5. Whether the last words of the Oath do not plainly fignifie, that you your felf are left fole judge of the lawfulness and honefty of the Commands, and of all as well as fome of them? confidering that there is no diftinction either made or implied in the Oath; that these last words can fignifie nothing, and are but a nonfenfical Addition, if you fuppofe that you oblige your felf by this Oath blindly to obey any of the Commands of your Superiour without leaving your self so much as a judgment of Difcretion, whether they be lawful or not.

Now, if you apply what I have said, to the Cafe before us; and be but as willing to put a true interpretation upon the Oath of Canonical Obedience to the Bishop, as I believe you would be to put a true interpretation upon fuch an Oath to the Lord-Mayor, I am perfuaded not a word more is neceffary. But I cannot help declaring, what I constantly find hitherto to be true, that you are more willing to make Nonfenfe, Abfurdity, and Contradition, of any of thofe Declarations, or Sentences, upon which you found your Objetions, than to allow them fuch a Conftruction as will make them

L

appear lefs

rigid

rigid than your Fathers, or you, have reprefented them: for fear (one would think) that the World should come at last to esteem Ministerial Conformity to the Church of England a very pardonable thing. If you blame me for being fo free as to declare this, I can do nothing but appeal to this Chapter now before me for the proof of it. And I defire you would confider whether you give us not a juft occafion of laying this to your charge in the Cafe now before us. Here is an Oath to be taken: and rather than it fhould not appear Egregious Diffimulation (as your words are) to take it, you do indeed put a fenfe upon it which neither the words, nor defign, can admit of. For, to return to your Objection, nothing can be plainer, than that an Obedience to a Governour, reftrain'd in exprefs terms to things lawful, can have no relation to any thing but things accounted by you to be lawful; yet here we have it affirmed, that fuch an Obedience hath a relation to all the Stated Laws by which the Governour is to act, though you account them unlawful. Nothing can be plainer, than that this Oath fuppofes that all his Commands may be unlaw ful, and leaves you to judge of all as well

as

as fome; yet here it is affirmed, that it leaves you not fo much as a judgment of Difcretion, as to fome of them. Nothing is plainer than that the reafon and defign of this Oath restrains it to the Future Commands of one particular Bishop; yet we have it maintain'd, that it fuppofes an Obligation to comply with the things antecedently required by others. Where, I befeech you, is this fuppofed? What words are here in this Oath that do plainly, nay, that can poffibly, refer to any thing antecedently required? Or, is this fuppofed in the Reafon of the Oath? That, I am fure, is apparently against you. If neither in the Reafon, nor the Words of it, where else can this Obligation be fuppofed? For my part, I am convinc'd that no Arts, or Metaphyfics, in the world can be fufficient to make good this part of your charge. And indeed you seem to me to confute your own Accufation in this place. For after you have acknowledged that there is in the Oath a Limitation of this Obedience to things lawful and honeft, you grant this Limitation is to be extended only to Future Commands. From whence I argue (and I recommend the Argument to your Confideration) that the Oath it felf can L 2

be

be extended to nothing but Future Commands. For, if these words, all lawful and boneft things, refer to Future Commands only, as you say they do; then an Obedience promised in all lawful and honeft things can refer to nothing but Future Commands. If the Limitation extend only to Future Commands; then the Obedience promised with this Limitation extends only to Future Commands. If there be any other Obedience fworn in these words, befides a limited one, let it be plainly fhewn. If there be not, let it be acknowledged,. that a Limited Obedience, can refer to nothing, but what the Limitation refers

to.

What might have been expected, if fuch a Limitation had not been added; when, now. it is added in plain words, the Obedience promised with a Limitation, is made to extend to Injunctions to which the Limitation it felf is acknowledged not to extend? Nay, befides all this, fuppofing this Oath to refer to Obedience to the Canons already fettled; can you poffibly invent a better Argument to prove that an abfolute Obedience to every one of them not abrogated is promifed in it, than the laft words will afford us that it is not? All you can fay is, that furely whatever

the

the Church Representative requires cannot be fuppofed unlawful by those who profess so great a Reverence for all its dictates as fome do, which is rather banter than argument: but we can produce the very words of the Oath fuppofing that every one of them may be fcrupled by you unless you your self judge them lawful and honeft: and we are not now enquiring what I, or any other private person, think; but what this Oath fuppofes, or implies.

Now, if the account of this Oath which I have now laid down, be a true one, as I verily believe it is; it is plain that all your objections drawn from the Canons, let the obedience to them be never fo much antecedently required, are no more objections against the taking this Oath than they are against taking the Oath of Allegiance. And, therefore, I need not trouble you, or my felf, with any thing particular in defence of every Canon you object againft; tho', I affure you, I could fhew that you put most unreasonable interpretations upon many of them; and reprefent their fense very unfairly; and argue unjustly against them. If I have proved that this Oath cannot refer to any abfolute Obedience to them, I have done L 3 what