehend the very same Reason to be here in regard to this League or Covenant For the Subject being quo ad hoc not sui juris but under the power of the Prince and much more under the most supreme and absolute Authority of Parliament and the late King declaring still against this Oath at the very time and a Parliament since the return of this King as soon as it could be done having passed an Act on purpose for disannulling the same there appears no difference between the Cases but that the obligation of this League as well as of those Vows must give place to such an Authority over-ruling it And more especially we must add because the Alteration of Government the sole matter in concern does belong to the cognizance of the Higher Powers we mean a Parliament and is not the business of any private person unless in order to procuring their Consent and Establishment If this reasoning now shall satisfie these Sheriffs and yet be unsatisfactory to another person let us but warn such a man that he does nothing after their Example unless he be satisfied with our Reasons and we care not If our Argument satisfie any man and he follows their pattern we edifie him if they do not and he follows his own judgment 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 farther than to avoid Active Scandal We do not mean it as if every man therefore should lean onely to his own understanding but rather take advice and that which is the most serious and proper he can get For our parts we have no more to offer or say but that we were particularly beholding for this which is said to a Book intituled * This Book here cited was Printed 1680. and is sold by Tho. Symmonds at the Princes Arms in Ludgate-street A Peaceable Resolution of Conscience touching our present Impositions In which Book the Readers that please will find the Rule by which we are to walk under such Injunctions of our Superiours as these to be such or so set out as that according to the persuasion of a man's mind about the same both he that Conforms to them and he that Cannot may see reason to retain a fair Opinion of one another and to hope that neither of them depart from a good Conscience in what they do This is the Moderation we desire our selves and these Sheriffs to follow In our Loyalty to our Sovereign In our Love to our Country and In our Religion to God The Reasons for Printing this Paper are these 1. To take the Oath and subscribe the Declaration in the literal strict Construction appears in our judgment unlawful and consequently unless by some means or other the sense be made publick in which a man does take them and that sense also be justified or at least be justifiable he must forbear 2. The Declaration is against the Consciences of the Nonconformists in general insomuch as some men who took the Oath cannot subscribe the Declaration and for any Conscientious men therefore to do it now and not declare their Reasons of Satisfaction were to sin against the Brethren if they own them or to disclaim them 3. By doing this a man shall give occasion to others to follow his example and if he present them not his Grounds or Reasons Those that follow shall do it without the same Reasons and through his knowledge shall such perish But when ye sin so against the Brethren and wound their weak Consciences ye sin against Christ 4. The Episcopal Party are generally apt to think the Nonconformists to be Hypocrites and Knaves and say These men refuse these Injunctions out of humor or for their profit but they will swallow them as well as we for Honour or for Advantage If any considerate Men therefore shall Swear and Declare and not give us some rational Account of what they do or some others for them they must not only wrong themselves but the whole generation of such Men and cause the Name of God in regard to them to be blasphemed 5. It pleased Providence to call two Persons to the Office the last year whereof one of them at least if not both were the better inabled to speak modestly if not quite to hold the same upon the satisfaction which is couched in this Paper and if it be of great Concern at this time that such Men do hold Sheriffs who are willing to deny their own Advantage not seek it for the sake of the Publick It is yet of greater concern that by the publishing our grounds for their satisfaction Many in distress about the Oxford Act may be relieved and a way opened for Many of the like substantial Citizens of known Piety Loyalty and Ability to be brought into Corporations throughout the Nation to the great service of the King and Kingdom To conclude We have here laid down the Rule concerning Humane Impositions and applied it to this Oath and Subscription If any man is persuaded 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 with a Declaration in the words before written That he does it in the meaning which is here 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 persuaded of the * In Mr. Baxter's Funeral Sermon upon that late holy Citizen Mr. Ashhurst we take notice of this passage Some may think that he wanted a Publick Spirit because 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 Conscience 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 himsâ—lf Lawfulness in point of Conscience Whether they receive the Paper and admit of your sense or not it is no matter for they have no power in it and the thing will be alike known And thus have we lent our hands to get the concern over these blocks and yet so as to deliver also our souls For as this Sheet was printed the last year there is one of us having been since something dissatisfied does hereby recall it But as it comes out now with this last Paragraph added to it which then was wanting we do Nemine contradicente he and all acquiesce in it LONDON Printed by Thomas Snowden 1681