THE SHERIFF'S CASE.  
Whether, and How they may lawfully Qualify themselves for their holding the Office, according to the Act for Corporations?  
IN this Act there are two things imposed; an Oath, and a Renunciation of the Covenant: And we must lay down this 
* To this Rule there is a double Extreme. The one, is of those who think a man must take every Imposition in the strict literal construction, & can submit to it no otherwise. The other, is of such who suppose that if a man can frame any interpretation of his own that is but reasonable, he may take the words in that sense and be satisfied. The first of these is so rigid, that there is nothing can be imposed, but we shall strain at it; and the last so lose, that nothing can be imposed, but we shall swallow it. The true Medium is this, we must sit down and consider what we believe to be the meaning of the Lawgiver, and if we can submit to an Imposition in that sense or meaning which we believe theirs, we must do it; but if we believe their sense to be such, as we cannot take it in that sense, we must forbear it and suffer.  Rule at first, That all Impositions of of our Superiors must be taken in the sense and meaning of those that Impose them (there need be no scruple else in submission to any thing enjoined.) The bottom is this, because the Law is the Will of the Lawgiver, and it is the Lawgiver's Meaning, which is his Will, howsoever the words of a Law is expressed. The Parliament here (we know) is the Lawgiver, and this Oath than must be taken, and Renunciation made in the sense and meaning of the Major part of the Parliament which passed the Act: Where we must also premise thus much, that it is not for any Sheriff, Alderman, or other person upon whom this Oath is Imposed, (for we must begin with That) to put a meaning of his own upon it, which is to be taken only in Theirs that passed the Act; but to consider verily what he believes to that Meaning, which is indeed the Lawgivers. Not to determine neither and say, This is the meaning, but to be able to say, I believe this to be their Meaning, which is necessary to every one that takes it, to determine for himself, that he may act in Faith in what he does.  
We must add, That when we say the Parliament is the Lawgiver, we understand by the Parliament, the King, Lords and Commons; and consequently, that the sense of the Law, (and so of this Oath) must be always that sense wherein the House of Lords did concur with the House of Commons, and the King with both. If there be any sense therefore of an Imposition which may be supposed to be the meaning of the King, and not of the Houses, or of One of the Houses, and not the Other; or a lesser part of either House, and not the majority of both, that sense must be still looked on as too narrow, and ought not to scruple the Conscience, the true sense obliging the Subject, being the concurrent sense of the King, Lords and Commons, who as assembled jointly to this end of Legislation, not one without the other, but all three together, as One Corporation (and otherwise) are the Lawgiver.  
Neither is this sense to be collected from the first floating apprehensions of any one that moves a matter in the House, but from the digested thoughts of both Houses, after a mature debate, and the thing hath thrice passed in them both, so that no sense of any Imposition but that which is agreeable to Reason, and more especially to the fundamental Laws of the Constitution, must be received as the Meaning of a Parliament, the Reason being, because the nature of the Constitution is such, as it cannot be infringed by an Act or Law for the Administration; which is a Note to be laid in here, that by-and-by will be needful. Thus much therefore farther, and no less being premised, we proceed.  
By taking Arms, Let us suppose the Sheriffs believe the Parliament meant the raising an ArArmy, or War; and by the King, the King's own Sacred Person, as there is nothing else indeed can be meant: And we can see no 
* The only objections here which are of weight, may be reduced to two Cases. One is the Case of Private violence, as suppose a Prince should go to ravish a Virgin, and she catches up the next Weapon or Instrument to defend herself. In this Case, or the like, we answer, this Defence is not to be accounted taking Arms in the sense of this Act. The other is a Case of Public violence; as suppose a Prince should go about to alienate his Kingdom, or ruin his Country, or the like. We answer, we are not for all that to return violence upon his Person; and as for his Officers, Follower's, or Armies, the solution must be attended in the next Clause of the Oath.  Objection which may not be answered from this Little, in the first Clause of the Oath. I A. B. do swear, That I hold it unlawful to take Arms against the King (or his Rightful Government) upon any Pretence whatsoever.  
If David's heart smote him for cutting off but Saul's Skirt, when he was actually in Arms to defend himself against Saul's Forces, only because he was the Lord's Anointed. It is not in this first Clause (any one may conjecture) but in the ensuing, where the Chief Scruples against the Oath are to be removed.  
In the second Clause, By those Commissionated by Him, let us suppose they believe the Parliament meant, and could mean, no other than such as have a due Authority from Him, and exercise it only according to Law: And so long as the King's Authority, and such Commissions are one, (or the same,) we can see no more difficulty remaining in the second Clause, than in the former: And I do abhor (that is, disown or disclaim) that Traitorous Position, of taking Arms by His Authority against His Person, or against any Commissionated by Him in the pursuit of such Commissions: That is, Legally Commissionated by Him, in the Legal pursuit of such Commissions.  
It is not to be imagined that the Parliament, when they passed this Act, (that is, the Major part of them) should design the setting up an Arbitrary Government in the Nation: But if the meaning of those Commissionated by Him, be otherwise than thus, they must design it. An Arbitrary Power, as soon as they passed this Clause in any Act, must be accounted to Commence. A thing most absurd to be believed, and in the contrary belief whereof the most scrupulous man (we thank God) may resolvedly take this Oath.  
In the third Clause, we distinguish an Endeavour to change or reform any thing in Church or State, which we think conducive to the good of the Nation in a Parliamentary way only, as is allowed by the fundamental Law and Course of the Realm, from an Endeavour in any other away that is not warranted by the same, to wit, in a seditious way, or in such manner as they did in the late Times, when they endeavoured the Extirpation of Prelacy by force against and without the King's consent in Parliament, (which may be believed to be the assured sense of the Majority in the Houses, when they passed this Act,) and so long as to do so 
* That the meaning of the Parliament in this Oath and Declaration was, that we should declare it to be unlawful for us to do that now, which they did then (or as of late hath been practised, to use the words of the Militia Act,) we are out of doubt; but whether in the peculiar case of those times there was any thing might be lawful. or any way justifiable to be done then (when the King and Houses (the One Corporation) were divided, and he had passed an Act not to Dissolve them without their consent, which is a case never like to happen any more, and so no danger to put it) which now is certainly unlawful, is a question we have nothing to do with, and interpose nothing to offend any.  now, may be acknowledged (as assuredly) to be unlawful, and what ought to be disclaimed, the offence must be over in the last part of the Oath also: And that I will not endeavour any Alteration of Government either in Church or State; to wit, in any manner not warranted by the Constitution of the Land, or any otherwise, than by Act of Parliament.  
We confirm this Exposition with one clear Reason. The great thing intended by this Oath, is the preservation of the Government in the fundamental Constitution against all Alteration. But the Constitution of our Government being such in the foundation, that whatsoever is needful or convenient to be altered, it may be proposed to that end in Parliament: to take away that Liberty which is universally radicated in the whole Nation in order thereunto, were a piece of the greatest Alteration that could be, and consequently never to be understood as intended by the Lawgiver.  
As for the Solemn League and Covenant (the Renunciation whereof is the second thing here imposed,) it is an Oath so long since in Being, that, 'tis two to one but both these Sheriffs (as well as the last) never took, so that they may safely say, there lies no obligation upon them at all from it; And as for others that did, we humbly conceive, that being taken in its Complex Consideration, as it was pressed and used at that time, for the engagement of People to the Extirpation of the Bishops, and change of Church-Government without the King, against His Consent, and Public Declarations, and by Force, it must needs be Unlawful, and could not bind any body to do so: and consequently we trust, that such Gentlemen shall not offend God, or any good Men, if they farther subscribe this Declaration, which is also required: I A. B. do declare, That I hold there lies no Obligation on me, or on any other Person, from the Oath commonly called, The Solemn League and Covenant, to endeavour any Change or Alteration of Government either in Church or State; And that the same was in itself an unlawful Oath, and imposed on the Subjects of this Realm, against the known Laws and Liberties of the Kingdom.  
By some of which last words it appears, that this Oath was framed for the Subjects of the Realm, (we say, that this Oath was, in the meaning of the Imposers of this Declaration, the Subjects Oath, and consequently by the words, or any other Person, they must mean, or any other Subject:) which appears also manifestly in the Preamble of that League, We, such and such under the King. There is one part of it moreover express for the preservation of the King; we do suppose therefore, that though an Oath to the same main effect, or one like it, was imposed on this King by the Scots, that Oath must be conceived another than this, and not the very same, being not so in every point, but an Oath indeed (as they called it) to confirm the Covenant, when He offered this very Exception against taking the Covenant itself, because it was an Oath for the Subjects only. And this being enough to save the Conscience in one chief Scruple, (and chiefest one,) we will gather up again what is said before into one Argument (which we fix upon) for a fuller satisfaction in regard to all others. To own the King and his Authority in the same Oath, and yet to swear to change the Government without His Will, and against it, is (we think) in itself unlawful. Such an Oath was the Covenant; and Quà unlawful, it must be unobligatory.  
And what indeed shall now hinder these Sheriffs to subscribe, That there lies no obligation upon them, or others, from the Covenant, to endeavour any Alteration of Government in that sense as they swear before that they will not endeavour any, in the third clause of the Oath preceding? For so long as the meaning of the Lawgiver is no other than That which is made to appear there, upon the account given, and the Endeavour which is here, and which is there, is the same out of doubt, we do not see but the Reason which does satisfy any Man upon the Point about taking the Oath, must be sufficient for the Declaration also. In short, There lies no obligation upon any from this Oath, to do as they swore it; It is in itself unlawful to do so; & the Imposition of it was illegal.  
In the Sacred Story concerning Rahab and the Spies, it appears that no body can be engaged any farther by an Oath, than what he agrees or consents to in the taking it. Where he declares beforehand he will not be bound, he is free. We cannot tell how much larger, or how much narrower a compass others may draw to themselves from that Instance, than we; but this we will say, That upon the supposal of either of these Sheriffs making a Declaration for himself (if this Paper will not serve when he takes the Oath, and subscribes the Declaration enjoined, that he does it in this Meaning, which we have all along expressed, supposing it true, (and with these explanatory limitations to the Meaning, if indeed in any thing it be otherwise,) we do apprehend that his Conscience may receive satisfaction thereby in its compliance with the Law in these Impositions, which he cannot refuse, without the refusal also of his Duty.  
After this, there is an Act of Parliament, entitled, An Act for preserving His Majesty, (An. 13. Car. 2. Regis c. 1.) wherein this Covenant is declared peremptorily to be unlawful and null, that gave one of the Sheriffs last year a peculiar satisfaction. We argue from thence thus: As we find in the Law of Moses, when a Wife or a Daughter made a Vow, if the Husband or the Father disallowed it, that Vow was 
* We lay down this Rule here, that if any man makes a Vow to God, which he cannot perform without the consent of another, who is his Superior, (and much more if through him it must be done,) if that Other Reclaims the thing as soon as he hears of it, the Authority of God by the equity of this Law given by Moses, does (as we suppose) dissolve the Obligation, though else it could not be dissolved by the Authority of a Superior only.  rescinded. So may we apprehend the very same Reason to be here in regard to this League or Covenant: For the Subject being (quo ad hoc) not sui juris, but under the power of the Prince, and much more under the most supreme and absolute Authority of Parliament, and the late King declaring still against this Oath at the very time, and a Parliament, since the return of this King as soon as it could be done, having passed an Act on purpose for disannulling the same, there appears no difference between the Cases, but that the obligation of this League, as well as of those Vows, must give place to such an Authority overruling it: And more especially (we must add) because the Alteration of Government (the sole matter in concern) does belong to the cognizance of the Higher Powers, (we mean a Parliament) and is not the business of any private person, unless in order to procuring their Consent and Establishment.  
If this reasoning now shall satisfy these Sheriffs, and yet be unsatisfactory to another person, let us but warn such a man that he does nothing after their Example, unless he be satisfied with our Reasons, and we care not. If our Argument satisfy any man, and he follows their pattern, we edify him; if they do not, and he follows his own judgement, we do him no hurt. It is a man's own Conscience is the Discerner to him of his Duty, and he is not to regard another Man's, any farther than to avoid Active Scandal.  
We do not mean it, as if every man therefore should lean only to his own understanding, but rather take advice, and that which is the most serious and proper he can get. For our parts, we have no more to offer or say, but that we were particularly beholding for this which is said, to a Book, entitled, 
* This Book here cited was Printed 1680. and is sold by Tho. symmond's at the Prince's Arms in Ludgate-street.  A Peaceable Resolution of Conscience touching our present Impositions. In which Book the Readers (that please) will find the Rule by which we are to walk, under such Injunctions of our Superiors as these, to be such, or so set out, as that according to the persuasion of a man's mind about the same, both he that Conforms to them, and he that Cannot, may see reason to retain a fair Opinion of one another, and to hope that neither of them departed from a good Conscience in what they do.  
This is the Moderation we desire ourselves, and these Sheriffs to follow, In our Loyalty to our Sovereign, In our Love to our Country, and In our Religion to God.  

The Reasons for Printing this Paper are these.  
1. To take the Oath, and subscribe the Declaration in the literal strict Construction, appears, in our judgement, unlawful; and consequently, unless by some means or other the sense be made public in which a man does take them, (and that sense also be justified, or at least be justifiable) he must forbear.  
2. The Declaration is against the Consciences of the Nonconformists in general, insomuch as some men who took the Oath, cannot subscribe the Declaration; and for any Conscientious men therefore to do it now, and not declare their Reasons of Satisfaction, were to sin against the Brethren if they own them, or to disclaim them.  
3. By doing this, a man shall give occasion to others to follow his example, and if he present them not his Grounds or Reasons, Those that follow shall do it without the same Reasons, and through his knowledge shall such perish. But when ye sin so against the Brethren, and wound their weak Consciences, ye sin against Christ.  
4. The Episcopal Party are generally apt to think the Nonconformists to be Hypocrites and Knaves, and say, These men refuse these Injunctions out of humour, or for their profit, but they will swallow them as well as we for Honour, or for Advantage. If any considerate Men therefore shall Swear and Declare, and not give us some rational Account of what they do, (or some others for them) they must not only wrong themselves, but the whole generation of such Men, and cause the Name of God (in regard to them) to be blasphemed.  
5. It pleased Providence to call two Persons to the Office the last year, whereof one of them at least (if not both) were the better enabled (to speak modestly) if not quite, to hold the same upon the satisfaction which is couched in this Paper; and if it be of great Concern at this time that such Men do hold Sheriffs, who are willing to deny their own Advantage, (not seek it) for the sake of the Public; It is yet of greater concern that by the publishing our grounds for their satisfaction. Many in distress about the Oxford Act, may be relieved, and a way opened for Many of the like substantial Citizens of known Piety, Loyalty and Ability, to be brought into Corporations, throughout the Nation, to the great service of the King and Kingdom.  
To conclude, We have here laid down the Rule concerning Humane Impositions, and applied it to this Oath and Subscription. If any man is persuaded in his Conscience that the meaning of the Lawgiver was no more than thus he may submit to them both, and make no stand: but if he believes their meaning was otherwise (or doubts that it was more than thus,) he cannot Swear or Subscribe, but with Limitations; and he must declare those Limitations or Forbear. But if he shall Swear or Subscribe (supposing him one that doubts) with a Declaration in the words before written [That he does it, in the meaning which is here expressed, supposing it true, and with these Explanatory Limitations to the meaning, if in any thing indeed it be otherwise,] and so give (or throw) in this Paper to the Persons before whom he is to do it, we are persuaded of the 
* In Mr. Baxter's Funeral Sermon upon that late holy Citizen Mr. Ashhurst, we take notice of this passage: Some may think that he wanted a Public Spirit, because he avoided being a Magistrate, and paid his Fine rather than take an Alderman's Place; but it was only to keep the Peace of his Conscience— Yet I never heard him speak uncharitably of those Worthy Men who do what he refused, supposing that they, in words or writing, declared as openly as they swore and took the Declaration, that they took it but in such or such a lawful sense; though he could not do so himself.  Lawfulness in point of Conscience. Whether they receive the Paper, and admit of your sense or not, it is no matter; for they have no power in it, and the thing will be alike known. And thus have we lent our hands to get the concern over these blocks, and yet so, as to deliver also our souls. For, as this Sheet was printed the last year, there is one of us having been since something dissatisfied, does hereby recall it: But as it comes out now with this last Paragraph added to it (which then was wanting) we do (Nemine contradicente, he and all) acquiesce in it.    

LONDON, Printed by Thomas Snowden. 1681