The nonconformists plea for peace, or, An account of their judgment in certain things…

VI. It is agreed that though Judges must determine of the sense of Laws, so far as to decide the cases that are brought to them; yet none can make an universal obligatory exposition of a Law, to bind the subjects conscience in understanding it▪ but the Sovereign and Lawgivers themselves: Else a Judge might become a Legislator and frustrate the Kings Laws by his expositions. If Judgements be the expositors and preservers of Common unwritten Laws which are Customs, it is because it is the Law-makers or Sovereigns will that it shall be so.

VI. It is agreed that though Judges must determine of the sence of Laws, so far as to decide the cases that are brought to them; yet none can make an universal obligatory exposition of a Law, to bind the subjects conscience in understanding it▪ but the Sovereign and Lawgivers themselves: Else a Judge might become a Legislator and frustrate the Kings Laws by his expositions. If Judgements be the expositors and preservers of Common unwritten Laws which are Customs, it is because it is the Law-makers or Sovereigns will that it shall be so.

VII. It is agreed by all Protestants that stretching the words of Laws, Oaths and Promises to meanings quite differing from the Common use of the words, without the direction of the Law-makers to to do, and taking such Oaths or Covenants with equivocations and mental reservations on pretence of Charitable interpretation, for our own ends and interests, is more suitable to Atheists than sincere Christians, and would overthrow humane trust, and the end of Laws and Princes safety, as well as other sorts of perjury. For instance, if one take the subscribed ⟨p. 222⟩Declarations that [Its unlawful on any pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the King and so on] and will thus equivocate, as they say some do; viz. [It is unlawful] that is, against the Law of the Land but not against Gods Law; [To take Arms against the King] that is, as King; but saith Suarez, and such others, when he is excommunicate by the Pope he is no King; [On any pretence] that is, say they, [unjust pretence] [by his authority against his person, and Soldiers] that is, say the equivocators, [Its well said that we may not do it by his Authority, but we may do it by the Law of nature and so by Gods Authority whose Law that is; [against any Commissioned by him] that is, say they, lawfully commissioned, and we are judges when his Commissions are unlawful: So [We will not endeavour any alteration of Government in Church or State] that is say they, 1. Not of Monarchy, or the King, but we may yet disturb any of his Officers: 2. Not of the Essentials of Episcopacy; but we may seek to take down their wealth and Lordships, and reduce them from Diocesans to Parochial or Corporation Bishops: 3. Not by unlawful means; but we take not that to be unlawful which they do. What good will Oaths or Covenants taken with such Latitude or Equivocation do? Do they secure any of the ends of Governments? Rulers should abhor such Equivocations and stretching Latitudes as these.