Of Petitioning Parliaments, and the Duty in that Caſe both of Parliament and People.

AS this is a nicer Subject than ordinary, and he that writes upon it, may eaſily be miſunderſtood; ſo I deſire a little to explain my ſelf, before I proceed to the Particulars.

And firſt, I deſire to note, that I ſhall not diſtinguiſh in this Diſcourſe between Addreſſing and Petitioning; not but that there are Eſſential Differences between them, and which uſed to be obſerved by the People: Petitioning being applied to Requeſts only, and Addreſſing to every thing, congratu⯑lating, or otherwiſe ſummary in repreſenting the Subject, it is upon.

But Cuſtom has now brought theſe things together, the Addreſs is call'd a Petition, and the Petition an Addreſs: and as the Age makes no Diſtinction, neither do I; and therefore I deſire thro' out this Paper to be underſtood promiſcuouſly of both.

2dly. I note here, that I ſhall in no wiſe diſpute, whether it be lawful upon all Occaſions for the People to Addreſs to, or Petition the Parliament.

I ſhall take it for granted, and agree with any Body in this, That it is the undoubted Right of the People of any free Na⯑tion, [5] but particularly of the three Kingdoms of Scotland, England and Ireland, to preſent their Grievances to their reſpective Au⯑thorities, be it King or Parliament or both, and to do it by Peti⯑tion, Addreſs, or any other way within the limited Preſcription of the Law.

When theſe Things by way of Note are firſt granted, I know nothing more in the way of my Diſcourſe, but to come directly to the Subject of Petitioning or Addreſſing of Parlia⯑ments; and in this 'tis neceſſary to conſider,

• 1. The Nature of Petitioning or Addreſſing.
• 2. The Manner of Preſenting.
• 3. The Duty of the Perſons Addreſſed to.
• 4. The Duty of the Perſons Addreſsing.

II. Of the Obligation of National Oaths

THis is a new Point, and if handled, in a way that may ſeem ſomething new, the Gentlemen concerned will, I hope, not be under any Surprize; ſince it will only diſcover, that ſome People raiſed their Scruples, more for want of due Enquiry, than from the real Difficulty of the Queſtion.

[18]Moſt People who have entred upon this Article, have a⯑muſed us with the Enquiries into the Extent of the Oaths and Obligations, which this Nation lyes under, and with Debat⯑ing how far they are, or are not binding to the Poſterity of thoſe that took them; and theſe Enquiries have one peculi⯑ar, which ſeems very natural to them, (Scilicet) To leave People as much or more in the Dark, than they found them.

The various Opinions, and weak Arguments on both ſides, entangle the Subject, and ſerve only to leave it a doubtful Point, which no body can unravel; & this is what the Enemies of the Truth aim at, and are very well ſatisfied with, and in⯑deed it anſwers their end but too well.

The Broachers of Opinions in the World, have in all Ages fled to this Refuge, viz. When ſtrength of Reaſoning, would not ſupport their Errors, they ſtruggle to cloud the Argument with abſtrufe Conjectures, ambiguous Interpretations, dark and difficult Suggeſtions, and any thing that may render the Subject myſterious; for, that if once the Doctrine has but dif⯑ficulty enough in it, to divide the Opinions of Men, and have ſome be of one mind, and ſome of another in the matter, they gain the Point; and 'tis odd, but ſome eſpouſe it, be the Error never ſo groſs.

To avoid this Evil in the Caſe in hand, to take from the Adverſary the Advantage of making this a Moot point, and that leaving People Doubting and Unſatisfied, they may bring them out of Love with the occaſion. I ſhall come quite ano⯑ther way, and I hope a nearer way to the Truth.

To ſtate the Queſtion right, is the way to make this plain Truth yet plainer, and I think it lyes as follows.

There are National Obligations, which have been taken in Scot⯑land, either by us our Fathers, and which we hold our ſelves e⯑qually bound to,—which in their Nature interfere with our Incor⯑porating with England, in the preſent propoſed Ʋnion.

[19]That this is the true ſtate of the Queſtion, I could prove from too many of the weak and ill temper'd Arguments, which ſome People have made uſe of in Publick, to Defend their Clamours at the Treaty; and which I only Conceal, becauſe I would not record the folly of the Perſons, who, I hope, may in time, come to be better Inform'd, and I am unwilling to leave them any thing to bluſh at.

But to put my Argument right, I muſt back it with one Authentick Quotation, viz. Out of the ſo well known Addreſs of the Presbytery of Hamilton to the Parliament; a Thing I ſhall have occaſion to mention again in the courſe of this Tract, the Words are thus.

But that which more eſpecially obliges us in Duty and Conſci⯑ence, as Miniſters of the Goſpel of Peace, moſt Humb⯑ly to Interpoſe with your Grace and Lordſhips, is, the Lamen⯑table and Diſtracted ſtate of the Kingdom, and particularly the People under our Paſtoral Charge, from the ſad Appre⯑henſion they have of the Woful Conſequences of ſuch an U⯑nion, to their Liberties, Civil and Religious;—And that IT CANNOT BE ENTRED INTO by the Nation, in the Terms, without Incurring the Guilt of NATIONAL PERJURY.

This is plain to my purpoſe, and Juſtifies my propoſed ſtate of the Queſtion.

I ſhall not ſpend the Readers time here, to ſtate the Obli⯑gations; nor ſhall I repeat the Oaths or Covenants, which are here meant, further than to lay it down, juſt as the Gentle⯑men themſelves alledge, viz. That having taken an Oath, or entred into a Solemn Engagement, either they or their Fathers, for that they ſay is all one, obliging themſelves, as far as ſhall be in their power, to Support and Maintain the Reformation, of Religion againſt all Error or Novations whatſoever, together with an Obligation to Maintain and Defend the Kings Perſon, [20] the Laws and Parliamentary Authority, all the lawful Juriſ⯑dictions, &c. as may be ſeen at large, in the National Con⯑feſsion.

This, they ſay, obliges them to have no Union, with a Na⯑tion profeſſing contrary to this Principle; much leſs, with a Na⯑tion, whoſe Church is eſtabliſht upon that very Epiſcopacy, which they think themſelves obliged by their Oath, and in both their National and Church Capacity, to Aboliſh and pull down.

Then as to Civil Matters, they are oblig'd, they ſay by this Oath, to Maintain and Defend the Parliament, Government and Sovereignty of Scotland, and the like, which they appre⯑hend, they do not do by the Union.

I'll do the Gentlemen that Juſtice, to acknowledge, that they begin very much to decline the laſt Objection, being, as they ſearch into it, further and further Convinc'd, of the Weak⯑neſs of that part;—and eſpecially as a thing they are not ſo Solicitous about.—But as to the firſt, they ſeem very poſitive and warm in the caſe.

I ſhall not lay the ſtreſs of this Matter, where theſe People do, and therefore the Triumph they make, over thoſe that Argue againſt the Obligation of National Oaths, on the Poſte⯑rity of the People taking them, ſhall ſtand them in no ſtead here, for I'll readily grant them for Argument ſake, whether I believe it or no is not material, That the National Oaths or Co⯑venant, or both, which their Fathers took, has all that Obli⯑gation they alledge, let that alſo be what it will, on us their Children; That they having eaten theſe ſour Grapes, our Teeth are ſet on edge by them, and that by no Shift, Evaſion, Subterfuge, or whatever Contrivance, we can be cleared of the Bond.

Having granted this, I hope no Man will take it ill, if I very narrowly ſearch all the unhappy Policies of this perverſe [21] Generation, to bring us in Bound by theſe National Obligations not to unite with England.

'Tis not at all to the preſent Purpoſe, whether we are bound by theſe Oaths, but whether do theſe Oaths prevent our joining with England in the Terms of the Union, and whether it be true or no, as is quoted from the Presbytery of Hamilton, That it cannot be entred into without incurring the Guilt of National Perjury.

To enquire directly into this,—it will be neceſſary to diſtinguiſh here the Obligation of the Oath, and the Subſtance of the Treaty of Union.

The Obligation is againſt the Invaſions of Error, and for preſerving the Purity of Religion; 'tis an Oath to maintain and defend the Presbyterian Government and Diſcipline of the Church. This I take to be a fair Abſtract of it.

Now againſt this let us ſet the Treaty, and ſee what are the Stipulations between the Two Kingdoms; and without running thro' the Articles, they conſiſt in general Heads of Agreement and mutual Coalition in Matters of Civil Go⯑vernment, Communication of Privileges, Regulations of State and Poſtulata of Trade.—And pray Gentlemen, take it along with you, there is not in the Treaty one word of the things contain'd in the Oaths we are upon; nor are any of the Heads of thoſe Oaths concern'd here: Of which preſently.

Next, let us diſtinguiſh here of the Subjects of theſe Oaths on one hand, and the Subjects of the Treaty on the other hand, and the ſeveral Capacities of either, as they reſpect the Caſe in hand; and here we ſhall find them alſo as diſtinct and unconcern'd, as if they were not the ſame Perſons.

The Subjects of the Oaths are the People of Scotland, Na⯑tionally conſider'd, in their Eccleſiaſtick Capacity, or the Peo⯑ple of Scotland in their Religious Capacity, as Presbyterians, reform'd from Popery and Prelacy, and erected in a Na⯑tional [22] Church, which they engage ſolemnly to defend; and I would have them defend it to the end of the World.

The Subjects of the Treaty of Union are the People of Scotland in their Politick Capacity, as a Government under a limited Monarchy, a Queen reigning veſted with a Legal, Undoubted and Undiſputed Right; a Parliament Repreſent⯑ing, Sitting and acting by Law, and both together legally, and beyond the Power of Cavil, veſted with Right and Au⯑thority, to debate of and determine every thing which may be for the Publick Good of the Body to be Governed, and which relates to Civil Right, Law, Juſtice and Policy.

That to diſtinguiſh the People of Scotland thus in their ſe⯑veral Capacities Politick and Religious, is juſt and to the Pur⯑poſe, will eaſily appear in that they are diſtinguiſh'd ſo alrea⯑dy, both in the Nature of the Thing and in the different Pacts of Government.

The Government of the State, including all the latter Branch of the above Diſtinction, is entirely ſeparate from, Uncon⯑cern'd with, has no Influence upon, nor is at all influenc'd by the Government of the Church, which is the former Branch of the ſaid Diſtinction. The Parliament repreſents the People in their Civil Capacity; the Church has no Voice in the Election, nor is at all Repreſented there; nor is any thing co⯑gnizable there, relating to the Religious Capacity of any In⯑dividual Subject of Scotland: The Civil Government has in⯑deed the Eccleſiaſtick in its Protection, and 'tis its Duty to defend and ſupport it.—But even the Queen and Parlia⯑ment cannot, no not by Law, dethrone the Power and Con⯑ſtitution of the Church of Scotland, as Presbyterian,—be⯑cauſe it will for ever be juſt, as is expreſs'd in the Claim of Right, That the People ought to have that Religion eſtabliſh'd which is their own Choice.—

[23]Nor are they diſtinct in the Government only, but in the very Perſons governing; the People of Scotland in their Civil Capacities, are governed by the Queen; and the Laws, Juſtice and Legiſlature is lodg'd in the Queen, and the Parliament; and all Men are Subject to it.

The People of Scotland in their Religious Capacity are go⯑verned by the Eccleſiaſtick Authority of Seſſion, Presbytery, Synod and Aſſembly; and to theſe even the Sovereign and Parliament in their Eccleſiaſtick and Separate Capacity are pleaſed to be Subject.

Thus I defend the Diſtinction as to the Subjects of the re⯑ſpective Caſes before us.

Things thus ſet clear of one another, and examin'd apart, I muſt confeſs, to me it is one of the profoundeſt Myſteries in Nature; and I can ſee no ſhadow of a Diſcovery, how the Union of two Nations in their meer Civil and Politick Con⯑cerns, can affect their Religious Concern:

But to come nearer yet,—Theſe Things are not only divided and diſtinguiſh'd in their own Nature, but they are expreſly diſtinguiſh'd in the Treaty it ſelf, which profeſſes to unite the two Kingdoms in their Civil and Politick Capacity, as to Oeconomy, Government, Intereſt and Commerce; but expreſly reſerves to each, the Separate State and Abſolute Independency of all their Religious Affairs.

To make this more clear, care was taken to remove all manner of Jealouſies on either hand, by expreſly providing, limiting and forbidding, That the Commiſſioners on either ſide, ſhould have any Authority, to Treat of Matters relating to the Church.

The Reaſon was plain, the Union was not concern'd in it; the Churches in either Kingdom were ſettled, fixt and Eſtabliſhed, and were ſo to remain; They were not to Unite or to Treat about Uniting: the Buſineſs of the Union [24] is not to bring them together, but to keep them aſunder; not to bring them into one Government, but to ſecure them in their being two.

The Church of Scotland, or the People of Scotland in their Religious Capacity, have no Concern in the Treaty, they are not at all Uniting, the Pale of Diſtinction is as firm, and if I may ſay it, the Church of Scotland better Secured, and bet⯑ter Fixt as to Humane Power, than ever it was before: hav⯑ing the Faith of a Treaty, perhaps more Solemn than ever was yet made in the World to Support her, and all the Men of Honeſty and Principle in the whole Iſland, to Support and Defend, to Recognize and ſee to the Execution of that Treaty.

If then the Independency of the Religious Government in Scotland be thus reſerv'd and ſecur'd, I cannot ſee which way the Oaths or Covenants of the People of Scotland in Religious Matters, are any way infring'd, becauſe indeed, not any way concern'd in, or ſubjected to any Article of the Treaty.

The Firſt Objection I meet with here, is, Yet we are ſub⯑jected to the Legiſlation of Biſhops.

To this much might be ſaid, as that they are Barons, and Vote in the Houſe of Lords as ſuch, but exerciſe no Spiritual Authority there: And I do not ſee, but if an Eccleſiaſtick in Scotland, either by Blood came to be a Peer, or by Vote was Choſen a Repreſentative in Scotland, he might ſit in Par⯑liament too; but I wave that. My direct Anſwer here, is,

• 1. You as a Church, have no hand in the placing them there; for in your Eccleſiaſtick Capacity, you have no Concern in the Ʋnion at all, nor the Church of Eng⯑land neither.
• 2. To clear your Conſciences from the Guilt, and your ſelves from the Subjection, you Proteſt againſt your [25] being Subjected in any Religious Matters to their Vote.

And let what Pretences ſo ever be made here, I ſee no Room for any Queſtion, whether this does not effectually clear you, ſince you have neither Agency in the Fact, nor are ſubjected to the Conſequences. How then can the Oath be affected here?

2. But ſay ſome Gentlemen, more willing to be Scrupulous than to be anſwered; We are bound, as far as lyes in us, to pull down Prelacy, even in England.

This is a wild Objection, I confeſs, and more wildly made uſe of by ſome People.

Either this is an Eccleſiaſtical Obligation, or a Civil one, both it cannot be.

If it be a Civil Obligation, how will you underſtand it? Are you to do it by Force? If ſo, the very Words, As far as in our Power are againſt you, Ʋltra poſſe non eſt eſſe. I pre⯑ſume, no Man will ſay, he is bound to the Attempt, whether poſſible or no, like the Fifth Monarchy-mad-men in England, who were to Crown King Jeſus with an Army of 25 Men, and ſo went out to fight the Lord againſt the Mighty. 'Tis plain, the Impoſſibility on that ſide Diſſolves the Nature of the Oath.

If it be an Eccleſiaſtical Oath, it muſt be executed in an Ec⯑cleſiaſtical manner, and here all your Weapons are put into your Hands, and a fair Field given you; and I long, I con⯑feſs, to ſee the War begun. But what are the Weapons? Tru⯑ly they are terrible ones, THE WORD and PRAYER; and here you may Execute your Engagements to the full, PRAY them down, and PREACH them down, and LIVE them down; and the ſooner this Strife begins, the better, I am ſure the Union will be far from Obſtructing it; and I [26] wiſh all the Strife in Britain, I mean as to Religion, was re⯑duced to this.

In ſhort, to any that are willing to judge Impartially, it muſt be evident, the Church of Scotland has no manner of Concern in this Treaty as a Church, her Eſtabliſhment is founded upon the Laws, which Laws are made Inviolable by the Treaty, no ways ſubjected to the Parliamentary Power that ſhall follow, and Conſequently intirely free from the Legiſlation of the Epiſcopal Clergy of England.

Upon this Foundation being laid, it muſt follow, that the Oaths or Obligations inſiſted upon here, are not at all affected by this Ʋnion; And therefore, with Submiſsion to the Preſ⯑bytery of Hamilton, there can be no ſhadow of National Perjury in it.

As to any parts of the Oaths which ſeems to engage the People of Scotland not to alter their Conſtitution, it would be Ridiculous and Abſurd. For then, (1mo.) They muſt pretend they are Bound never to mend their Condition, tho' the greateſt Advantages in the World were to be offered them. (2do.) Tho' Subverſion at Home, or Invaſion Abroad, offered it ſelf, they could not Unite with any Body, tho for the ſupport & Preſervation of themſelves, to bind themſelves to theſe things, would make it an unlawful Oath, for every Man, and every Go⯑vernment, is bound to do all poſsible and lawful things for the Good and Advantage of the Publick, and to Swear not to do that Good which is your Duty would be unlawful.

All the Cavils at the Form have been effectually anſwer'd already; I ſhall repeat nothing, nor enquire any more into the Suggeſtions, of the Treaty being an entire Surrender of the Conſtitution diſſolving, ſubjecting, &c. The word U⯑NION is an Anſwer to it; Union cannot be a Subjection; the word TREATY is another; How can a Treaty upon [27] Conditions be a Surrender of Freedom? how can making of Agreements upon Articles be call'd a Subjection?

I ſee nothing needful to add to this Argument: I would be glad to hear what any Mens Scruples may dictate by way of further Objection; But till then I muſt conclude, the Oaths and National Obligations of the People of Scotland, are not at all concern'd in this Union, how binding ſoever they may be in other Caſes.

To fill People then with Scruples at the Publick Affairs, and alarm them with breaking Oaths, National Perjury, and the like: Where the Oath is not at all concern'd, is nothing but the Effect of Party Inſinuations, a Handle form'd to be taken hold of to ſerve a Turn, and to fright Innocent People from joining in the Good of their Native Country.

I muſt confeſs, I know not what to ſay to the Multiplying Oaths on either hand, and heartily wiſh, neither Nation were ſo much encumbred with them, as they are. A General Uni⯑on of Temper and Affection, which, I hope, will at laſt fol⯑low the Union of Politicks, will ſoon take away, not the Obli⯑gation, but the occaſion of theſe Bonds from us all.

I cannot therefore ſufficiently Applaud the Prudence of the Publick, in the caſe of a new invented Oath here, lately of⯑fered in the Commiſſion, and afterward in Parliament, and Rejected in both.

I muſt confeſs, I think there are good Reaſons to be given againſt Impoſing Oaths of any ſort upon the Subject, other than the common Oath of Obedience to the Government, which is a Reciprocal Obligation; the King or Queen taking an Oath to Govern, and the Subjects to Obey, and both with this San⯑ction, as the Teſt of the Obligation, viz. ACCORDING TO LAW.

The frequency of Oaths, has in my Obſervation, theſe Fa⯑tal but Conſtant Miſchiefs attending it. Firſt, That it tends [28] to leſſening the Solemnity of the thing, by making a formal Swearing familiar to the People; and I could give ſad Inſtan⯑ces of this in England, where the Word a Cuſtom-Houſe Oath is become ſuch a Proverb, and the thing ſuch a Jeſt, that 'tis fitter to be called a Cuſtomary Oath; and in ſome other Caſes, I believe, I could inſtance in ſome Oaths of Freedoms and Corporations, which I may ſay, 'tis Impoſſible to keep.

If theſe things are true, as I do not deſire to prove, be⯑cauſe I had rather conceal them; I think, they ſhould caution any Nation againſt Crouding the People with Oaths, and e⯑ſpecially unneceſſary ones.

2. In all kinds of Oaths relating to payment of Taxes, there are ſnares to the People, and this effect follows of courſe, that he gets moſt Money whoſe Conſcience is looſeſt, he that can Swear hardeſt, pays leaſt; and the Man of Conſcience, who dare not Tamper with his Maker, nor hurry up his Meaning in Suppoſitions, but when he is to Swear, conſiders of the Fact, and confines himſelf to the Truth, lyes under the Diſcouragement of paying the moſt Duties, and being Under⯑ſold and Injured in his Trade.

This is my Obſervation, only on Oaths in general, but as to Religious Teſts and Oaths, by way of Equivalent, I muſt con⯑feſs, there is ſomething Aſtoniſhing in it, to ſee ſome Gentle⯑men warm for them, that have ſo freely Cenſured, and per⯑haps too juſtly, their Neighbours, for making the like.

I frankly own, I believe the Sacramental Teſt Impoſed in England, a thing unlawful in its Nature, and Irreligious, as it is a Debaſing the Sacred Inſtitutions of Chriſt Jeſus, to Uſes Differing, Remote and perhaps Contrary, to their Primitive Inſtitution; and I make no queſtion, but even the Church of England themſelves, when further Inlightned from Heaven, and the time of their Compleat Reformation ſhall come, will free the Nation from thoſe Eccleſiaſtical Fetters, which are the [29] only remains of the Tyranny and Popiſh Practices of the late Abdicated times.

But how it came into the Thoughts of any People here, who at the ſame time have been very free with England on that head, to fall into the ſame evil, and prepare the very ſame Chains for their Native Country, under which their Neighbours ſo loudly groan, and for which they ſo loudly have blam'd them, is a Myſtery paſt my underſtanding.

The Parliament have therefore very wiſely Rejected their Propoſal, as the Commiſſion had done before; and the Gentle⯑men, who too haſtily came in to it, will I doubt not, in time ſee, that they have cauſe to be Thankful, for being deliver⯑ed, tho' againſt their Wills.

I kno' 'twill be objected here, that the Oath propoſed, was only deſign'd for ſuch of the Engliſh Nation, &c. that ſhould come to enjoy Places of Truſt or Profit in Scotland.

But give me leave, to let ſuch Gentlemen know, that ye had thereby opened the Door to the thing in general; and by Approving the placing Religious Oaths, on their Civil Im⯑ployments, tho now confin'd to Strangers, they for ever ſtop⯑ped their own Mouths, againſt all poſſible Objection, if the ſame in time to come, ſhould on any other occaſion be ex⯑pected of them.

They could never have argued againſt the Lawfulneſs of the thing; they could never have fenc'd againſt the Propha⯑neſs and Irreligion of it, the Dishonour, &c. It is to the Inſtitu⯑tion and Nature of an Oath, ſince their Mouths would be ef⯑fectually ſtopp'd, by telling them, That when it ſerv'd their own turn, they could deſcend to the very ſame thing, and were for hampering the Conſciences of others.

Beſides, who is it they would have bound to own the Pres⯑byterian Church of Scotland upon Oath? And let us examine a little the Reaſon and Kindneſs of it.

[30]The Anſwer will be ready, I kno', 'tis the Engliſh—Well, Gentlemen, and who among the Engliſh would you entangle thus? the honeſt Men or the Knaves? 'Tis plain, the laſt will not be entangled by it, for they'll take fourty Oaths to get a good Place; there's none but the honeſt Men that you can have a Deſign upon, and 'tis a little hard you ſhould contrive Methods to let the Knaves in among you, and ſhut honeſt Men out.

Well, but ſays another warm Gentleman, We would keep Church of England Men out in general.—

Say you ſo, Sir, Then you ſhould have alter'd your Oath, and have made it, that the Perſon ſhould have ſworn, That he was not of the Church of England, or to abjure Epiſcopacy, or ſome Oath particularly bent againſt Prelacy in general, or the Church of England in particular: But 'tis plain, this Oath would as effectually have fore-cloſed three parts in four of all the Diſſenters in England, as well as all that were Conſcienti⯑ous among the Church; So that in ſhort only one Sect of Diſ⯑ſenters might come among you; for which many of your honeſt Brethren of the Diſſenters, with whom you make no ſcruple to join in Communion, when you come to England, are exclud⯑ed, for which they are very much beholding to you.

I might here enter upon a Debate againſt the making an Oath of Faith;—I believe there is room to queſtion, whe⯑ther in the Nature of the Thing, call'd Faith, every Man can ſwear to what he believes, ſwear that he believes this or that Church to be the only true Church, or this or that Wor⯑ſhip to be the only true Worſhip.

Likewiſe I muſt own, I think 'tis very hard to make any Man ſwear, as in a certain Oath is expreſs'd, to continue in the Profeſſion & Obedience of this or that Religion or Opinion all the days of our Lives; whereas perhaps the Perſon may be ſome [31] time or other poſſeſſed in his Conſcience with Convictions, that he ought to alter ſome part of that Profeſſion, either as to Doctrine or Diſcipline, Fundamental or Circumſtance.

But I omit entring on this Debate, not that I think it dif⯑ficult, but with the Apoſtle I ſay, I hope without prophaneſs, I have many things to ſay, but you cannot bear them now.

The End of this Diſcourſe is in order to open the Eyes of thoſe well-meaning People, who ſeem prejudic'd, that the Parliament has not agreed to the propoſed Oaths, but has cau⯑tiouſly refuſed to put that Knife into their Hands, with which they would ha' wounded themſelves.

They can have no Reaſon to be uneaſy at this, ſince 'tis what no Man can defend; 'tis the Burthen, the Bondage, and in my Opinion the Scandal of their Neighbour Nation; and what I could ſay, if the Seaſon were proper, this Treaty would in ſome meaſure ha' delivered them from, had the Gentlemen here not thought fit to raiſe that Devil, which, I doubt, will not be in their Power to lay. But of this I may have occaſion to ſpeak hereafter, and at preſent do not think it reaſonable to explain my ſelf further.

I believe both Nations freeſt from Bondage when they are freeſt from Oaths of Diſtinction; and while they continue, I ſhall never eſteem the Union as perfect in all its parts, to have, made new ones here therefore, would have been a Step to prevent, or at leaſt delay, that more Chriſtian Union of Hearts and Affections among all the Subjects of Britain: which all wiſe Men wiſh, and good Men pray for.