3. The Conformists are not agreed of the meaning of these Subscriptions and Oaths; some think that they covenant only to submit to them (though they dislike them:) But others think that it is also to approve the Government. Some think that it is only Bishops that they are bound ⟨p. 210⟩to: But others say, that the word Ordinary certainly signifieth more than Bishops, even Lay-Chancellors. And that the forecited Canon expressly nameth many others, even with an & catera, [the rest that bear Office] And [any alteration] must needs mean more: as [any alteration in State] sure ext•nleth to more than not endeavouring to [change Monarchy or the King himself.] Some say that by [n•t endeavouring] is meant only [not unlawfully endeavouring] but not that all endeavours are forbidden, viz. not petitioning, speaking when called, &c. Others say that if exceptions had been allowed, the Law makers would have made us know it, and not have spoken universally: And that if you expound it of [unlawful endeavours] you leave all men at liberty to judge what is unlawful, and all Schismatics will take the Oath or Subscription, because they hold their endeavours to extirpate Prelacy to be lawful. Some say that one may endeavour in his place and calling, to take the Church-Keys out of the hands of Lay-Chancellors, notwithstanding this Subscription and Oath. But others more ingenuously say, that the very actual Government or Keys being in the hands of Lay-Chancellors, if it bind us not against endeavouring to change these, it binds us to nothing that can be understood: And that if Subjects thus take liberty after Universal Oaths and Promises to make such exceptions, they reproach the Lawmakers, as if in such tremendous things as these they knew not how to put their Laws in words intelligible, and of common sense: And they relax all such sacred bonds. Some say that in [not endeavouring] is excepted [unless the King commission ⟨p. 211⟩or command us:] But others say, that if the Law-givers would have had such exceptions, they had wit enough to have put them in: And that if you leave it to men to except from universals, you cannot tell them where to stop: And that the use of the Oath and Subscription is, that the Church-Government be taken for unalterable.
3. The Conformists are not agreed of the meaning of these Subscriptions and Oaths; some think that they covenant only to submit to them (though they dislike them:) But others think that it is also to approve the Government. Some think that it is only Bishops that they are bound ⟨p. 210⟩to: But others say, that the word Ordinary certainly signifieth more than Bishops, even Lay-Chancellours. And that the for•cited Canon expresly nameth many others, even with an & catera, [the rest that bear Office] And [any alteration] must needs mean more: as [any alteration in State] sure ext•nleth to more than not endeavouring to [change Monarchy or the King himself.] Some say that by [n•t endeavouring] is m•ant only [not unlawfully endeavouring] but not that all endeavours are forbidden, viz. not petitioning, speaking when called, &c. Others say that if exceptions had been allowed, the Law makers would have made us know it, and not have spoken universally: And that if you expound it of [unlawful endeavours] you leave all men at liberty to judge what is unlawful, and all Schismaticks will take the Oath or Subscription, because they hold their endeavours to extirpate Prelacy to be lawful. Some say that one may endeavour in his place and calling, to take the Church-Keys out of the hands of Lay-Chancellours, notwithstanding this Subscription and Oath. But others more ingenuously say, that the very actual Government or Keys being in the hands of Lay-Chancellours, if it bind us not against endeavouring to change these, it binds us to nothing that can be understood: And that if Subjects thus take liberty after Universal Oaths and Promises to make such exceptions, they reproach the Lawmakers, as if in such tremendous things as these they knew not how to put their Laws in words intelligible, and of common sense: And they relax all such sacred bonds. Some say that in [not endeavouring] is excepted [unless the King commission ⟨p. 211⟩or command us:] But others say, that if the Law-givers would have had such exceptions, they had wit enough to have put them in: And that if you leave it to men to except from universals, you cannot tell them where to stop: And that the use of the Oath and Subscription is, that the Church-Government be taken for unalterable.
