The English nonconformity as under King Charles II and King James II truly stated…

M. We would not be guilty of an over rigorous Exposition: But had it been in the days of Queen Mary, when the Six Articles, and other Laws for Murdering Innocents were on foot, and were actually expounded by Execution, I would not have been one of the Justices that should have sworn to execute them. Though a Justice be not bound to approve every Law, he is bound in the main to execute them in his place; And if he know that the Imposers of his Oath did mean, that he should in a special manner execute e. g. the Laws against Protestants, he should not take that Oath contrary to their sense. Our Canons make these things forementioned their principal part, as you may see by putting ⟨p. 34⟩them first with that strange penalty of Excommunication ipso facto. And indeed it is no small part of the whole Book that we dissent from. II. But moreover we dare not promise or swear Obedience to our Ordinaries, till we know that Lay-men governing by the Keys are not those Ordinaries. I have consulted Lawyers, and some say that only the Bishop is meant by our [Ordinary]; But I think they are but few that say so. And indeed we are bound to believe the contrary, because terms of Art or Science are to be understood according to the use of the men of that Art or Science. But men of that profession commonly call other Judges of their Courts our Ordinaries, besides the Bishops: So doth R. Cousins in his Tables and others. 2. And other Governing Ministers whom we must obey, are mentioned in the Ordination Covenant also besides our Ordinaries. Our Reasons against this are these. 1. It is unlawful to confederate with Sacrilegious Profaners of a great Ordinance of God, in stablishing and practising that Sacrilegious Profanation. But to Covenant or Swear Obedience to Lay-men in usurping the power of the Keys of Decretive Excommunication and Absolution, we fear is such; and as to the Minor the reason of our fear is, if it be Sacrilegious profanation for a Lay-man to usurp the other parts of the Pastoral Office, then it is so for him to usurp the power of the Keys. But the Antecedent is confessed, as to the Sacraments and the charge of ordinary Teaching and Guidance of the Flocks, &c. 2. Ad hominem. If the Bishops take it for Usurpation in Presbyters to exercise this power, supposing it proper to themselves, they must judge it much more so in Lay-men.

M. We would not be guilty of an over rigorous Exposition: But had it been in the days of Queen Mary, when the Six Articles, and other Lawes for Murdering Innocents were on foot, and were actually expounded by Execution, I would not have been one of the Justices that should have sworn to execute them. Though a Justice be not bound to approve every Law, he is bound in the main to execute them in his place; And if he know that the Imposers of his Oath did mean, that he should in a special manner execute e. g. the Laws against Protestants, he should not take that Oath contrary to their sence. Our Canons make these things forementioned their principal part, as you may see by putting