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

L. But the Parliament meant not to bind themselves herein.

M. I grant it. (Tho' being Church of England men, the 7th Canon aforesaid maketh it doubtful.) But when they have bound all the Subjects in the Land, and themselves among others, when out of Parliament, and when it's Excommunication to charge any of the Church-Offices with Sin; I think the Church-Government is fixed as unalterable. I ask you, Did the Parliament bind themselves against altering Monarchy, or the Succession? If they did, then it seems they did so by Church-Government, when they put it in many Oaths before that of the State. If they did not, then they have fixed Monarchy no more than Church-Government by this Oath. Therefore when they bind all in the same Oath from endeavouring any Alteration of Church-Government, they show that they intend the fixing of it. And tho' some think it leaveth room for Petitioning, I do not believe that the Law or Oath leave any Men at Liberty to Petition against Monarchy; which is here conjoined. But my great reason of Non-Conformity herein yet remaineth. If the faults of Church-Government should prove but the tenth part as great as is feared by many, and said by those that write about it, what a tremendous thing is it to make a deliberate Solemn Covenant and Oath, never to endeavour any amendment of it, nor to persuade any man to repent or amend. If the Germans, who are reported to be addicted to Drunkenness, or other Nations to Whoredom or Thievery, should take an Oath that they will never repent or amend, nor persuade any other to it, what a case were this?

M. I grant it. (Tho' being Church of England men, the 7th Canon aforesaid maketh it doubtful.) But when they have bound all the Subjects in the Land, and themselves among others, when out of Parliament, and when it's Excommunication to charge any of the Church-Offices with Sin; I think the Church-Government is fixed as unalterable. I ask you, Did the Parliament bind themselves against altering Monarchy, or the Succession? If they did, then it seems they did so by Church-Government, when they put it in many Oaths before that of the State. If they did not, then they have fixed Monarchy no more than Church-Government by this Oath. Therefore when they bind all in the same Oath from endeavouring any Alteration of Church-Government, they shew that they intend the fixing of it. And tho' some think it leaveth room for Petitioning, I do not believe that the Law or Oath leave any Men at Liberty to Petition against Monarchy; which is here conjoyned. But my great reason of Non-Conformity herein yet remaineth. If the faults of Church-Government should prove but the tenth part as great as is feared by many, and said by those that write about it, what a tremendous thing is it to make a deliberate Solemn Covenant and Oath, never to endeavour any amendment of it, nor to perswade any man to repent or amend. If the Germans, who are reported to be addicted to Drunkenness, or other Nations to Whoredom or Thievery, should take an Oath that they will never repent or amend, nor perswade any other to it, what a case were this?