Baxters Narrative of His Life and Times, Part 3 · Floating text 1
Queries upon the Oxford Oath.
We presuppose it commonly resolved by Casuists in Theology, from the Law of Nature, and Scripture,
1. That Perjury is a Sin, and so great a Sin, as tendeth to the ruin of the Peace of Kingdoms, the Life of Kings, and the Safety of Mens Souls, and to make Men unfit for Humane Society, Trust, or Converse, till it be repented of.
2. That he that Sweareth contrary to his Iudgment, is Perjured, though the thing prove true.
3. That we must take an Oath in the Imposer's Sense, as near as we can know it, if he be our Lawful Governour.
4. That an Oath is to be taken sensu strictiore, and in the Sense of the Rulers Imposing it, if that be known; if not, by the Words interpreted according to the common use of Men of that Profession, about that subject: And Vniversals are not to be interpreted as Particulars, nor must we limit them, and distinguish, without very good proof.
5. That where the Sense is doubtful, we are first to ask which is the probable Sense, before we ask, which is is the best and charitablest Sense; and must not take them in the best Sense, when another is more probable to be the true Sense. Because it is the Truth, and not the Goodness, which the Vnderstanding first considereth. Otherwise, any Oath almost imaginable might be taken; there being few Words so bad, which are not so ambiguous, as to bear a good Sense, by a forced Interpretation. And Subjects must not cheat their Rulers by seeming to do what they do not.
6. But when both Senses are equally doubtful, we ought in Charity to take the best.
7. If after all Means faithfully used to know our Rulers Sense, our own Vnderstandings much more incline to think one to be their meaning, than the other, we must not go against our Vnderstandings.
8. That we are to suppose our Rulers fallible, and that it's possible their decrees may be contrary to the Law of God; but not to suspect them without plain cause.
These things supposed, we humbly crave the Resolution of these Questions, about the present Oath, and the Law.
Qu. 1. Whether [upon any pretence whatsoever] refer not to [any Commissionated by him] as well as [to the King] himself?
2. Whether [not lawful] extendeth only to the Law of the Land; or also to the Law of God in Nature?
3. Whether [I Swear that it is not lawful] do not express my peremptory certain Determination, and be not more than [I Swear that in my Opinion it is not lawful?]
4. What is the [Traytorous Position] here meant; (for here is only a Subject without a Praedicate, which is no Position at all, and is capable of various Praedicates?)
5. If the King, by Act of Parliament, commit the Trust of his Navy, Garrison, or Militia, to one durante vita, and should Commissionate another, by force, to eject him, whether both have not the King's Authority? or which?
6. If the Sheriff raise the Posse Commitatus to suppress a Riot, or to execute the Decrees of the Courts of Justice, and fight with any Commissioned to resist him, and shall keep up that Power, while the Commissioned Persons keep up theirs, which of them is to be judged by the Subjects to have the King's Authority?
7. If a Parliament, or a Court of Justice, declare, That the King by his Laws commandeth us to assist the Sheriffs and Justices, notwithstanding any Commission to the contrary under the great or little Seal; and one shew us a Commission to the contrary; which must we take for the King's Authority?
8. Whether this extendeth to the Case of King Iohn, who delivered the Kingdom to the Pope? Or, to those Instances of Bilson, Barcley, Grotius, &c. of changing the Government, putting by the true Heir, to whom we are Sworn in the Oath of Allegiance, &c. if Subjects pretend Commission for such Acts?
9. Whether Parliament, Judges in Court, or private Men, may, by the King's Authority in his Laws, defend their Lives against any that, by a pretended Commission invadeth them, or their Purses, Houses, or Companions?
10. Whether we must take every Affirmer to have a Commission, if he shew it not? Or every shewn Commission to be current, and not surreptitious, though contrary to Law?
11. Whether he violateth not this Oath, who should endeavour to alter so much of the Legislative Power as is in the Parliament, or the Executive, in the Established Courts of Justice? Or, is it meant only of Monarchy as such?
12. Doth he not break this Oath, who should endeavour to change the Person Governing, as well as he that would change the Form of Government?
13. If so, doth it not also tye us to the Persons of Church-Governours; seeing they are equally here twisted, and Church-Government preposed?
14. Is it the King's Coercive Government of the Church, by the Sword, which is here meant, according to the Oath of Supremacy? Or Spiritual Government by the Keys? Or both?
15. Is it not the English Form of Church-Government by Diocesans that is here meant; and not some other sort of Episcopacy which is not here? And doth he not break this Oath, who instead of a Bishop over 500, or 1000 Churches (without any inferiour Bishop) should endeavour to set up a Bishop in every great Church, or Market-Town, or as many as the Work requireth?
16. Seeing Excommunication and Absolution are the notable parts of Spiritual Government, and it is not only the Actions, but the Actors, or Governours, that we Swear not to alter; and Lay-Chancellors are the common Actors or Governours; whether an endeavour to alter Lay-Chancellors Government, (as some did that procured his Majesty's Declaration, concerning Ecclesiastical Affairs) be not contrary to this Oath, and excluded by [any alteration?]
17. Whether petitioning, or other peaceable means, before allowed by Law, be not [any endeavour] and a violation of this Oath?
18. Whether [not at any time, &c.] tye us not to disobey the King, if he should command us, by Consultation or Conference, to endeavour it? Or, if the Law be changed, doth not this Oath still bind us?
Lastly, Whether this following Sense, in which we could take it, be the true sense of the Oath?
I A B do Swear, That (a) it is not Lawful upon any pretence whatsoever (b) to take up Arms against the King: (c) And that I do abhor that Traytorous Position, of taking Arms by his Authority against his Person, or against those that are Commissionated by him, (d) in pursuance of such Commission. And that I will not at any time endeavour any alteration of Government, either in Church or State. (e)
(a) In my Opinion.
(b) For the Subjects of his Majesty's Dominions.
(c) Either his Authority, or his Person, the Law forbidding both.
(d) Whether it be his Parliament, Courts of Justice, Legal Officers, or any other Persons authorized by his publick Laws, or his Commission: supposing that no contrariety of Laws and Commissions (by over-sight, or otherwise) do Arm the Subjects against each other.
(e) I will not endeavour any alteration of State-Government at all, either as to the Person of the King, or the Species of Government, either as to the Legislative, or Executive Power, as in the King himself, or his Parliament, or Established Courts of Justice. And therefore I declare, That I take all the rest of this Oath, only in a Sense consistent with this Clause, implying no alteration in the Government. And I will endeavour no alteration of the Coercive Government of the Church, as it is in the King, according to the Oath of Supremacy: Nor any alienation of the Spiritual Power of the Keys from the Lawful Bishops and Pastors of the Church: Nor will I endeavour to restore the Ancient Discipline (by removing the Spiritual Government by the Keys, out of the Hands of Lay-Chancellors, into the Hands of so many able Pastors, as the number of Churches, and necessity of the work requireth) nor any other Reformation of the Church, by any Rebellious, Schismatical, or other unlawful means whatsoever; (nor do I believe that any Vow or Covenant obligeth me thereto;) declaring, notwithstanding, that it's none of my meaning to bind my self from any Lawful Means of such Reformation; nor to disobey the King, if at any time He command me, to endeavour the Alteration of any thing justly alterable.
The General Answer was as followeth.
UPon Serious Consideration of the Act of Parliament, Entitled, An Act for Restraining of Nonconformists from Inhabiting in Corporations; And of the Oath therein mentioned, I am of Opinion, That there is nothing contained in that Oath, according to the true Sense thereof, But that it is not Lawful to take up Arms against the King, or any Authorised by his Commission; or for a private Person to endeavour the Alteration of the Monarchical Government in the State, or the Government by Bishops in the Church: And that any Person (notwithstanding the taking of such Oath) if he apprehend that the Lay-Judges in Bishop's Courts (as to Sentence of Excommunication for Matters meerly Ecclesiastical, or for any other Cause) ought to be Reformed; or that Bishopricks are of too large extent, may safely Petition or use any lawful Endeavour for Reformation of the same: For that such Petition, or other Lawful Endeavour, doth not tend to the Alteration of the Government, but to the amendment of what shall be found amiss in the Government, and Reformed by Lawful Authority, and thereby the Government better Established. And, I conceive, every Exposition of the said Oath, upon Supposition, or Presumption of an Obligation thereby, to any thing which is contrary to the Law of God, or the Kingdom, is an illegal, and a forced Exposition, contrary to the intent and meaning of the said Oath and Act of Parliament; for it is a Rule, nullum iniquum est in Lege praesumendium. And an Exposition tending to enjoyn any thing contrary to the Law of God, would make the Act of Parliament void, which ought not to be admitted, when it bears a fair and plain Sense, which is no more, Than that Subjects ought not to take up Arms against their Lawful King, or such as lawfully Commissionated by him; and for private Persons to be unquiet in the place wherein they live, to the disturbance of the Government in Church or State.
Iohn Fountain, Feb. 6. 1665.
The Particular Answer was as followeth.
NOT at present to dispute the things presupposed (although I may not grant all in the Fourth, and some other of the Positions, to be warranted by the Law of Nature or Scripture) I add as necessary to the Resolving of the Questions upon the Act of Parliament, That in the Exposition of Acts of Parliament, if there may be a fair and reasonable Construction made of the Words, not contrary to the Law of God or Reason, that Construction ought to be made thereof, and that any Exposition, which tends to make it sensless, or contrary to the Law of God and Reason, or to suppose any wicked thing enjoyned thereby, is a forced Construction, and contrary to Law, being destructive to the very Act of Parliament. I hereupon lay aside any Answer to the Fourth and Eighth Questions, which may, peradventure, be thought meer Cavils against the Act, though I knowing the Temper of the Propounder, have a more charitable Opinion of him. But I do apprehend, that tho' there may want a Word to make a Logical Position, concerning the Trayterous Position mentioned in the Oath, yet there is a plain Sense in the Oath, viz. That it is unlawful to take up Arms against the King; and that if any would make a distinction, and affirm. That though the unlawfulness were admitted to take up Arms against him, yet by his Authority, they might take up Arms against his Person, or against those that are Commissioned by him, in pursuance of such Commission, such an Affirmation and Position as this, is Traytorous, and to be abhorred; and there is such a plain Sense in it, as every one that hath common Reason understands it so, and therefore Quod necessario subintelligitur non deest. And I do not believe, that any who propound the Questions to be resolved, do themselves imagine, that the Parliament had any thought of what is mentioned in the Eighth Question, for nullum iniquum in Lege praesumendum.
Upon consideration of the Act, I apprehend the Makers thereof had an apprehension, that there were three sorts of People which might have a dangerous influence upon the King's Subjects, if not rightly principled, viz. Ministers or Preachers, School-Masters, and such as did Table and Board Children, and therefore did provide to restrain them from doing hurt to the Kingdom, in keeping the Ministers out of the populous Places of the Kingdom, or where they were best known, and most likely to prevail, and that no Children might be poisoned with Principles destructive to Government.
The Principles which they feared were these.
1. That in some Cases it might be lawful to take up Arms against the Supreme Magistrate, at least by a distinction unwarrantable, in taking up Arms against his Authority, against his Person, or such as he did Commissionate.
2. That private Persons might endeavour to alter the Government in the Church or State where they lived.
For the discovery of such as were of these dangerous Principles, I conceive the Oath is framed, which is Established by this Act, and any who holdeth these Principles may not safely take it; but if he hold not these Principles he may.
And as to the Questions.
1. That the Words [upon any pretence whatsoever] in the Oath refer only to the King himself.
2. That [Lawful] comprehends any Law obligatory.
3. That it is only according to the Opinion and Judgment of him that takes it.
5. He that hath the Lawful Commission is the only Person that hath Authority by the King's Commission.
6. I conceive the Sheriff.
7. That Commission which is according to Law.
9. I conceive they may.
10. I conceive a Commission must be shewn, if required; and that a surreptitious and void Commission, contrary to Law, is no Commission at all.
11. I understand not the Latitude of this Question; but I conceive the Sense of the Oath is not to endeavour the Alteration of Monarchical Government in the State.
12. Though I conceive it utterly unlawful to endeavour to change the Person of the Governour, yet, that being sufficiently provided against by the former Laws, I do not conceive that it was intended by the Makers of the Law in this part of the Oath, to intend more than the Alteration of the Government.
13. Answered before; And yet if the Person of the Supreme were included in the State-Government, I do not conceive that it would extend to the Governours under him in the Church, for they may be justly removed in Case of Crime, &c.
14. I conceive both.
15. I conceive its the English Form of Church-Government; and yet that is no breach of the Oath to endeavour, in a lawful way, to make more Bishops, and lesser Bishopricks.
16. I do not think the Oath bindeth not to endeavour to alter the Actors or Governours in the Church, so it be done by lawful means; and that it is lawful, notwithstanding the Oath, to endeavour to alter Lay-Chancellors in a lawful way.
17. I conceive it is not.
18. I conceive it doth not.
There are so many things put in the last Question, of the Sense of the Oath, as will require more discussion, than the present Opportunity admits.
Iohn Fountain, Feb. 13. 1665.
Sir Iohn Maymard also told me, That an illegal Commission is no Commission, (though privately, being the King's Serjeant.)
§19. But that all these Answers should rather resolve me not to take this Oath, than any way satisfie me to take it, may thus appear.
1. He confesseth, that the Principle feared was, That in some Cases it is lawful to take up Arms against the Supreme Magistrate, or by his Authority against those Commissioned by him. And yet implicitly granteth it in the Cases intimated in the Eighth Question.
2. He confesseth that another feared Principle was, That private Persons may endeavour to alter the Government of the Church: And he confesseth, That by lawful means we may endeavour it, in a great part of it.
And as to the Particulars: 1. He thinketh that the Words [on any pretence whatsoever] refer to the King only: whereas in my Conscience, I think that the Authors of the Oath meant it also [as to any Commissioned by him;] otherwise there is nothing in all this Oath against taking Arms against any Commissioned by the King, so they do not pretend his own Authority for it. And upon my knowledge, a great part of those that Fought for the Parliament went on other grounds; some thinking Parliaments and People above the King, as being singulis Major, & universis Minor, (as Hooker speaks, Eccles. Pol. Lib. 8.) some thinking that the Law of Nature did warrant them; and some, that the Scripture did require them to do what they did. And can I believe that it was none of the Imposers Intention by the Oath, to provide against any of these Opinions? If really it were not, then a Man that taketh this Oath may, notwithstanding it, believe, That though it be not lawful to take Arms against the King, nor against his Armies, by pretence of his Authority, yet upon four other grounds it is lawful to take up Arms against his Army. 1. Because as Willius, and other Politicians say, the Majestas realis is in the People. 2. Because some Lawyers say, That the People of England have, as Hooker and B…lson calls them, fore-prized Liberties, which they may defend, and the Parliament hath part of the Legislative Power, by the Constitution of the Kingdom. 3. Because the Law of Nature and Charity requireth the Defence of our Selves, Posterity and Country. 4. And because Scripture requireth the same.
They that will say, That the Oath hath left all these Pleas or Evasions for Fighting against the King's Armies, do make it utterly useless to the ends for which it was intended, and make the Authors to have been strangely blinded.
2. Note, That he takes the Word [Lawful] to extend to all Laws, of Nature, Scripture, or whatever: And,
3. That he takes these Words [It is not Lawful] to mean no more than [I judge, or think it is not Lawful.] As if all our Parliament Men, with the Learned Bishops, had not had Wit enough to have said so, if they had meant so; but said one thing, and meant another.
4. I confess, I stick not much on the Fourth Quaere; but its plain, that the Subject named is capable of various Predicates, yea, of contrary; and [of taking Arms] may be applied to an opertet, a litet, a factum est, yea, or a non licet; though the licet I doubt not is their Sense.
5. Note, That the Answer to the Fifth, is a meer putting off the Answer: For the Question is, Whether the Act of Parliament, or the private Commission be more Authoritative? And he answereth, That which is Lawful; which implieth, that he was not willing to speak out.
6. Note, that he plainly concludeth, that a Sheriff hath the King's Authority, to resist by the Posse Comitatus the King's Commissioned Officers, that would hinder him from Executing the Decrees of a Court of Justice: And doth not this either cross the intent of the Imposers, or give up the whole Cause? Doth it not grant, that either it is lawful by the King's Authority given to the Sheriff by the Law, &c. for him by Arms to resist the King's Commissioners? Or else, that they be resisted, as not Commissioned, because their Commission is unlawful? And what did the Parliament's Army desire more? If a Sheriff, by the Sentence of an inferiour Court, may raise Arms against the King's Army, as not Commissioned, you will teach the Parliament to say, That their Judgment is greater than an inferiour Court's.
7. And it is possible, That Commissions may be contrary (of the same date) who then can know which is the Traytor?
8. The Seventh is a putting off the Answer, like the Fifth.
9. Note especially that of the Eighth Quaere, which implyeth divers Instances of Cases, in which Grotius, Barclay, Bilson, &c. say, That it is Lawful to take Arms against the King, he seemeth wholly to grant it, and maketh it but like a Cavil, to suppose that those Cases ever came into the Parliament's Thoughts. And I am much in that of the good Man's Mind. But if they will Swear me to an Universal, while they forget particular Exceptions, that will not make the Oath Lawful to me. For, 1. It is not certain to me, That they would have excepted those things if they had remembred them. 2. Much less can I tell which, and how many things they would have excepted. 3. And how could the wit of Man devise Words more exclusive of all Exceptions, than to say [It is not Lawful on any pretence whatsoever?] Are those in the Eighth Quaere [no pretences whatsoever?] I dare not thus stretch my Conscience about an Oath, when I know that the Authors were Learned, Crasty, willing to extend it far enough, and Men that understood English, and spake in a matter of their own Concernment and Employment. Therefore by [any pretence whatsoever] I cannot think that they meant to exclude so many Pretences, as the Eighth Case speaks of.
10. Note also, That he alloweth Parliaments, Judges, or private Men, even by the King's Authority in his Laws, to defend their Lives, their Houses, Estates, Purses, and Companions, against such as are Commissioned to Surprize them. Which is because he taketh such to be really no Commissions. And so the Parliament, and their Army, would say in a Word, That the King's Commissions to his Armies were no Commissions. But this (which the Lawyers wholly rest on) I think in my Conscience was so contrary to the Imposers Sense, that if it had been then mentioned, they would have expresly put in some Words against it. And if an illegal Commission be no Commission, then there are not two sorts of Commissions, one legal, and the other illegal (unless speaking Equivocally.) And this comes up to what Richard Hooker, and the long Parliament said, viz. That the King can do no wrong; because if it be wrong, it is not to be taken for the King's Act.
11. Note also, That a Commission must be shewn, if required, and an illegal one is null. And which of the Parliament's Souldiers ever saw the Commissions of those whom they Fought against? Not one of many Thousands. And was this, think you, the meaning of the Imposers of the Oath, that it should be left to Men's Liberty to take an illegal Commission for none? If this were declared, who of all the Parliament's Army would not take this part of the Oath?
12. To the Eleventh he answereth, That the Oath is against altering Monarchy, (which none doubts of:) But whether the Power of Parliaments, or Courts of Justice be included, the good Man thought it not best to understand.
13. He thinks that by [Government] is meant only the Species (Monarchy) and not the Person of the King (as being sufficiently secured elsewhere) whereas there is no such limitation in the Words; but that he is to be esteemed a Changer of the Government, who would depose the King, and set up an Usurper.
14. But if it do secure the King's Person (as I think it doth, and should do) he thinks it extendeth not to the Persons of the Church-Governours, because by Law they may be altered. But 1. Here is no difference made in the Oath, unless it be that the Government of the Church, is put before that of the State. 2. Therefore the Question is, Whether this Oath be not contrary to those former Laws, and do not settle the Bishops and Chancellors as fast as the King? As to the plain Sense of the Words, I find no difference: And as to the meaning of the Law-makers, it is hard otherwise to know it, seeing they are of so many minds, and various degrees of Capacity among themselves.
15. And it is here confessed, That the Clergy-Government is included; yea, and that the Oath meaneth the English Species; and yet he thinketh that it prohibiteth not lawful Endeavours, to make more Bishops, and to take down Lay-Chancellors: whereas, 1. Chancellors are the Governours, for the greatest part, 2. And as a Congregational Church doth specifically differ from a Diocess of 1000, or 600 Churches; the former de fine, being for Personal Communion in God's Worship, and not the latter; so therefore the Bishop of a Congregation must needs differ specifically, from the Bishop of such a Diocess. Therefore so to change, were to change the Species of the Government, as I am confident the Bishops themselves would say, if the Question were put to them.
16. By [Endeavouring] here he understandeth only [unlawful endeavouring] and not Petitioning, or other lawful means: whereas the Word in the Oath, is absolute and unlimited; And I cannot be so bold as to Swear [not to endeavour] and secretly mean [except it be by petitioning, or other lawful means] for no sober Man will think, that we may do it by unlawful means, if he know them to be so: And the old Et caetera Oath, in 1640. (the Antecessor of this) had [not consenting] which could not be so limited.
And further, it seems plain, that this cannot be their Sense, because it is equally applyed to both Governments in the Oath (save that the Church-Government is put first:) And who dare say, that this is the meaning, as to the Government of the State [I will not endeavour the deposing of the King, or the change of Monarchy, unless it be by lawful means.] Whereas the Oath seemeth to me, that it is never to be done at all; and no means is lawful for such an Aid: And therefore we must so understand it, as to the Diocesanes too; if we will not Swear absolutely, or universally, and mean limitedly, and particularly, yea, and limit, and not limit the same Word, as respecting the several Governments, without any colour from the Terms.
17. Lastly, When the Oath Sweareth us [not at any time to endeavour] which is as plainly an Exclusive of Exceptions as to Time, as can briefly be uttered, he thinketh that by [any time] is meant, [any time, except when the King shall command me the contrary, or the Law shall change, &c.]
Now when so much violence must be used with the Words of such an Oath, and when the Imposers will not (after many Years knowledge of our Doubts and Difficulties) make them any plainer; and so when they are at the best to us so unintelligible, and no Lawyer, nor Parliament, that we can speak with, can resolve us; but all the Answer we can get from the Parliament Men, is [You must understand it in the proper, usual Sense of the Words:] And from the Lawyers, [An unlawful Commission is none, and lawful Endeavours are not forbidden] who can take such an Oath in Judgment and Uprightness of Heart, that is satisfied in the Points forementioned?
§ 20. The Act which Imposeth this Oath, openly accuseth the Nonconformable Ministers (or some of them) of Seditious Doctrine; and such hainous Crimes: wherefore when it first came out, I thought that at such an Accusation no Innocent Persons should be silent…; especially when Papists, Strangers, and Posterity may think, That a Recorded Statute is a sufficient History to prove us guilty; and the Concernments of the Gospel, and our Callings, and Men's Souls, are herein touched: Therefore I drew up a Profession of our Judgment, about the Case of Loyalty and Obedience to Kings and Governours; and the Reasons why we refused the Oath. But reading it to Dr. Seama…, and some others wiser than my self, they advised me to cast it by, and to hear all in silent Patience; because it was not possible to do it so fully and sincerely, but that the malice of our Adversaries would make an ill use of it, and turn it all against our selves: And the wise Statesmen laughed at me, for thinking that Reason would be regarded by such Men as we had to do with, and would not exasperate them the more.
§ 21. After this, the Ministers finding the pressure of this Act so great, and the loss like to be so great to Cities and Corporations, some of them studied how to take the Oath lawfully: And Dr. Will, Bites, being much in seeming Favour with the Lord-Keeper Bridgeman, consulted with him, who promised to be at the next Session, and there on the Bench to declare openly, That by [Endeavour] to change the Church-Government was meant [only lawful Endeavour:] which satisfying him, he thereby satisfied others, who to avoid the Imputation of Seditious Doctrine, were willing to go as far as they durst: And so Twenty Ministers came in at the Sessions, and took the Oath, viz. Dr. Fates, Mr. Sam. Clarke, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Hall, or Mr. Church, Mr. Matth. Pool, Mr. Lood, Mr. Stancliffe, Mr. Roles, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Smith, Mr. Arthur, Mr. Bastwick, Mr. Brooks, Mr. Overton, Mr. Batcheler, Mr. Cary, Mr. Butler, Mr. Wild…ore, Mr. Hooker. And not long after, Dr. Iacomb took it, and Mr. Ma…, and Mr. Newton of Taunton in Somersetshire, being then in London: Mr. Iohn Howe in Devonshire; and in Somersetshire, Mr. William Thomas, Mr. Cooper of Southwark (then there:) And in Northamptonshire, Dr. Conant (late Regius Professor of Divinity, and Vice-Chancellor in Oxford) and about Twelve more with him: I heard of no more Nonconformists that took it.
§ 22. Dr. Bates wrote me presently the following Letter, which because it sheweth the Truth of their Case and Inducements, I think meet here to add; the rather, because when they took the Oath, the Lord-Keeper left out the Word [only.] And Judge Keeling openly told them, That he was glad that so many of them renounced the Covenant, with more such like; which made Mr. Clarke openly tell him, That they took this Oath only in such a Sense as they conceived to be not inconsistent with the Covenant: And because the People in London reviled the Ministers as Turn-Coats when they had done; which Insultings and Revilings much grieved some of them.