THE Healing Paper: OR, A Catholic Receipt for UNION Between the Moderate Bishop & Sober Nonconformist, Maugre all the Aversation of the Unpeaceable.  
By a Follower of Peace, and Lover of Sincerity.  
For we must needs Die, and are as Water spilt upon the Ground, which cannot be gathered up again: Neither doth God respect any Person, yet doth he devise Means that his Banished be not expelled from him.  2 Sam. 14.14. 
LONDON, Printed for B. T. and T. M. 1678.   

THE Epistle Dedicatory.  
SEeing Dedications are become Customary, I will choose me a Patron for this Book, as a Papist chooses his Saint. He fancies such a one will be Propitious to his Affairs, and addresses himself to him in his Prayers, but knows not whether he hears him or no. The Person whom I choose to make this Dedication to, shall be the Honourable Mr. Speaker of the House of Commons, whom I know not, nor he me in the least. If he did, this would be Flattery, which now is Adventure; and might be but a Blurr, which now is Honour. I do fancy that Person to be an impartial perspicacious Gentleman, and that he will therefore like the Honesty and Innocency of these Sheets. I do Fancy, that as it is hard to find a Parallel to him in sufficiency for his Province, so it is not easy (in the circumstances Speakers are) to have a Man in the Chair of more Integrity (or natural Byass) to the Public Good; and so far as I know, to the Protestant Cause. I do fancy that he will not therefore in good earnest turn off any seasonable well-digested Motion (if any be tendered in the House) for Moderation in the business of Religion. I do think him verily a man Unconcerned for the Nonconformists, but not Malicious to Good People; and though Portly, not so High as to be Offended at a Mean man's good Conceit of him. I am persuaded, that in my sphere, I cannot put a greater Dignity upon him (if he serves our End) than by the peculiarity of such a Dedication. If he deceives me, and proves one that designs any thing Evil, and not the best things for the Church of God, let him answer it to the Almighty: He shall be no longer my Patron on Earth, nor Saint in Heaven.  
The Author.   

To the Reader.  
THE Design of this Paper is to chalk out the Way for the Parliament (if they shall kindly please) to Open the Door of the Church for us: but if they will not, to Draw the Latch, and come in ourselves. And it shall yet come to pass, that there shall come a People, and the Inhabitants of many Cities, and go to one another, saying, Let us go speedily to pray before the Lord, and to seek the Lord of Hosts; I will go also.   

The Healing Paper.  
IF I had any longer hope or trust in our Public Physicians, that they would lay to heart the Breaches of the Church, and endeavour the Cure of those Wounds which she hath received in the House of her Friends, by some Universal Accommodation of Protestants one with another; which would be the strength of the Nation against Foreign Enemies, and the Security of our Religion at Home, I should forbear the Studying out any of these lesser and private Remedies in our case, for fear of being guilty of the Healing the Hurt of the Daughter of God's People slightly, which were a fault indeed if I could do it better: but when no more can be done, God forbidden I should cease to offer my last mite to the Work, in showing the way that is yet left us (and consequently the duty for aught I know on both sides unto which were are bound) how to do it; not distrusting the favour of God, and many good men in the Action.  
There is a Rule therefore I must lay down between the Nonconformist and the Bishop for my proceeding in this great Design. I will suppose them both sensible, that an endeavour after Concord as brethren in the same Reformed Religion, is an undeniable duty; and that a wilful neglect of it cannot be Answered unto God by either Party, whosoever of them shall be found in Default. The Rule then for Accommodation which I have to offer, in the Name of God, as equal to both, is this: That the Nonconformist be ready to do in the sincerity of his Conscience what he can; and that out of the like conscience to God, the Bishop do bear with him in what he cannot; so long as by this means, or upon these terms, they so agree and unite in the Main, as the Established Orders be kept up in the Land. It is but Reasonable the Bishop look to This, and it is Necessary that We look to our Consciences. The Rule is in order to the End; and if they will abate to us in the Circumstances, or in the Lesser things enjoined, so much as we may preserve our Consciences, and abate no more but that the Establishment (which being made by King and Parliament requires our Subjection) may be preserved in the Substance, or in the greater concerns of it, I see not, but for Peace sake, for our Soul's sake, for the Church's sake, the thing should be done. The Nonconformist is to consider well the import of such Texts as require Subjection to the Higher Powers; and he is out of Conscience to the Fifth Commandment to comply with their Injunctions to the uttermost that may give them satisfaction so far as he can without Sin. The Bishop is to consider the import of such Texts, as tell us what a dangerous thing it is to give occasion to the Doubtful to do any thing against their Consciences: and he is out of Conscience to the Sixth Commandment (for fear of destroying him for whom Christ died) to take heed as he would of his life, to put a man upon any more than he is convinced he can safely do. When the Nonconformist does what he can, the Law of God will bear him out in that which he does not; and if he suffers, he has peace in his Soul. If the Bishop likewise shall Receive a man upon this account, as one that cannot require more of him, lest he wound his weak Conscience, and so sins against Christ, I do not doubt but the Law of God will justify him also in whatsoever he falls short in the execution of the Law of Man. I know the Law does indeed make no difference between those that would do what they can, and those that do any thing less than all it requires; but the great Law of Charity, Mercy and Righteousness, or of Meeting to others that measure as we would have met to us in the like case, does require other things. This is a Truth to be made known and propagated to the Nation, that all Laws or Injunctions of Men whatsoever, which are not consistent with the Law of Nature, or Word of God (so far I say as they are inconsistent therewith) are void, null, and no Laws. Nihil minus sunt q am leges, as Cicero (De legibus) does express it. That is, (I will interpret him) they can lay no obligation on the Conscience (which is the essential property of a right Law) as to the observance. it is true, if the Bishop Dispenses, and the Nonconformist come short in any thing, the Penalty may be Sued, if any be so affected. It is a Law in foro humano, and we must never resist (This we mu●● venture, and can but be in statu quo): but it is no Law in fo●● Dei, or Conscientiae; for the Authority of these greater Laws of Nature and Religion does supersede the Execution; so that there is no guilt contracted in the Omission.  
And having said this, I do not care to profess myself one, that am prepared to come into the Church upon these Terms; that is, I will come in upon Quarter; for I can come in no otherwise: If the Bishop will give me Quarter for my Conscience, and spare me in the things, which it were a Killing me to do while I am in Doubt, I will yield in the rest. We will, we must yield (I judge) upon these Terms: To do what we can, if they will but do (upon this score, I say, of those Superior Laws) what they ought. There are no Texts which require Unity among Christians, To be of one mind, To speak the same things, To have one Heart: No Texts, that require Love and Fellowship with one another as Brethren, the Following of Peace, a Tenderness to one another's Consciences, and taking heed of Offending any of Chist's Little Ones, and the like matters: No Texts, that forbidden Schism and Divisions in the Church, with the Evil Concomitants and Effects thereof in the Nation, but they are all Warrants to the Bishop, for his Forbearance and Moderation in the Execution of these Laws, when his Non-Conformist-Brother cannot obey them without sinning against his Soul. God says, Thou shalt not do any thing, which will destroy thy Brother, and wound his Conscience: The Law says, Thou shalt put him to do thus, and not dispense with him. Christ says, You must do thus, You must do these things. The Law says, You must do that which is otherwise. Whom shall the good Bishop now choose to obey, the Law of his God, or the Statutes of the Realm?  
Not that I will find fault with my Superiors, or with their Laws; only as the Apostle says of the Law of God itself, We know the Law is good if a Man use it Lawfully: So must I say upon supposition, that these Acts for Conforming be in themselves, for the peace of the Church, so long as they be Executed upon fit Reasons, and such Persons for whom all Laws are indeed to be made, (The Law is not made for the Righteous, or the willing, says the same Divine Author, but the Unrighteous and Disobedient): Yet when they are Administered to all alike without putting any difference between the Willing and the Unwilling, the Ready and the Refractory, that which was intended for Good, is made Death unto us, (to speak still in Holy Language) by becoming instead of a means for promoting of Peace, an occasion for establishing our Divisions. I see indeed that most Men with whom the Laws are entrusted, do act ordinarily, as if all they were concerned in the hurt that comes by any Law, were no more but to impute it to the Lawmakers, and to account themselves clear before God and Men, so long as they are but exact in putting the same in rigorous Execution: whereas there is no power given, or can be received by any, but to the great ends of God's Glory, and the common good of Men (for all Power is of God), and consequently no such trust is committed to them but in Subordination to the higher Laws of Nature, and God's Word; so that if these Laws and Man's Laws do come in any instances of Life to clash, as commonly in matters of conscience they do, there is prudence to be used in such a discernment between Persons and Persons, those that are truly, and those that are pretendedly conscencious, and between things and things, what will profit the Church, and what will tend only to public offence, that both the ends of Government may be kept up, and the greater Laws take place. According to the authority the Lord hath given us (says the Apostle) for Edification, and not for Destruction.  
Neither do I once imagine that the Bishop can dispense with me in any Imposition committed to his trust, so as that his dispensation should be my warrant for my doing otherwise then the Law requires I should do, either in regard to Man, if he will prosecute the Law upon me (as I have intimated before) or in regard to God if it were any Sin or Evil in me to break it: But he can bear with me as to his part, which is enough (for I may then venture others, I have also said,) and it is the superior authority of God which is the warrant both to him and me upon which we must be justified, in my conformity only so far, and his requiring no more. The Law, it is true requires more, and it requires him to require more, but the greater Law (I say) of the Ten Commandments of God, which is summed up in this one Word, Love, the transcript of the Law Eternal upon Man's heart, must overrule, and relaxes the obligation as to both of us in the sight of God. And thus when we do what we can for union on both sides, and no more than we can on either side: When we bear with one another, in the things wherein we differ, and bear one another's burdens as we are bound in the common accidents of our Lives, we shall Compound (I hope) for our failings or Non-performance to an Act of Parliament, by our fulfilling the Law of Christ. Be of the same mind (says the Apostle) one towards another. Mind not high things, but condescend to Men of low estate.  
In fine, Our eyes have almost failed us in looking out after every Session of Parliament to do something for Union, and they do it not. It is another course then must be sought; The Bishop alone and we must resolve to do the business ourselves. That which we cannot get done by a relaxation of the Laws, may be obtained by little and little, by a Relaxation of our stifness on both sides. If the concerns of the Church lies near any one of their hearts, than his own bare Honour and Worldly interest does, he will venture as we do, and what we cannot procure by an Act, we must force by Example, and the Authority of Heaven, and the Protestant cause shall be our Broad Seal for what we do.  
Having thus proposed the Rule, I must proceed to Practise. We have several Impositions therefore to come under consideration, and they are the Old, or the New.  
For the Old, there is in the first place the Common Prayer itself which I must confess for my own part I do commonly hear, and in the Ordinary daily service I do not think unlawful to read. And God forbidden I should, when we have had so many Holy Men in the Marian Reign ready to lay down their lives for the Matter of this Book. If I find scruple in respect to some things in the By-Offices, or in any thing of the Occasional service, I will either myself wave it, or leave that work to some other to perform. There is next an Assent required to the Articles of the Church of England, unto the Doctrine whereof according to the statute of the thirteenth of Elizabeth (that is so far as is expressly required) I do not find but the Nonconformists generally are ready to subscribe of their own accord. I have a few exceptions for my own part, which I doubt not but they will be allowed me to make, being consonant to the Judgements mostly of those that conform, and contrary to theirs, more generally who do not; I may name some of them ere I have done. There is then the Subscription in the Canons, and Canonical Oath of Obedience, which being not imposed by Law, or a statute, but by a penal Canon; and that only rendering the Bishop upon neglect obnoxious to a suspension from giving Orders, or Licences to Preach for a year, which is never like to be prosecuted, nor I suppose used to be, it was heretofore very ordinary for many Bishops to forbear the exacting of either of these (which were abated to me without any regret at my Ordination): and I shall hope that what hath been done in former time out of favour, will be done now out of conscience, if this Rule laid down does, as it ought, take place.  
For the New Impositions, there are three of them in the Act of Uniformity, the Declaration, the Subscription, and Re-ordination. The last of these [Re-ordination] I have passed, yet as to others I must say this. That to be Re-ordained to the Work of a new Charge, I am fully persuaded is Lawful, and consequently, that this matter may be easily Compounded, between the Bishop, and him that scruples the thing (for too just Reason otherwise) upon this said Account. The foremost, the Declaration, is to be made to the Congregation, and I think to do thus. I will Read the Common-Prayer in the Ordinary daily Service (which I have said I hold Lawful), and then I will declare my Assent and Consent, to all and every particular I have Read. And I do not doubt, but this will be as good a Declaration to the Churchwardens, as if I had used the Words of the Act and no other. I will not conceal from them that I save my Conscience, but will venture it. If it be told the Bishop, I will expect that he should be more like to Connive at that which is entrusted with others, than to Indulge any in the Second, and chief thing that remains, which is committed only to his trust, and wherein, if we obtain not some Condescension from him, we must continue in our ejected Estate. And this is the Subscription, in reference to which mainly, I do now present to the Public this Paper; and in pursuance of my own Rule of doing what I can, I am willing for an Authoritative use of my Ministry, to Subscribe the words ensuing.  
This Declaration in the Act of Uniformity, viz. I do declare that it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever, to take Arms against the King; and that I do abhor that Traitorous Position of taking Arms by his Authority against his Person, or against those that are Commissionated by him; and that I will Conform to the Liturgy of the Church of England, as it is now established; and I do Declare, that I do hold, that there lies no Obligation upon me, or 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 upon the Subjects of this Realm, against the known Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom, I subscribe with these Limitations or Exceptions.  
The first Clause I hold Indefinitely true in a due and a fair state of the Point, as it is maintained by such eminent and faithful Assertors of the Authority of Princes, as Arnisaeus, Barclay, Grotius, Sarrania, and the like Authors: And upon such a meet State of the Position (prout prudens definierit) supposed, I do Subscribe That it is not lawful to take Arms against the King, upon any pretence whatsoever.  
The Second Clause I allow with this Interpretation only, which I think to be the Mind of the Legislators. By the Word Abhor, I understand in the cool Sense, no more than I Disclaim; and such a Position I count Traitorous, if it be made use of for Rebellion: And I understand by the Word These that are Commissionated by him, such only as are Legally Commissionated by him, and in the Legal Pursuit of such Commissions. It could never be the Intent of the Majority of Parliament to advance the King's will above Law; and therefore, this being their Meaning, I do in this Meaning, (or with these Explanatory Limitations to their Meaning, if I be mistaken in it) Subscribe That I abhor that Traitorous Position, of taking Arms by the Authority of the King, against his Person, or against those that are Commissionated by him.  
The Third Clause, is a Promise which I dare not make, but with the Reservation of a necessary and just Liberty, both for my Conscience, in any matter or thing wherein I doubt; and for Prudence, in regard to Time, Place, and Circumstances; to act, as appears to me most conductive to the Interest of the Church, and Edification of the People: And with such a Reservation as this, I Subscribe That I will Conform to the Liturgy of the Church of England, as it is now by Law Established.  
The Fourth Clause I can Subscribe to readily, as to myself, because I never took the Covenant, (I was convinced, I remember, by the Oxford Reasons, and it was against my Conscience): But for the Words, Nor any other Persons, I must put in this Restriction; to wit, Nor any other in a Private Capacity, or Acting in a Private Capacity. It is true, (as I think) that every Man is bound to seek the Reformation of the Church in his Place: But it is as great a Truth, that it is not the place of Private Person, or any one, to endeavour any Reformation of the Church or State, be it never so good, but with the Concurrence of the King, or in such a way only, as is agreeable to the Constitution of the Kingdom. Nay, as he may not act, he may not exhort, persivade, seek, or pray in a Seditious way, to have it done. Now, forasmuch, as this Covenant did lay an Obligation on the Subject, (in their Opinion) to endeavour the Reformation of the Church, without the Consent of the King in his Parliament, I do apprehend that Obligation in that respect to be void, and Subscribe That I do hold, that there lies no Obligation upon me or any other Person, from the Oath, commonly called the Solemn League or Covenant, to endeavour any Change or Alteration of Government, either in Church or State, by any Means, or any other way, than with the Consent of the King in an Act of Parliament.  
The Fifth Clause does require a Distinction between the Act of Covenanting, and the Matter Covenanted. I dare not Subscribe, That this Oath in the Matter Covenanted, was in itself Unlawful, because I must then (I think) be Uncharitable to the Reformed Churches abroad, whose Government is not as ours by Bishops: But I do suppose, that the Oath in the Act of Covenanting, or the Oath, if taken for the Act Complexly considered, was in itself Unlawful: So that, he that took it, did as I count, do ill in it, or did that, which in my Judgement was unwarrantable. A Combined endeavour to pull down the present Government of the Church, and setup another, without the Consent of the King, and against it (upon supposition only, which no doubt, will be generally granted, that the King did not lose his Authority in the Sight of God, on his withdrawing from his Parliament, which must also be so understood, or else, how could they at the same time in one Branch of the said Covenant, own the King, and his Authority, and swear to maintain them?) must be, I judge, a Breach of the Subject's Duty, required in the Thirteenth to the Romans. But the Covenant was such an Act. Or thus, 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, I think, in itself Unlawful. Such an Oath was the Covenant. Thus far I Subscribe to this Clause, That the same was in itself an Unlawful Oath, and I draw no farther.  
The last Clause is (so far as I know) undoubtedly true; and therefore, I must, and do Subscribe And imposed upon the Subjects of this Realm, against the known Laws and liberties of this Kingdom.  
This is what I can, and am ready to Subscribe; only, I must first make it Public: I cannot satisfy my Conscience else, to propose it in Private to the Bishop, though it should obtain, unless I Publish it: Both because of my Brethren, that I may avoid Scandal; I mean not the Scandal of Displeasure, which I care little for; but the Scandal tending to Sin, or to wound any of their Consciences by my Example: And also, because of the Bishop; lest I should draw him into some Condescension, out of his present Goodness and Benignity, which he might Repent after; unless he be first come to a Resolution of Mind, and so acts out of Conscience; and that alone will bear him out against any Inconvenience, that can ensue: And moreover, because of my own Soul and Temper, that cannot endure to do any thing of this Nature, but what is open and fit for a plain Honest sort of Man to do. And here there is but one thing in the general, wherein I seek favour of the Bishop, which I must explain on the same Account.  
I am sensible, that a Liberty of Subscribing this Declaration, or submitting to any Imposition in our own Sense or Interpretation, is a Favour signifies nothing: For, no Man that acts in Judgement and Conscience, can make any Interpretation of a Law or Imposition, but what he believes to be the Meaning of the Lawgiver: If I am not satisfied then in that Meaning, I have no other Interpretation to make; and if I am satisfied in that Meaning, I need no Favour or Liberty to be given me; for there is none can take this away from me, which necessarily goes to a Judgement of Private Discretion. I shall not care what any Bishop, or Judge upon the Bench may say, to thwart me in the Case of the Oxford-Oath, since I Published my late Paper (unless I feel some Wavering in my Mind, or doubt in the Interpretation there delivered), notwithstanding some of my Brethren were so much concerned heretofore, with the Words of one about it. I should be afraid of what he said, if it were in a Suit of Law; but, the matter is otherwise in a Case of Conscience; where I am to be justified by God alone, and not by a Jury. But to have a Liberty of Subscribing or Submitting to an Imposition, with some Restriction, Limitation, or Exception; this is indeed a Favour, which I seek in this Declaration. An Interpretation gives me Liberty (I count) only as to the Words, while I am yet tied up to the Meaning of the Lawgiver. A Limitation gives me Liberty, as to the Meaning of the Imposer, as well as to the Literal Construction, and that is a great matter. I cannot Subscribe this Declaration, without such a Liberty; and with such a Liberty, I can Conform also to other Impositions. I know, that the Bishop can give me no such Liberty, as to limit, restrain, or make any Exception to the Meaning of the Law, any more than I can dispense with myself, I have said: But, if he shall be got to pass me for his part, I do not question, but I shall pass after with others, I have said also. And as for the matter of Conscience in it, I have laid down my Rule between us, and the Superior Law of Almighty God, shall be the justification of us both in the pursuance of it, I have affirmed likewise.  
I will here add one Argument. If there be any evil in this (the Subscribing with Limitation), it must be either in regard to the Fifth Commandment, or the Nineth: Either because it is against our duty of Obedience to the Higher Powers, or against our duty of Sincerity and Truth. Here is no Sin against Truth and Sincerity, for therefore do I make these Restrictions or Exceptions, that I may not forsake Truth, but keep my Sincerity in what I do. I declare to all the world, I will not go a step further than my Conscience goes along with me; and unless I have this liberty, or take it, I will not go on. And here is no Sin of disobedience to my Superiors because the Law of God forbids me to do more. It is a case decided by the Apostle, and yielded, that when the Law of God hath laid an Obligation on the Conscience already, the Law of man to the contrary can have no place. If my Nonconformist brother sins not that subscribes Nothing of this Declaration because of his Conscience, then do not I sin that make my Limitation. If it were a sin to make any of these Restrictions or Exceptions, how shall they be justified by the greater Law, that is the Law of God, who refuse to Subscribe any thing, because they cannot Subscribe to all upon that account? If I sin in doing what I can, how shall Obedience to the Higher-Powers be a Duty? And if I sin in doing only what I can, how shall my Brethren be acquitted that make no trial at all, and do nothing? And yet do I make no doubt of their Integrity.  
To frame any interpretation of the words of a Law, and so Subscribe them in that sense which a man believes is not the meaning of the Lawgiver, is a prevarication of the Law; for he pretends to Subscribe to the Law when he knows he does not, seeing it is the Lawgivers meaning, and not the bare words is the Law: but when I declare that I do not Subscribe to the Law in such or such particulars, but on others, Here is all the plainness that can be, and so no breach of Sincerity; and here is a doing what I can, and so no neglect of my duty. If any be ready to reply to me, than you should have done thus, and been more express upon the particulars of this Declaration, in showing what we may agree to, and whereunto we are to make our exceptions: I would have that man to know that I have done thus, and with solicitude so far as does serve me, or save my own Conscience; and it may suffice him that I have broken the ice, or opened the way for him to do that farther as he would have had me do, if his Conscience be not satisfied without it, and he can get leave to do it Neither will my Shoes serve his feet, or my Gloves come on his hands: nor will my Limitations be the measure of every man's coalition.  
Indeed I am sorry here to be more Subtle than this comes to already. The Bishop I suppose will give me liberty to Subscribe in my own Sense, and this I have said signifies nothing: but I must recall myself. It is nothing I mean, unless we state this liberty of our own sense, and know what we agree upon by if. I by a liberty of our own sense any Bishop shall candidly understand my Subscribing this Declaration in such a sense as I can, though I believe it not to be the meaning of the Law, and he accepts of that, and lets me express it, this is no other than a liberty of Exception, and we must beware that we stick not on scruple; when we agree upon the matter. In the way, one thing is to be put out of doubt, that, though in Subscribing to an Imposition we must be supposed to subscribe it in the meaning of the Imposer if we say nothing, yet if we make our Limitations or Exceptions, and express them (with leave to do so) we contract no guilt, or are obliged no further in Conscience than we consent thereunto and take the obligation on our Souls, as may appear in the Oath between Rahab and the Spies. I am sorry therefore (I say) that I am forced here to be more critical and nice, than I would be. I can be content to distinguish an Interpretation and a Limitation, but I am very loath to distinguish any further, between the Last and an Exception, which virtually is implied in it, nevertheless seeing I am breaking my own way, and I cannot help it, and seeing the use of words we know is to express the mind, and every man consequently hath liberty over his own words to explain and distinguish them as he please, I will in the first place distinguish for once these things. An Interpretation, A Limitation, An Exception. An Interpretation let me say requires the Sense or meaning of the Lawgiver, and that altogether, and all of it. A Limitation requires that meaning, but not all of it. An Exception signifies a denial of it. Again I must distinguish of the Submission to an imposition upon favour, or without any. In my former Paper about the Oxford-Oath I laid down a Rule to strew the way for our coming up to an imposition (where we can) without favour in those that administer it: In this Paper I proceed to lay down another for our submission in case of favour, when we cannot submit to the Imposition unless we obtain it. I must in the last place yet distinguish moreover between the Subscribing to an Imposition in the form of words wherein it is enjoined, and the having liberty of our own expressions. I must confess, I have several times proposed this expedient for accommodating us to the Laws, that our present Impositions might be required of us only in the matter and the End; that is, if we can come up to them so far as to agree in the chief substance of the thing enjoined, and answer the end of the Imposer, it should suffice, though we expressed our Consent in our own words. This would make out Subscriptions easy, and every one could tell what to do for himself: but supposing that this will not be granted, I am put against my will upon this curiosity.  
Let us suppose then an Exposition made of any Injunction according to the meaning of the Lawgiver. If I assent to all of it, I may submit to it, and need no favour: If I assent to part of it and not to all, I must have the favour to make my Limitation: If there be any Clause in it that I cannot assent at all unto, I must have leave to put in my Exception, or I cannot submit to it. In the first case, when an Interpretation alone does serve me, I may Subscribe to an imposition in the form of words wherein it is enjoined; and so long as I can do so, I may offer my interpretation for the avoiding of Scandal whether the Ministers of the Law are willing or not, they must receive me. In the last case; when an Exception is needful, I cannot (I think) Subscribe to the form of words without prevaricating with the Law, and they that Administer the Imposition may (and I suppose will) refuse me the licence of using my own expressions: In the middle case, wherein I have need of a Limitation (which I accounts less than an Exception, and more than an Interpretation) I may Subscribe (I think) to the words, because there is a truth in the words with my sense, and my sense is the meaning of the Law giver; only because I cannot subscribe to all their meaning, I must have favour to express my Limitations, or restraint of the words to that sense, or else I cannot Subscribe them (I account) with faithfulness: but if I have the liberty to do so, I am (I think) to steel my mind against all Scruple; and if any comes into it, to cast it out. The Consideration of that one Text alone Be not righteous over much, will bear me out (I apprehend) in such a Subscription.  
To be yet Clearer, if I can be possible, If by a Liberty of my own Sense (which I suppose the Bishop will give me) he shall understand my giving the sense of the Law, or declaring what I believe to be the meaning of the Lawgiver, and then Subscribing to the Imposition in that Sense, which is a proper Interpretation, here is no advantage to me, or favour, but what I may take myself: If he shall understand my declaring a sense of my own, though I believe it not to be the Sense of the Imposer, this is a great favour; but I see not how I can be Subscribe to the words of the Imposition, and he will not give me leave for all this, to Subscribe in any other form: If he shall understand my Subscribing so far as I can to the sense in the words enjoined, with liberty of Restriction of them to this meaning (which virtually includes an Exception against what I cannot assent unto), here I do humbly believe both, that I may Conscionably Subscribe, and he be satisfied in the matter. If we be tied to the Meaning of the Lawgiver every jot, the way is too Straight: To frame to ourselves any Meaning without Regard to the Law giver's is a Way too Wide: But to Subscribe to the Meaning of the Imposer so far as I can, and to forbear in what I cannot, is the Way which I think safe, and which I seek in this Paper. Only I must add one thing after this, that where there is no Form of Words imposed, the Liberty of a Limitation and of an Exception comes to one; and as I now distinguish these two Words, I may again confound them, according to my occasion.  
Having thus distinguished then between an Interpretation and a Limation or Exception, I must yet proceed so far as I do go, to apply the same to my present Subscription, that I may avoid all mistake and ambiguity, and Consequently the laying a stumbling block before any.  
In the first Clause I do not Subscribe to the proposition which it contains universally but Indefinitely, To wit, with the Restriction of it to such a prudential state of the question as may be gathered out of such Authors I have named. It becomes a Loyal Subject to Subscribe that Tenet, and it becomes an Honestman to Subscribe it no further, or no otherwise, than such learned and excellent persons upon study, were able to maintain it. There are several cases which are put by themselves by way of Limitation of it, yet so long as we may believe, that none of them came into the Minds of the Majority of Parliament in passing the Law, and there were Actually none of them as could be put in regard to our present King, we are to look upon it as the Intent of the Act, that we should consequently object no such Cases to ourselves in Subscribing to this Clause; so that, though I here use my Liberty of Restriction in regard to Others (which I must tell) I might be content myself (as I suppose in the Oxford-Oath) with an Interpretation only. Nay, I do not need any of this Caution at all, in regard to Sovereign Majesty itself, but in regard to those that are at his Commandment. For, let me understand by Taking Arms, the Raising an Army, or a War (which I take to be the true Sense in Construction of Law), and by the King, his own Sacred Person only: There is no Case I know, but I may Subscribe, That to take Arms against the King is universally Unlawful.  
In the Second Clause I am more fully persuaded, that I do offer the true Sense of the Acts, Of Uniformity, and that at Oxford in reference to the Position which is Renounced; and I am sorry at my Heart to see it possible for so many of Judgement and Temper as there are, to be capable of any such Pre-occupation of Mind, as to harbour once the Thought of another Interpretation, which cannot be made but by supposing it the very Intent of the Parliament in those Acts, to advance an Arbitrary Authority in the King above the true Regal Power he hath by Law: And yet hath the late Discourses of People about the Test and later Matters, with Stories thereunto appertaining, brought such a Jaundice on our Imaginations, that makes every thing look Yellow and Jealously to us, as we even quite forget that the Meaning of these Acts is, and must be, the Sense, Mind, or Purpose of the Parliament, or Major Part of both House at the time when they passed them, and that is, when there was not the least Breath of any such thing as an Arbitrary Government talked of, or suspected by any. It is plain enough, there was in the Prevailing Part, (I say not in the Major Number, which is against Reason and Charity to think) an inveterate Resolution to suppress one sort of Men they hated, which are now the Non-conformists, and that indeed was all the Plot in that time which was going. For let us suppose such a Question had been proposed at the passing these Acts, Whether the King should have a Power for the time to come, to raise Money and make Laws without a Parliament? Can any Man's Heart serve him to believe, that such a Motion would have been entertained, or such a Vote by any Means under Heaven have been obtained (or could be yet) from the Majority of both Houses? To put the Question, Whether by those Commissionated by the King in this Clause of the Subscription, and that of the Oxford-Oath, is meant any but the Legally Commissionated, or such as can justify their Commissions and Actings by Law, is all one in good earnest with the Knowing, as to put this said Question. And how then does any Man that understands (and considers that he understands) himself, make a doubt of my Interpretation? It hath been talked, that when it was endeavoured by some in the Upper Hose, to put the Word Legally into the Test at the time when that was in Agitation, it was refused: But what of that, supposing it were true? Must this be the Reason on Necessity, because they intended to make the Government Arbitrary? I am given to understand, for certain, that when this Clause came into motion, they did unanimously Vote, that by the Commissionated, the Legally Commissionated, and nothing else was to be understood, without any Contradiction: So that the Reason why they put not in that Word, Legally, could not be because they had another Meaning, but because this Meaning was so manifest, so undoubted, and yielded by all, that there was no need to do it; As also, lest by the Insertion of more than needs, they might give occasion to People for the time to come of questioning still the Legality of the King's Commissions. So easily are we misled by Reports, which are always Partial, & often mistaken. Nay, what if it were in the Thoughts of some Court Flatterers, who are not always the King's Friends, to advance the Prerogative above its due Height? Did we not see, that as soon as this Suspicion did but enter in the Thoughts of a few, what a stir it this Test was but in the Upper House only, there is no force at all in the Argument, what a few Men at such a distance were contriving (if they were): so long as it is not to be imagined that the Major Part of both Houses, at the time when the Acts were made, had the least Intention, or Thought of any such matter. I will add, that I am assured for my own part by certain Testimony, that the King himself hath said it more than once, not only in his Public Speeches which may be thought Popular, but in his Private Retirement upon apt Occasions, that he really desired and sought no more than his just Prerogative, without Entrenchment on the People's Liberty. As he needed not, so he would not have said this to some upon the Occasion I know, if he was not Cordial in it. And if he should be of another Mind more lately (which it were a Wickedness in us to think), yet were that nothing as to the Acts of Parliament which have been so long passed. Nay, that I may cut off this very Suggestion also, Duke Laudardale in his Speech to the Convention of Estates at Edinburgh, now must lately, July 1678. hath these Words. Majesty hath these Eighteen Years in all his Kingdoms, solemnly professed his Abhorrence of Arbitrary Government, his Ruling by the Law, and his Inviolable Care to preserve the Liberty and Property of his Subjects. I should not, I must confess, inculcate this thus much, but in regard to the Oxford-Oath, and that the Conscience of a Man is indeed as tender a Point as the Throne of a King. For, as for this Subscription alone, if any can be of another mind yet, he may put in his Particular Exception, and say, I Subscribe to it as unlawful to Resist any Commissionated by the King, if their Commissions be according to Law: if they be not, I hold the contrary.  
In the Third Clause I have one thing to remember, which is to declare, that I apprehend not that any Man by his Subscribing to conform to the Liturgy, does engage, or stand engaged because of that, to forsake his Brethren presently who conform not, and come no more amongst them; or that he does debar himself thereby the Benefit to hear them, or deprive others of his Labours to Preach with them, at least if some of the Common-Prayer will but be suffered to be read by him. I understand no such matter by it: if any others do, I enter my Exception. For, as I am one that have ordinarily gone to my Parish-Church, not only joining in the Public Prayers, but receiving the Sacrament there, and never yet elsewhere, though I am a Nonconformist: So, if I shall conform (that is, so far as I can (which does but fix me so much more firm in that wherein I conform not), I intent not but to be the same Man still, as to the keeping in with my Brethren, and to do as I did; which is to be sometimes with them, and for the most part with the Parochial Congregation. I am convinced, that it is a great Fault of the Nonconformist and Conformist both, who fear God, that they keep no more Fellowship with one another, which were the nearest way to make up Difference, and to understand better what is to be done by both for the Peace of the Church, and for the Sake of our Religion. And here I must advance a little in this Clause; I think it enough for a Licence to Preach, to Subscribe the same with the mentioned Limitations: but if I should find in my heart to take upon me a Parochial Charge, it were more fit, and in order to that Work, to Subscribe more strictly. In short, So far as I Assent and Consent, so far I an say, I will Conform. For this is uniform, and that I may be express in that I do, because it stands me upon; I am come to an Agreement, upon Treaty, to change this Clause thus, which differs little in the Import.  
The Third Clause is a Promise, as I take it, to Read Common Prayer, which I am not against; and do therefore Subscribe, That if I have a Public Charge, or Cure of Souls, I Shall in the ordinary Lord's-Day Service, by myself, or by an Assistant, according to the Usage of the Church, conform to the Liturgy of the Church of England, as it is now by Law Established. Only, if upon any occasion (or Reason) I shall sometimes shorten the Work, I will not be held a Breaker of my Promise for that: Nor shall the Omission of another, be laid to my Charge.  
In the Fourth Clause there is some Distinction, and my Restrictions or Limitation on that Distinction. I will add here some few Words for Explication of the Restrictions. I do say, there lies no Obligation from the Covenant on any Person [in a Private Capacity, or Acting in a Private Capacity] to endeavour any Alteration of Government. By which Words I understand not only an Exception to such who are Public Persons that Act in Parliament, which I express in the first Words [in a Private Capacity] but to all others likewise, Acting in such a way, as (or in no other way than) is warrantable by the Constitution of the Land, which I express in the Word superadded [or Acting in a private Capacity]. The Government of this Nation is a Mixed Government, and there is something of it in the Hands of the Popularity. The People may choose their Representatives for Parliament, and tell them what they would have done, and persuade them to endeavour it, and Petition both Houses for it (nay, they Vote in them), and in all this, Act, I count in a Public Capacity though Private Persons, so long as they do Act by Virtue of the Constitution. I must account likewise, if any seek the Reformation of the Church, or any other Good for the Nation, in Praying to God for it, or Preaching (suppose one Preaching to the Houses) and Persuading to it, and the like (if you screw up the Word Endeavour to that Height), with the purpose only of having it done in an orderly way, by a due Proceeding in Parliament, that this is to be held Equivalent, because whatsoever is done this way, is warranted (I say) be the Constitution. I dare not then deny, but there does lie an Obligation on every Man in the Parliament as Public Persons, and on all Private Persons likewise, so far as they can act in a Public Capacity thereunto, to Honour God, in seeking the Reformation of the Church, and the Public Good: But I Subscribe, that there lies no Obligation from the Covenant upon myself or any other Person, to endeavour the same any otherwise but in a Political Capacity that is only as it can be obtained by a Rightful Act of Parliament. If any think, I have not expressed thus much aptly or fully enough in its place, let him mend it to his own Mind who has occasion for it: If suffices me, (as I have for the general once intimated) if I have here and there together (as Master of my own Sense and Explanations), delivered myself from Scruple.  
In the Fift Clause, I do the like as in the fourth, and then give my reason why I Subscribe upon the Restriction. I dare not say that nothing in the Covenant is Lawful or Obligatory, They covenanted against Schism, Popery, to Repent and amend their lives; This must oblige those that took it. Nay I dare not say that it is unlawful top make any change of Government. The power of the Keys is committed by Christ to the Minister, or his own Officers; The Bishop commits them to the Chancellor, who is a Lay man, and yet executes that Charge. Who does doubt but if the Government were changed in this point, it were lawful? Nay I do not say that a change of the Hierarchy itself, of the Archbishop and Diocesan Bishop invested with the sole power of Ordination and Juridiction into the Primitive Episcopacy, acting along in these things with the Presbyters, is in itself unlawful, but that it lies in the power of a Parliament (if they please) to do it. When I do then thus put in my exception as to the Matter Covenanted (even the Alteration of Government) precisely considered, and rest myself only in showing how this Oath in the Act of Covenanting was indeed in the Complex consideration (in regard to that matter) obivously unlawful as I judge, and give my Reason: if this shall content the Bishop and serve my turn, I may have cause to acknowledge his candour, but none of my brethren have any, to be offended at me for what I do.  
In the last Clause I find no need of any Exception or Interpretation.  
That which remains therefore now in regard to this Subscription, is only to put my had to my Paper, which if I obtain hereby the use of my Ministry (and none can convince me of sin in it) I am content to do: If I obtain it not, if shall suffice me to have made the trial, and the matter shall be all one in point of Conformity between God and my soul, as if I were clear altogether, and had put no name at all to it. I, H.  
Thus much then for the Subscription. I have offered my Rule and I have proceeded to Practise; which I have done in the General, and in this Particular. I have no more to say of that. Of the former, the General, there are several branches mentioned before, and there are some of them wherein I perceive it needful to make yet some further declaration; more especially, Concerning the Common Prayer, Concerning my Second Orders, and Concerning the Church Articles. And when I have also done this, my work is not quite done, I have something to leave then (if it might be obtained) on other hands.  
For the first, the Common Prayer. There are many particular things, little and great, in some part or other of the book, which I must profess really I cannot give my unfeigned assent and consent unto, and think, that any man who is severe at any time upon his Conscience, can hardly choose but be startled at. I remember some years since, a Conformist Minister using the Common Prayer in his house, gave me this reason. It was required (he said) of all Ministers, and turned me presently to this passage in the Preface before the Prayers. And all Priests and Deacons are to say daily the Morning and Evening prayer, either privately or openly, not being let by sickness, or some other urgent cause. From that time, I perceived I was no man for the Declaration of Assent and Consent to all, and every thing, contained in, and prescribed by this book; and also that by the shift of those words [to the use] I could not help myself. I dare not give my consent to the use of any thing which I never intent to do. I do, and I shall use at home my own Prayers. In the other Preface before Ordination, there is a difference of Order (or Office) asserted between Bishop and Presbyter (which was put in also in this new book on purpose) when such men as Field, Mason, Davenant, Mead, Usher, do hold a difference in Degree only. I cannot assent to this, because I was otherwise engaged in print before this book was enjoined, and I cannot retract my opinion without conviction. In the same place, there is this passage, but with more words. And to the intent that these Orders be reverendly esteemed, no man shall be accounted or taken for a Lawful Priest, or be suffered to execute the function, except he be called according to this for me, or bath had formerly Episcopal Ordination. Reader, can thy heart consent to this? Art thou so assured that the nation lies under no guilt in turning out so many Ministers who were Ordained only by Presbyters, as thou darest partake in the deed by thy Consent? My heart I am sure will not serve me to do it. In the Athanasian Creed I cannot assent to the Proem and Conclusion by no means, and God forbidden they should be true. The whose Creed and Articles of it I believe, but I believe not that every one that done't, is uncapable of Salvation. I will mention one more peculiar thing (and it is a great matter) that sticks with me being against my written judgement. I perceive the Liturgy though all its Offices does lay the Notion of the Church upon so narrow a foundation as the congregational men do, and I think that without some other Hypothesis, we cannot defend ourselves against Separation. It is not upon the Christian profession in general in opposition to other Religions, but upon the profession of no less than a true saving faith the child is baptised, when the Sureties in the name of itself, and not of its Parents, do answer actually, Credo, Abrenuncio; Having thus professed faith or repentance, it is said to be Regenerate in the Office performed; Upon the same profession renewed, when the child comes to more years, it is Confirmed; No man is then admonished, or presumed to be allowed, to come to the Sacrament but upon an assured faith; And none are buried but according to a Church judgement of Charity (as Professors), they are, and must be accounted, to go to Heaven. I cannot tell well how to relish this, for here is no bottom methinks for a National Church. I must have such a Notion of the Church (Catholic, National, Parochicall) as a Polliceor according to the Catechism may serve for a persons entrance into it, and all the Ordinances of Worship and Discipline be means after to excite him unto grace and his duty, as well as to edify him when he is holy unto Salvation. This is no place I know for such a discourse; Only I am not willing to be Choked in it, by swallowing this Pear of Assent and Consent. In the Orders of Deacon I never approve since myself was faulty, that a man does Solemnly promise to perform that Office (the duties hereof being read to him) when he is made Priest also at the same time, and immediately casts off that Charge. In the Rubrics to the Communion, Baptism, and Burial, if I consent to every thing prescribed, or to the use of every thing there prescribed, I must not deliver the Bread and Wine to a man, if he scruples to Kneel at the Sacrament; I must turn away his child from baptism, if he Scruples Godfathers; and if the Child dies before it is Christened, though the parents be my dear friends, I must not allow it Christian burial. These are hard Instances in my mind, and I could easily make up the number twenty, which I believe the indifferent Reader would count reasonable exception. I must distinguish therefore (as I here carefully do) the Ordinary appointed Prayers, and Service of the Liturgy, from other Matters on the By; which I declare no Assent or Consent unto. And when I come in, or seek to come in to the Church upon the terms of Moderation, I do declare myself Ipso facto a Nonconformist still to the Severity of these Impositions; bearing indeed thereby, only a more distinct, fixed and assured testimony against them. Nevertheless being sensible of the Scandal which is given to the Nation, who see generally no other difference between us but our refusing to read the Common Prayer, and do think us very exceeding refractory persons who will not comply in the things we can do, I do resolve for one, by the grace of God (without turning to the left hand in doing any thing which is against my conscience for preferment, or to the right in contenting myself with Suffering only and doing nothing), to set myself as it were in the Market place, and if any Bishop shall give me a call (that is fitting) into the Vineyard (when I seek to them) upon the terms of this Paper, I shall not refuse them, though it be almost the Eleventh hour with me. I shall not stick out with them I believe upon the account of reading Common Prayer. I will trust in God's power, it he hath work for me to do that he will give me assistance to do it: and if they will not let me come in upon these terms to Labour, I will trust in his Goodness that he will forgive me when I am found Idle. The Nation shall see at whose door the fault Lies by my experiment. For I do profess myself one who can neither stretch my Soul beyond its staple, nor yet will give off upon despondence, or on the presumption only that it will not serve me unless I do every thing to a tittle, which is the prepossessed judgement of most of my brethren when they have made no trial, and which I would humbly reprove therefore by my Example.  
For the Second, Re-ordination. I will here make my Remonstrance and Confession. I will set things at rights between God and my Soul, and between my Soul and the World. I am one that was ordained by Presbyters in the late times, and re-ordained since by the Bishop. I was persuaded into it before I had studied the point, and brought myself in distress. I was fain to take such a course for relief of my Soul, as nothing could have driven me to, but that distress itself, which I would not lie under again for the World. Not that I was any way touched in my Intellectuals by it, as some that never knew me have been apt to talk ever since, which I must assure them is a tale, and there was no such thing (I thank God) in the least. I have reason yet to say this, because I know the temper of my mind being Melancholy and Thoughtful, and so apt to be intent on any one thing that hath got into it, whether of Notion or Business, I do not often, and I cannot sometimes recall myself from those thoughts to an attendance on the present company I am in, or discourse that is going so freely as others, which makes my unheedfulness liable to the censure of those that are not used to me; Besides that, being One resolved generally to follow my own conscience in what I writ, or do, whether it please or displease others, the Offended (who are commonly on both sides) may be apt to put some such slur upon me, at least, while in any thing I go but in a way uncommon. As Paul therefore said, when Festus had got such a conceit of him, so must I. I am not Mad my worthy Brethren who are strangers to me, when I differ from you, (and from those also, whom I do know) in what I writ, or act: But what I do (I trust) are deeds of Soberness, and I speak forth the words of Truth. I acknowledge, the Church in her giving Orders does intent the collation of an Office to the Presbyter distinct from the Bishop, that is an office without the power of Ordination; and consequently if a Presbyter ordains any, the Churchmen must hold such an ordination to be void, because the persons that confer the orders have no power to do it. But I must confess my thoughts about Orders are something different from others. I do not think that the Spiritual power, or ministerial authority is conveyed to us by the hands of any, but does come Immediately upon us (the conditions on our part being put) from the institution of Christ. I apprehend consequently that whatsoever be the intention of the Church in her giving Orders, such a power must be derived from Christ to the person ordained as is intended in his Institution: and so long as we find not any distinction (which is touched before) of Order or Office (though we allow one as to Degree and Eminency) in the Scripture between Bishop and Presbyter, the authority of one in regard to God must be the same with the other; and the laying on the hands of the one be of the same validity in Ordination as the imposition of the hands of the other. We do read, that God hath set in his Church, Apostles, Evangelists, Pastors and Teachers, but we find not Bishop and Presbyter enumerated as two of them. I enter not into dispute here, but I am one that dare not give way to the making void of my Ministry and all my ministerial acts for a dozen years, or more, before I was Ordained by the Bishop, for that were a heinous crime for me (I think) to do: yet will I be content as to the Exercise of my Office now, to own my authority from him. I was a Minister before in foro Dei & Conscientiae: I was made a Minister then (I will account) in foro Ecclesia Anglicanae. I acknowledge I did ill in my circumstances to take second orders: and yet was I too extreme (I doubt) in my renunciation, or in the way of my renunciation again of them. If any man thinks that Orders give the spiritual power, and makes us Ministers in foro Dei, it is apparent that a Man who is a Minister already cannot be so made a Minister again. Consequently if I have formerly writ any thing that seems to countenance Re-ordination to the Office (which is good earnest my Hypotheses never favoured) I do rennounce it all, and those second Orders, on that account (I humbly crave the Church's absolution and benediction): But if Orders be only a Recommendation of us to the grace of God for the work unto which a man is called, there is nothing in Re-ordination to scare any; and as my second Orders may serve me for the Exercise of my Ministry when my first will not, I do, I must, retain them to that purpose, if I be received (on my terms otherwise) into the Church. I crave pardon of God for my failings on either hand, especially where my case in the work crept in to deflower my Sincerity in such a piece of Self deny all as I know else what was. The prevailing interest of my heart (I hope) was right in the sight of God in what I did, yet dare I not justify myself, but commit my case unto my Judge, imploring his mercy and begging his pardon. For when there is nothing almost that I do, but upon a severe Examination I can find some slaws in it myself: If thou O Lord, shouldst be extreme to mark against me what I have done amiss, how could I abide it? I will bind myself therefore (If I be fit) so much more to my duty, and in some kind of penance for my infirmity, shall be the more content that I take that course to make my return to the Vineyard as no man else hath endeavoured, at least in such a Manifesto as this is. And to the same end, I shall yet commit this ensuing Memorial to Posterity.  
Notum sit omnibus ad quos haec spectant, me J. H. legitime & Canonice ab Episcopo Bathoniensi ordinatum fuisse; Quod cum praegrave nimium Conscientiae meae ob priorem aliquam Ordinationem a Presbyteris sine Episcopo collatam visum est: Ordinationem hanc denuò receptam non ad Ministerij Officium, sed ad ejus Exercitium particular, ubicunque vocatus (si vocatus) fuero, habendi; eaque habita utendi, egomet mihi, & Deus meus (facillime omnia in quibus peccavi mihi condonans) potestatem facimus.  
For the third, the Nine and Thirty Articles. I must confess myself in this one thing something more difficult to be satisfied than others. It is but distinguishing of the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church (which includes the Government and Ceremonies), and the most of my Brethren can Subscribe to these Articles without Scruple. And no more than an Assent to the Doctrine (I think) is required by the Statute. But I am one much in doubt concerning the Doctrine of some of our Articles. I do think that the Article of Justification, and the Eighteenth Article in the Authentic sense of them are questionable. These words in the Eleventh article, That we are Justified by Faith only, are expressly contrary to the meaning of St. James: And the meaning of those that composed the Articles at that time (who had not the Light which is going now) was I believe contrary also to the meaning of St. James: Their mistake I apprehend Obvious, who took St. Paul's justification, by Faith without the Works of the Law to be all one as by Faith only. In the Eighteenth Article likewise I believe it was the judgement, and so the meaning of the Composers, that no man who is not converted to the Christian Faith can be saved, and consequently that every Heathen Man in the World must perish. For this is consonant to the beginning and end of the Athanasian Creed, that whosoever believes not that faithfully, and keeps it whole and undefiled is undoubtedly Damned. But for my own part, I cannot be of this Opinion, which seems to me inconsistent with the Goodness of God, and Natural Religion. I have offered some little Light and Argument for the salvability of some Heathen (in my Book lately come out, entitled Peaceable Disquisitions) that will not, or cannot (I think) be withstood by the Considerate and Equal. I have offered also in the same book that reconciliation of Paul and James which I believe to be the Right. I can believe no otherwise, and I must have liberty therefore of some exception in these two Articles (and perhaps in some others) from that which I believe to be the Authentic Sense of them, or I cannot Subscribe them. Nay, to say something that may seem strange, I can subscribe the words of one of these Articles, and yet not to the article (without dispensation) because I think the meaning of the Imposers to be more than the words come to. I verily think the Composers of the Articles did believe that all Heathen are excluded Salvation, yet do they proceed to their Anathema here (which they have in no other Article) with wary words, which is not pronounced against any that say only some Heathen may be saved, but against them who presume to say that every Man shall be saved by the Law or Sect he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his Life according to it, which is a Doctrine I abhor myself as being against the sense of what I offer in my Book named; the scope whereof is to show, that there is but one Rule, Law, or Religion for the World to obtain Life by; That this is the Law of our Lapsed Nature, which is God's Grace administered under a threefold State; Of the Heathen, Of the Jews, Of Christians; That our Advantage over them lies (as the Apostle speaks) in our having the Oracles of God, which (including the Minstry and Ordinances) are (we know) those further (and our ordinary) Means which they have not, to bring Men up to the Performance of that Law, that is the Condition to us and them of obtaining Salvation by it. This makes that Advantage so significant, that in comparison of the state of the Jews (or Commonwealth of Israel) and much more in comparison of our Estate; the Heathen wanting these means, are said to be dead in their Sins, to be without God, without Christ, to sit in Darkness, and the like, (that is (I say) Comparatively to us, or Secundum quid) when yet they are under the same Law (I affirm) in the Substance for Life as we, and we know not but more than a few of them live with acceptance up to it. When some Men will have Christians saved only by Morality and Good Nature, it will be time, and no Fault for others, to make the Heathens Salvable by Grace and Christ Jesus. This is not indeed here (or there) my concern to pursue: But that I have to observe to my present Purpose, is (as I am saying), that though I know none that do scruple the Literal Sense of this article, which is, That no Man can be saved by any Religion, but the True Religion; yet so long as I believe, that the Imposers did mean more, to wit, that no Man can be Saved in any Religion but the Christian, which is another Matter (As a Man may be Saved in Popery, but not by it; He may be saved from Popery, in Popery, and so from Idolatry in Heathenism): I have been in suspense still how to Subscribe this Article, unless it be only to the Words, with Exception to the Authentic Meaning. There is a threefold Interpretation, An Authentic, Usual, and Doctrinal Interpretation, as Suarez has it De Legibus. I will therefore advance here one Notion, which will be received (I think) as Consonant to the Judgement of most Men, as soon as they have laid it to Consideration. It is this, that though I account all Laws in general are to be taken in that Sense only, which we believe to be the Meaning of the Law giver, because the Law is his Will, and it is not the Words, but his Meaning is his Will: Yet do I judge, that in these Articles of the Church, which are not Laws, nor Articles of Faith, but Articles for Concord, that is, in the Words of the Cannon, Articles for the avoiding Diversities of Opinions, and for establishing of Consent touching true Religion, there is no Man to be staked down to the Authentic Interpretation (which I account that, as a Man believes to be the Meaning of the Majority of the Convocation that passed the Article), but to be allowed (or rather, he is supposed to be allowed, and to take) the Freedom of a Doctrinal Interpretation (which is, any Judicious Explication of such a Thesis or Doctrine, as some of the Eminent Doctors of the Church, or other Pious and Learned Author or Authors have offered to the Nation; or indeed any such as a Man himself shall tender, which in the Literal Grammatical Construction of the Article (to keep to the King's Declaration before the Articles) appears Rational, and is satisfactory to his own Conscience, and much more if it be allowed by the Bishop). My Reason is, because it must be conceived, that when any Council, Synod, or Convocation of Divines do meet about an Agreement upon any Articles or Theses concerning Religion, they are generally of divers Minds in the debating the Points, and every one is to be supposed free in the Delivery of his Judgement, until they come to draw up the Article or Doctrine into such Words as they are all to consent to; and than if it be Composed so, as they can yield to one another in the Words which they agree upon, it is to be understood, that there is an Universal Allowance tacitly granted from all to one another, of abounding in their own Sense, and so they came to a Coalition. There is the Meaning then of the Majority; and a Universal Meaning. The Universal Meaning is above the Meaning of the Major Part. The Meaning of the Majority I believe in some of these Articles, to be such as I cannot Subscribe them in their Meaning: But forasmuch, as I apprehend it the Universal Meaning, that every one of those that are to pass their Vote in Establishing the Article, should have the Liberty of his own Sense, so long as he can but agree with the rest in the Words, or in the Literal Construction of the Article, if I bring an Interpretation of some Doctor, or one of my own, which may be supposed to be the same with any one of them who so consented to it with difference of Explication from others, then must I be supposed to have the Universal Allowance of the Convocation for that Interpretation, which I call a Doctrinal Interpretation. I will confirm this by the Notoriety of the Practice in the Council of Trent. The Doctors differed in most Points, but as soon as (through the Expertness of one of the Precedents, famous for that Knack) they were but put into Words as might salve their contrary Opinions, they passed their Votes as Unanimous in the Council, although they writ after also one against another, citing the Council for them on both sides. To this purpose are the Words of the King, in his Declaration for the Ratification of the Articles to be considered. We take Comfort in this, that even in those curious Points, in which the present Differences lie, Men of all sorts take the Articles of the Church of England to be for them. The Arminians with Doctor Hammond, and the Calvinists with Bishop Usher do Subscribe them, and find out their own different Sense in them. I will leave it therefore on the File, as the fit Matter of a new Cannon, if ever we have another Convocation, to be declared, that the Articles and Homilies of the Church are imposed, and to be Subscribed, not in the Authentic, nor in the Usual, but in a Doctrinal Interpretation. There being a Latitude in all Controverted Points, and consequently some Diversity of Opinion to be allowed to Brethren, for the abounding in their own Sense in the same Religion, or else there can be no sufficient Foundation of Unity amongst any considerable Number of Men of Free Judgements in the World.  
In the mean time, if the case be put, what a man shall do that scruples or doubts of the truth of any of the Articles, whether he may satisfy himself with such an Interpretation before it be Authorized by a Convocation (or otherwise), I must answer that I apprehend a great deal of reason for it, but dare not pass such a determination. If I scruple any thing myself I shall declare it, and unless I am satisfied in that sense of the point as I believe was the meaning of the Imposers, I must fly to my remedy, not of an Interpretation, but of the liberty for Exception or Limitation, and that indeed does my work. This Scrupulosity, and rigour of my mind for avoiding every thing of a Solemn lie (though never so small) does make me wish for such a Canon, or the allowance of a greater Authority, by some Act of Parliament.  
I will therefore now turn me to the Higher Powers, for I must beg their Pardon for this Endeavour of mine to make my return to the Vineyard before they have opened the way for us, who can alone Legally do it. I would hereby, kindly provoke them to think at last on some Explanatory Act for Uniting the Protestant, and restoring the Ejected; who have now been out of our Live above Fifteen year, and no evil we hope hath been found in us, besides our preaching sometimes, and praying, and the keeping of our Consciences. And because it is said, commonly by the Members of either House, that if they knew what we would have, or thought we know ourselves, they would do it; I cannot forbear to present them with the Materials of such a Bill, in telling them what we would have, from what is said already; if they will but bear with the repetition. For when the obtainment of such a blessing for the Nation is even near past my hopes, yet must it be still in my prayers; I may not be wanting to it in my endeavours; and it cannot be beyond my Wishes.  
Whereas then, there are many jealousies arose about Popery (to frame a Preamble, as well as a body for such a Bill out of what is before delivered,) which makes it even necessary to the peace of the Nation, that the Protestant interest be united and strengthened by all good and lawful means, and to this end there being this one proper expedient, to wit, the removing the occasions of Division which several persons do find to themselves in those late injunctions which yet were intended to the same purpose of Concord in the Realm: That which we would have, is, that the Parliament would be pleased that a Bill be prepared for Peace and Union, which might bear some such Title. An Explanatory Act for agreement amongst Protestants, and for Ease in the business in Religion. In which Bill I would have such an Explanation of these Impositions, and such Alleviations in regard to the tenderly considerate, and peaceably Scrupulous, or, soberly, not factiously Conscientious (who will never be won) as may do our business.  
In the Act of Uniformity, By the Declaration of Assent and Consent to all things, and every thing, contained in, and prescribed, by, the two book, of Common Prayer, and of Ordering Priests and Deacons, there is no considerate man of the Parliament ever (I hope) understood that these books are in every minute particular infallible, or free from that defect which is incident to all humane Composures; but they understand I suppose, that they are in the main contents to be sincerely approved and used: I would have it therefore be here sufficient, if this Declaration be made to the use of the book in the Ordinary daily Lordsday service, which we can consent to, or that we may make it with a licence of Exception against any matter or matters (out of that Service) which the Bishop shall think meet to be dispensed with upon Convincing reason; Provided only that the Ordinary constant public Service of the Liturgy obtains Consent and Practise. And for the Ceremonies, which are, and have been always, and on all hands held only for indifferent things, I wish they might be left to the Consciences and prudence of Ministers and People every where (excepting the cathedrals,) to use them, or forbear them as they judge it most meet for one another's edification; for so some Bishops I believe, if it be left to them, will sometimes be apt to determine themselves. Provided that if any person will have his child baptised with the sign of the Cross, or stands upon any thing else hitherto required by the Service-book, if the Minister himself Scruple the performance, he shall always have some Assistant or Curate to do it.  
In the same Act, By the Subscription, before treated, As I believe there was no new Ill or strange thing intended by any of them, but the rightful maintenance only of the King's authority against Rebellion: So do I apprehend that the Interpretation and the Limitations which I do here humbly present with an unfeigned impartiality upon the several Clauses of it, may pass their public approbation or allowance; which therefore I would have to be done, as a matter of kind satisfaction to most men's consciences, and of grievance to no Body. Only for that part of it which is enjoined but to the year 1682, it might do better perhaps to be made to cease presently, and be no longer imposed.  
And forasmuch as there is an Oath also in the Act of Oxford required of all Non conformist preachers that reside ín any Corporate town, or come within five Miles of it, whereof I have Printed a former Paper, and given the Interpretation throughout as I believed it to be the very sense and meaning only of the Act, without limitation or exception, which cannot therefore be refused, insomuch as I dare, and do appeal to a Vote of the two Houses whether I have delivered their minds or no: I would here have it only put to the Question; and if it be (as I doubt not) indeed their sense, that they would declare it. This will make that Oath straight be generally taken. Or else, I will propose this rather (which is better) that it may suffice any man to enjoy the right of this freeborn liberty to go where he will in his own Country, I mean to escape the penalty of this Act, and serve him also instead of the forementioned Subscription, to take that Oath in this form of words following. I A. B. do swear, that I hold it unlawful upon any pretence to take Arms against the King, his Government, or Laws: And that I disclaim that dangerous Position of taking Arms by his Authority against his Person, or any Legally commissionated by him in the Legal pursuit of such Commissions: And that I will not endeavour any alteration of Government in the Church or State in any way or manner not warranted by the Constitution of this Kingdom (that is in a seditious manner), or any otherwise then by Act of Parliament.  
It being required moreover in the Act of uniformity (which is another of the things also before Mentioned) that every Minister who enjoys any Living shall be ordained by a Bishop, and there are several persons of late who in case of necessity for want of Bishops took Presbyterian Orders, I would have the Parliament declare it their intent (for redeeming their credit with the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas), not to make it absolutely necessary for such persons to be reordained to the Office, but that it may be enough for them if they receive this second Imposition of hands to the Exercise of their Office in the New charge unto which they are, or shall be appointed, and that the Bishop may, and shall frame his words accordingly. This is the only way that I could find out, for peace to my own mind (as I have told before) in this business.  
And whereas there is a Subscription also in the Canons and the Canonical Oath of Obedience imposed on most Ministers by the Bishops (mentioned before likewise), which have given some of the greatest occasion to Non-conformists heretofore, and which yet have never passed into a Law by any Act of Parliament: I would here have it enquired by what Authorty one of these is imposed, for I know none; And for that which is found in the Canons, being what is more than needs, because included in other injunctions, I would have it Exauthorized, and that nothing more of this nature might be imposed on us than is made necessary by the Act of the thirteenth of Elizabeth. Provided nevertheless, if the Bishop be unsatisfyed about any particular Person, he shall be ready to offer a due acknowledgement of his reverence to Bishops in a laudable Testimony thereof under his hand, and of his fair regard to the main substance of the three Articles contained in that Canonical Subscription in such expressions as shall best satisfy his own Conscience, and be approved as sufficient under the hands of two Episcopal Doctors, or allowed by the Bishop.  
And in regard there hath been great offence taken by conscientious Ministers (which is a thing hath not yet been mentioned) at the Bishop, or his Courts commanding them to read then sentence of Excommunication against some or other of their Parish, for such faults as they think not at all worthy of so great censure, or else be exempted from the execution of that charge; and that the Bishop or his Court provide some other person that is satisfied about it, to do it. And I would have none forced to give the Body and Blood of Christ to any, but to whom they can, in point of Conscience.  
In the last place, To the intent that a free search after Truth may be encouraged, and many other Scruples avoided upon that account: I would have them Authorise this one thing which I have offered, as more peculiar in this Paper; which is, That though an Authentic Interpretation, which is the Sense and Meaning only of the Lawgiver, be that Interpretation which is to be regarded as the Substance of all Laws, seeing no Law, as no Scripture is of Private Interpretation: yet in all matters of Words merely and Phrases, an Interpretation that is Usual, and in all Articles, or Theses for Concord (which I distinguish from Laws) about Religion, and the Homilies of the Church, a Doctrinal Interpretation be sufficient for an Assent or Subscription to them.  
These are the Things, and there is no less than these, and (I think) no more than these, which are necessary to reconcile the Moderate Conformist and Nonconformist, which is one Part of my Design, and Accommodation. If they will pull out Nine Thorns out of our Feet, and leave a Tenth, we cannot go along with them. Be it resolved therefore by the Grace of God, and both Houses, that if any Person be willing to conform to the present Establishment of the Church of England, and her Service appointed upon these, any of these, and every one of these Explanations, Alleviations, Declarations, Lenitives, or Cautions, he shall be admitted to any Ecclesiastical Preferment, and enjoy the use of his Ministry without Molestation. All Statutes, Canons, or Laws to the contrary notwithstanding.  
To pass now to the other part of this Bill or Design, which is Indulgence; In the way, Because the very Superintendency of Bishops, and that Subjection to them which is required by the Constitution of the Realm is, or may be, an Hindrance to many sober Ministers, and other Protestants of coming into the Church, who are ready to consent to the Doctrine, but not to the Discipline or Government of it, I would have them declare, That so long as any Person or Party do acknowledge the King's Supremacy, as Head of the Church in this Nation, and obey their Ordinary in licitis & honestis, upon the account of his Authority committed to the Bishops, and their Officers, as Substitutes of his for the Exercise of that External Objective Regiment Circa Sacra, which is granted by all our Divines to the Higher Powers in every Nation, it is much as is, or can be required in Law to the owning Episcopal Jurisdiction; and shall serve them to all Intents and Purposes, no less than a professed Belief and Acknowledgement of the immediate Divine Right of it. That is, Although there be some that cannot acknowledge our Diocesan Prelates to be Christ's Officers distinct from the Elders in Scripture, yet so long as they can live peaceable Lives in Obedience to them, as Ecclesiastical Magistrates under his Majesty for the keeping the several Congregations in their Precincts to that Gospel-Order which themselves allow, and for Supervising their Constitutions in things indifferent, that nothing be done but in Subordination to the Peace of the Kingdom (which is a Notion wherein the Judicious of every Party may acquiesce) it is enough for their Reception into National Church-Union. And this is so far from Derogating from the Bishop's Office and Dignity, that it were a way to be chose in Policy to advance it; while it makes his Authority significant to the Presbyterian, and Independent, as well as to the Minister that hath a Living; and rears him an Inspection over the Gathered, as over the Parochial Congregation.  
And forasmuch then, as there are moreover some Ministers of a good Life, that cannot according to their Judgements allow of our Parochial Churches, nor the Book of Liturgy; but do choose to Worship God and Jesus Christ in the way of their gathered or separate Congregations, and crave the Protection and Clemency of the King upon their Allegiance, as other Subjects enjoy (the Conscience being obnoxious to God only, and not capable to be constrained by the Rigour of Laws, or by the extremest Execution of them): If the Parliament-Men would know further what we would have, I would have these Men all forborn and let alone, thinking this Advantage the Churchmen have over such, to be enough, that they have the State-Countenance, and these are uncapable in their way of all Public Emolument till they come into them.  
And to the intent the Forborn may be wrought upon by the proper Motives of their own Good, and at their own Time, I would have (as the other designed Part (I say) of such a Bill) such a Universal Act of Grace be granted, that all and every Christian-Subject throughout his Majesty's Realms, that profess themselves of the Reformed Religion, be pardoned all Faults and Penalties whatsoever incurred upon the account of any forepast Nonconformity, and that they shall not, during so many Years to come (as shall be Voted) be vexed or persecuted any more for their Consciences, in the matter of Religion. Provided they commit not any heinous Crime worthy of Punishment, but carry themselves Innocently and Peaceably, both with Submission to all due Order in their own Churches, and without Disturbance to the Civil or Ecclésiastical Government now settled in the Nation.  
There are these two Ingredients that are necessary to the Happiness of the Kingdom. Union and Liberty. Union is for strengthening the Church for God: Liberty is for strengthening the Land, for the King. There is Trade to be encouraged, and Wars to be Managed; and Liberty of Conscience serves these ends against our Civil Enemies in helping us to more hands; as Union serves us against Popery, and the Enemies of our Religion. And what indeed should we do with our Brethren that differ from us in opinion? Shall we smite them? No, but set Bread and Water before them. Persecution will make them more zealous and combine them, but liberty must brake them, or win them. They must have time. And if the naming what time may not be waved, and I may speak who spoke the rest, I would set it during this King's Reign, that so every Man may pray for his Life, and he may have the Title (more augustly) of Carolus Clemens when he dies.  
And for the making our Union of better signification to the Concerned, and more effectual prevention of that Scandal which is raised on the Clergy through the Covetousness of some (A fault that we Ministers are taxed with generally, even when we seek but things just, and these therefore must take the more heed) who heap up to themselves all the Preferments they can get, which are neither agreeable to their Labour, or their want; nor to the duty of that tremendous calling unto which they are called; but by this means, many other Ministers are deprived even of necessary maintenance for their families, and an occasion is administered to themselves of pride (an undecent immeasurable Exaltation above their rank and birth, to the envy of others), Of carelessness (through the impossibility of a due attendance on a double or treble charge), Of more worldly mindedness, a loser life, and so of ill example of ten times unto their flocks, whereby the Souls of many Parishes (which ought to be more precious to the Minister than his Maintenance) are sinfully neglected, to the offence of Almighty God, and the hazard of their own, and their people's Salvation: I would have no Clergyman henceforward be suffered to enjoy any more than one Living, or Cure of Souls, and one Dignity at one time; and that every man without exception, that hath more than one of either, should immediately give up the rest to be distributed among those who shall be Comprehended, or brought into the Established Order. Which that they may also be obtained, and possessed with a clear Conscience, and that grievous Corruption of Simony may be extirpate out of the Land, I wish that Every Patron that shall hence forward present his Clerk to any Living, may have the Oath called the Simoniacal Oath imposed on himself, no less than on the Incumbent (which I perceive (since I writ this) is petitioned for by the Scholars of Oxford) and if he refuses to take it, that then the Bishop should have immediate power (taking only the same Oath) of presentation in his Room.  
By such Materials as these put into the hands of a Skilful workman, by the Order of our Master bvilders, and by such a course, or courses, as this, or these, thoroughly pursued, the name of the great God would be exceedingly honoured, in the integrity and ingenuity of those Gentlemen who have Benefices in their donation; in the self deny all of those Ministers who have Pluralities in in their possession; in the restauration of several ejected painful Laborers into the Vineyard; in the general advancement of Piety, and that interest which is Heavenly, above worldly advantage; in the unity, peace, and mutual agreement of Brethren in the same function differing mainly in things indifferent; in the universal good will among the People; and in the established Happiness and Prosperity of the Church of England to future Generations. In that time shall the Present be brought unto the Lord of Hosts, of a people scattered and peeled, meeted out, and trodden under foot, to the place of the Name of the Lord of Hosts, Mount Zion.  
Deo Gloria Authori Condonatio.   

An Advertisement  
Reader, I thought here to Reprint my Paper about the Oxford-Oath, which seems to be made necessary by my Reference to it (p. 31.): but because the Matter thereof is incident with that of the Subscription, I suppose it may be spared. I must signify also, that whereas I have dropped the two Letters of my Name in reference to my Subscription (in p. 19): I cannot, and I do not let it go, as one that is a present Actual Subscriber, but as one under Deliberation to proceed (or not) as I can, and no otherwise than I can, according to my Conscience, with the flow haste of others Advice, and my own settled Judgement. Adieu.  
FINIS.   

A Postscript.  
THis Paper being a Countermine against Popery, I do think fit to hasten it out, that the Members of Parliament may have competent time to consider of it this Session. I did not think the later Part would have been so seasonable, as I humbly believe it may be now to the most of those who desire a long Life for the King, and the Growth of the Protestant Religion. It was almost Despair set me on the Work, and now there is a little Hope got into my Heart, that something may come of this Endeavour, and God's Blessing be upon it. The Reason why I annex this Half Sheet to the rest, is because I find it necessary in regard to that one Clause in the Subscription, And that the same was in itself an unlawful Oath. I desire the Reader here to remember, that I subscribe not this Clause by virtue of an Interpretation, for I think the meaning of the Law giver to be more than I can subscribe unto: but by virtue of my Liberty of Exception and Restriction. I do therefore distinguish between the Matter Covenanted, which is the Extirpation of Prelacy, or Change of Government: and the Act of Covenanting, which was their swearing to endeavour it. I would have the Reader then note also, that I subscribe not that the Oath in the Matter Covenanted was in itself unlawful: for this Matter Covenanted (I have said) may be considered Precisely in itself, or Complexly with its Circumstances, and more particularly under the Circumstance of the King's Remonstrances against the Covenant. I do believe, that an Endeavour of any Alteration of Government under this Circumstance of the King's Prohibitions that is, for any to go about it without his Consent and against it (as I speak) was Unlawful, though I suppose it not so under the contrary Circumstances (if the King had allowed it), and consequently that it is not so in its self, if we respect only this Matter Covenanted: But for as much as an Act becomes Evil upon every Defect, when all Circumstances must concur to make an Action Good, and he that swore this Covenant could not swear to the Matter Precisely, but Complexly considered, that is, to the Matter under this Circumstance with others, I do apprehend that the matter being thereby rendered evil, the Oath as taken for the Act of Covenanting, in regard to this Circumstance was in itself unlawful. It may be pleaded, that the Covenant maintains the King and his Authority to the full, and limits this Endeavour to men's Places and Callings, and that there was therefore nothing in this unlawful. I reply, If any man should argue rather, that the supreme Power of this Nation does lie in the King and the Parliament as one Corporation, and when they were divided (and the Parliament could not be dissolved) the Constitution was at an end, or Interstition; That consequently every one, & any one, might covenant, at that time, to set up a new Government without the consent of Either, King or Parliament, by the way of an Agreement of the People, This were to say something: But to own the King and his Authority, and swear to maintain it in the same Oath, wherein they swear to change the Government (when he declares against that Change, that is) without him, and against his Authority, this is virtually a contradiction in Adjecto, and makes the Oath in the very act itself of swearing (if that be, or may go for, the Oath in itself) unlawful. Again, To swear that in our place and calling, we will endeavour to change the Government when the King refuses his consent, What is it, but to swear to do that, in the doing whereof we must Act out of our Place and Calling, seeing there is, and can be, no Endeavour of that kind in our Place and Calling, but what is done with Subordination to his Consent in an Act of Parliament? You will say perhaps, It is true, that they entered this Covenant without the King 's Consent, but the Meaning of the Covenant was, That the Change should be made, and endeavoured to be effected only by his Consent. I return, To enter into Covenant to Change the Government when the King by his Remonstrances and Declarations did declare that he would not consent to that Change, and prohibited his Subjects to enter into such a League, was I suppose in itself Unlawful. Or thus, To Swear against the King 's Will or Prohibition to do a thing which to do without his Will is unlawful, is in itself. (I take it) an unlawful Oath. Such was this Covenant. But to proceed, It is too well known that it was the Scots brought in this Covenant, and that it is (or was) a Principle of theirs, That the Reformation of Religion belongs to the Kirk, so as they may (or might) set it up, or endeavour the same without the Consent of the King, if they obtain it not (which is a Principle in my Apprehension directly repugnant to that Supreamacy which the English Subjects give to their King), and it was apparent, that the Covenant was carried on by the Parliament and Army according to that Principle; so that if any piously judicious Man shall scruple his Soul with the Belief that this was the Meaning of the Oath, That they should endeavour a Reformation to be effected only by the King 's Consent, and not otherwise, I have two things to offer him for his Conviction; to wit, The constant Practice of the Covenanters to the contrary, and this one Argument, wherein alone I shall rest. To swear to endeavour a Change of the Government when the King refuses his Consent, must either be with Intention to do it without his Consent, or else be a vain Oath. But to do this in a disorderly way without his Consent, or to take the Oath in vain, either of the two, was in itself (I suppose) Unlawful. Ergo, This Oath was in self an unlawful Oath. I would not have any of my Brethren therefore here to be stumbled (as they are apt to be) so soon as they descry the Scope of this Subscription to tend to a Renunciation of the Covenant; for if we may be permitted to Renounce this Covenant with this Liberty of Exception of what is Good and Obligatory in it, and Restriction of the Renunciation to that only which is Unlawful, as the Endeavour of any Alteration of Government in a disorderly way, without the Consent of the King (as they did in the late times) was, I see no reason why they should not be as forward to such a Renunciation, as to any other the like Injunction. For my own part, to rid myself of this Scruple quite, which in regard to the Words in itself, have been apt to stick upon me still in this Clause, I will conclude thus. If the meaning of the covenant by endeavouring the extirpation of Prelacy, was only to endeavour the reformation of the Church in subordination to the Consent of the King with his Parliament, I put in my exception against the Clause: but if the intent of it was to have us endeavour any such thing without his consent, and against it, as the practice of the Covenanters did show, and as it was generally (I think) understood, I do Subscribe to this Clause, And that the same was in itself an unlawful Oath, as I do to the rest, with my Liberty of Limitation. It is but an honest thing (I judge) for me, and others (if they will follow), to do what we can; and so long as I do no more than I can, I shall not (I hope) hurt my Conscience. If the Bishop will be contented with this Rule, and we be also contented with it, what shall hinder our Concord? When the Ministers of the Roman Policy have so long been hatching up Sects amongst us, and fomenting our Divisions, and even now plodding at one Thrust, or one Blow (if Fame have any more in her Trumpet than Sound only) the general Destruction of our Religion, it is time (or there is Reason), for the Parliament to think on Union; or for the Bishops and us, to come to Composition. Then Abner called to Joab, and said, shall the Sword devour for ever? Knowest thou not that it will be Bitterness in the latter End? How long shall it be then ere thou bid the People return from following of their Brethren?  
The Author.   

Some further Advertisement.  
LEt the Reader note, that where I speak still of all Endeavour to change the Government without the Consent of the Supreme Authority to be unlawful, I understand it of that Change altogether that is Public, and concerns the Church as National. I meddle not with Reformation otherwise. I also Advertise the Reader, (seeing I have a Side to spare) That it hath been in my thoughts (I must needs tell him) ever since the Ejecting Act, to offer something (the best I could) for our Ruler's Condescension to our Scruples: and for our Submission to their Laws. That is to be Equal on both sides. As I have formerly therefore sent out several Papers on the First Errand; Here is two sent now upon the Second. My Paper about the Oxford-Oath, and this Paper. I have some Sheets more by me (under Twenty) that carry Things a little Higher, if not quite Home; and I could not let them therefore come out, till this Paper should make their Way for them. They have been long ready, and been seen by many, as Bishop Wilkins, Judge Hales, and the like Temperate Persons. I shall Entitle those Sheets, A Peaceable Resolution of Conscience concerning our present Impositions. When that Book also is come abroad (out of which I have been borrowing something or other still for the Papers and Books that since passed from me) I shall have accomplished my Purpose, and intent to have done for ever about these Matters. I must add, that I have just now Received this ensuing Letter.  
To my Honoured Friend, Mr. _____ in Oxenden-Street.  
SIR,  
I Thank you hearty for your Kindness, in sending my your Healing Paper so speedily. This Day I received it, and red it to my great Satisfaction. I fully agree with the Rule which you have laid down in order to Peace and Concord; and judge, that in the whole Management of the Desgine, you have done Honestly and Prudently. I firmly believe, that Union by a reasonable Accommodation, is Religion's Interest. The Relaxation that would suffice you, I think would suffice me. In the Terms of Conformity as explained and limited by you, with whose necessary Restrictions, there is no material Difference between you and me, as I discern. _____ My earnest Prayer is, that God would prosper this your Design of Peace; And I am much persuaded, that Good will come of it.  
Chichester, Octob. 12. 1678. Your Obliged and Affectionate Friend & Servant, John Corbet.