THE CASE Of The Sheriffs, For the YEAR 1682. OR, THE Third Years Paper In Regard to the Act for Corporations. Being the CASE also of the Dissenting Ministers, In Regard to the Act of Oxford. In a Second and Third Sheet, together with the First Revised, Strengththened, and Reprinted. Upon more than ordinary pressing Cause, respecting both the Preservation of such Ministers, and their People, and the Universal Safety of the Nation.  Thou seest Brother, how many Thousands of Jews there are which believe, and they are all Zealous of the Law. And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles, to forsake Moses. Do therefore this that we say unto thee, that all may know that those things whereof they are informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest Orderly, and keepest the Law. 
LONDON, Printed for Thomas Parkhurst, at the Bible and Three Crowns in Cheapside, near Mercers-Chappel, 1682.   

To those Two Worthy Citizens, Who Shall be CHOSEN Sheriffs of London, For the YEAR 1682.  
WHether a Cup of Wine drunk by the Lord Mayor, or the Votes of a Common-Hall, according to the Charter, shall have the Pre-eminence to make a Sheriff of this City, it is but a few Weeks or Days (it is like) will bring into Trial. This Paper does suppose such an Election: and it is the great difficulty only, as to the holding Sheriffs in point of Conscience when Elected, that is here concerned. We Dedicate these Sheets therefore beforehand, to those who shall be solicited to be Candidates, for their Premeditation, and after to the Chosen. The Reasons from the beginning, for Printing this Case, are as follows.  
1. To take the Oath, and Subscribe the Declaration in the literal strict Construction, appears, in our judgement, unlawful; and consequently, unless by some means or other the sense be made public in which a man does take them, (and that sense also 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 in 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 humour, 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.   

The First Sheet, Being The SHERIFF'S CASE.  
Whether, and How they may Lawfully Qualify 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 In●●●●●tion in the strict literal Construction, and can submit to it no otherwise. T●● 〈◊〉 is of such who suppose, that if a Man can frame any Interpretation of h●●● 〈◊〉 ●t is but reasonable, he may take the Words in that Sense, and be 〈…〉 first of these is so rigid, that there is nothing can be imposed, but 〈…〉 at it; and the last so lose, 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. Pray see more about this Rule, in a Book entitled, A Peaceable Resolution of Conscience, touching our Present Impositions, Pag. 121. to 126.  Rule at firsT, That all Impositions of our Superiors, must be taken in the Sense and Meaning of those that Impose them: There need be no Scruple else in Submission to any thing enjoined. 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 itself 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 than 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 
* There is a Court then is set up for every one in his own Breast, Let him go to his Conscience, and ask, What thinks he really, as in the Presence of God, if he could ask the Imposers of these things; whether it is their Will, that he should be of another mind, in these Particulars that cross his Assent, or leave his Station? If his Conscience tells him, it is verily persuaded, that it was their Intention in the Injunction, he is to Honour God in his patiented Suffering their Pleasure. But if he is persuaded in his Soul, that this is utterly against their sills (and was), and that the things be scruples at, or as be scruples them, never came into their Minds unless to admit them, only they passed them in the gross, never intending that they should put a Bar in Conscience to any, and if he could ask them, he believes they would certainly allow him in them. Here he is (I suppose) to put such a Sense or Meaning 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 looked 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 jointly 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 agreeable 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 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 Public violence; as suppose a Prince should go about to alienate his Kingdom, or ruin his Country, or the like. We answer, we are not for all that to return violence upon his Person; and as for his Officers, Follower's, 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 (These words, I hold, I believe, or the like, must doubtlessly 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 himself 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 believe 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 Traitorous 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 always 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 Arms, 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 the Progress of it: And as for that point, 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. 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 its 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 His Consent and Public 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, 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 itself 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 
* The Meaning of a Law (or of the Lawgiver) may be gathered from the Preamble of some Acts; the common understanding of the many; the special Judgement of the Wise; the Discoursing with some of those that made the Law; which seeing it cannot be with all, or the greatest part, that which seems most satisfactory is, when the same Persons (or Parliament) do signify their Mind by their own Words in some other Act or Acts: And this being the Case here, we see not but some men may be as verily persuaded, that these Words are to be supplied, or that this was the Parliaments Meaning, as if the Generality could be asked, and they had told them, This it was. However, let the Medium be what it will, whereby a Man comes to the Resolution of his Belief about the Imposers Meaning in this or any the like Imposition, when he is once brought to a settled Persuasion and Conviction, that This or That, and no Other was their Meaning, if he can submit to the Wrods in the full Latitude of that Meaning, as he is fully persuaded in his Conscience, is all they intended in such or such an Injunction; then is he free to his own Determination. See Peac. Res. before quoted. p. 114.  understood, both from other Acts, The Uniformity Act, The Vestry Act, The Oxford Act, which have the same Declaration with these words in it (wherein we are yet more confirmed by that Act, where it is made a Praemunire 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 only, 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 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 Gospel, 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 called it) to confirm the Covenant, when He offered this very Exception against taking the Covenant itself, because it was an Oath for the Subjects only. 
And that that Oath the King took, was indeed Another, or One purposely framed for Him, any that will, may see in the Form of his Coronation, in Dowglas Sermon. I CHARLES, King, do assure and declare by my solemn Oath, my Allowance of the Solemn League, and engage myself 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 itself unlawful. Such an Oath was the Covenant; and Quadratus 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 satisfy any Man upon the Point about taking the Oath, must be sufficient for the Declaration also. In short, There lies no obligation upon any from this Oath, to do as they swore ●t; It is in itself unlawful 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 Commonwealth, and the Souls of Men, was more than thus: But we Answer, By distinguishing only, 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 Public 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, than what he agrees or consents to in the taking it. Where he declares beforehand 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 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 making a Declaration for himself (if this Paper will not serve for All) when he Takes the Oath, and Subscribes the Renunciation enjoined, 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 compliance 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 Public Spirit, because he avoided being a Magistrate, and paid his Fine rather than take an Alderman's 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 swore 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 Concerned over these blocks, and yet so, as to deliver also our Souls.   

The Second Sheet, Being The MINISTER'S CASE, WITH THE SHERIFFS, In Regard to the Five Mile Act of Oxford.  
BY the Act at oxford there is this Oath enjoined 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 Arms against the King, upon any pretence whatsoever: And that I abhor that Traitorous Position, of Taking Arms 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 Arms 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 Traitorous Position, to hold even that lawful. And all this is true, plain, and to be granted, as soon as we do but understand only 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 Arms against one that does do any thing by the King's Authority, we take Arms against His Authority, and that is all one with taking Arms against the King; and consequently, to declare it unlawful to take Arms 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 only 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 Soldiers come hereupon, and takes a Man's 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 Judge Hangs them: And all this is justifiable, because such Authority is none; and they being therefore not 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 Arms against the King, and against those that are Commissionated by Him, upon one and the same Reason: For when no Man may take Arms 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 Arms 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 itself 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 Privilege of Both Houses. It is not now ever to be imagined therefore, that it was the Meaning of a Parliament, to divest any Englishman 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 imagined, 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 only, 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 Lord's 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 public, and in private both, that he was not for an Arbitrary Power, but such an one only, 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 Rejoiced for the Consolation.   

The Third Sheet, With Respect to the More Scrupulous, WHETHER Sheriffs, Ministers, or Others, That are Concerned, For this Fuller Confirmation about the Oath.  
WE are not unsensible of what moment an Oath is, and the Declaration enjoined, who have set ourselves, as in the presence of God, that must give an account before his Tribunal for every Word that we writ, 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 persuaded 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 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 Arms by the Law, or the King's 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 Arms by the Authority of the Law, against any Commissionated by the King, was not maintained on the Parliament side, but only in Case those Commissions were against Law; and unless we renounce the Position of taking Arms 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 intent 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 Controversy between the King's side, and Parliament side, by this Oath. It were a very inadaequate Intention. It is a false Supposition, That this was any of the Controversy 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 Margin 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 persuade him to think it probable, that this was the meaning of the Parliament; yet if a contrary Apprehension sink deeper, or another Argument be more prevailing, he must follow the more Predominant Conviction. But there is no Argument so probable, but, that an English Parliament should intent 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 imagined 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 implicit 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 virtue of the Law, (that is, by the King's 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 King's 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 believed, but such as Judge Jenkins (who declares the Laws to be above the King's Commissions) knew and held, that in case any should come by the King's 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 believe, 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 than 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 Judgement, 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: 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 children's Play. No, if any shall go about to take away the Bishop's 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 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 virtue 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 intent to bind us so by it, as to retrench this Liberty; but we are to break those Bonds, and cast away their Cords, by remembering 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 intent 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 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 must 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 Public 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 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 answered by the Distinction offered. 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 itself 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 itself, 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 foe 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 Unlawful; and when we are brought to distinguish of such an Endeavour of Alteration, which is Warrantable by Law, and that which is unwarrantable, 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 Uniformity, 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 intent 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 helped 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 Arms 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 practice, 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 losing his Soul for the saving only 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 ourselves, if our Arguments satisfy any Man, and so he complies, we edify that Man, and not scandalise 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 Man's 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 Acknowledgement, 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 departed from is, in what they do. The Book was written many years, but Printed only about three since, and is quoted in the Margin of the First Sheet. We have reason to tell this, both because that which is here offered 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 Public 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.   

THE POSTSCRIPT.  
HAving Printed the First of These Papers, or Sheets, Two years, and now Reprinted it the Third year, with Amendment of some things, in the leaving out what I judged insufficient, and supplying what I have thought needful to confirm that which is sufficient: I have added two new Sheets, or Papers, to the same, in regard to the urgency of the present Season, with the same Heart, and to the same Purpose, as at the beginning. We all know, by our own Experience, how necessary it is for the same Nations to be presented in a various Application, according to the Doubts and Objections which are raised in men's Minds, for the giving Satisfaction to those, whose Consciences are really tender, and who dissent from others, merely out of the fear of Heaven, and not out of HUmour.  
I think, I have chose the Charitable Side; and that to write thus as I do, at this Season, is not only one of the acts of Spiritual Alms, or Mercy, but a peculiar serving my Generation. I cannot tell why, but I find my Spirit is cheerished toward God, in this little Service, more than it uses. If it were only present heat, upon a new thing, I should not take this notice of it: But when this Subject is (as it were) cool, and no more affecting, than the inward Testimony it brings with it, as to my hopes, it will do good, I cannot tell but such Impressions may abode something. I wish, it be not this, that these Impositions will be continued, and pressed upon us yet with more Regiour; so that many good Men shall have Occasion for this Paper, that after no Man perhaps, may be found that dares to attempt the like.  
I know, that as the Errata of a Book can have no Amendment, when the Book itself can; so cannot I myself see my own weaknesses, or Failings, when the Reader of these Sheets (that sees more than I) may discover them. But so far as I can judge, according to the Tenuity of my understanding, there is more said in these few Sheets to the very Purpose, to which they are writ, than hath been said by others, or any where, unless by the same Paper; and I hope, that which is said, is full and satisfactory. The proud Man, that would be praised in what he does, does ordinarily dispraise himself, that others may commend him: But I speak of my own Paper, as I would of Another's. It is a great many thoughts I am sure, even the thoughts of many years is digested into these few Sheets; and I do not offer my Brethren, that which cost me nothing.  
As for my writing under a Plural Name, the Reader must know, that though it be One is the Compiler, or Author of these Sheets altogether; it is more than One consented, and consent to the Publication. The first Sheet, after it was done at first, was show to a Great Person particularly, whose Understanding and Faithfulness, the Cry generally can trust in such Matters, (for it was thought good by one of the Sheriffs chose for that year, I should do so) and he advised that the Paper should come out thus, and not in the Name of a Single Person. He had it a Day or two to Read, and changed nothing otherwise, but gave this judgement of it frankly, It was well done: My Brethren, to whom I shown it besides, were not like to contradict what he advised, but thought it very prudent, and it came out accordingly.  
I must give notice now, that P. 9 l. 20. the word [it] which is fallen out at the Press, must be carefully preserved, lest you mistake the Sense.  
Note also, That in the Marginal Note, p. 5, there to the Nominative Case wanting to the Verb Condemn. Read therefore, and the imposers of this Oath condemn, etc.  
Note, moreover, that there needs some farther Explication in the place: For suppose a Man to be satisfied in all other Scruples but this One, that he apprehends in the late Times, the Parliaments 'Cause was the right, and not the King's, and he cannot therefore take the Oath, because he thinks he shall thereby Condemn that Cause. The plain Answer to this Man is, that though he cannot but believe, that the Major Part of the Houses that passed this Oath, were of a contrary judgement to his; yet is he not to think it was their intent, that every one who takes this Oath should meddle with that Matter, and Judge of that Cause, so as to condemn one side, and justify another: but that he should only judge, think, believe, and declare, that to raise another War, or do now as they did then (as we speak) is unlawful; and he that does not Judge so, or cannot discern this, must forbear to take the Oath, out of Question. The Summa Potestas in this Land, lies in the King, and his Two Houses, as one Conporation, (we have intimated) and when they were divided, a Man may judge the Constitution Dissolved, and the People at Liberty; and consequently, that they might then do that, in that peculiar Case, which can never be done out of it, without resisting the Ordinance of God; which to do, we know is Sin. This is the Answer to that Scruple, being more darkly there expressed.  
There remains only, that I supply here the Fifth Reason (according to the First Paper) for Printing these Sheets, that for want of Room was left out in the Epistle.  
It pleased Providence to call some Persons to the Office who have been the better enabled (to speak modestly) 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 Public: It is yet of greater concern that by the publishing our grounds for their satisfaction, many in distress about the Oxford Act, may be relieve, 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.  
FINIS.   

ERRATA.  
Page, 9 line. 20. read. Swore it, p. 24. l. 9 for expressed 1. so pressed.