A difference of opinion arose amongst Nonconformists respecting the course to be pursued in relation to the Five Mile Act. Some were willing to take the oath in a qualified sense. Bridgeman, Chief Justice of the Court of Common Plea[491] and other Judges explained the words in the oath, "I will not at any time _endeavour_ any alteration of Government, either in Church or State," to mean an _unlawful_ endeavour. With this qualification afforded by high legal authorities, some distinguished Nonconformists submitted to the statute. About twenty ministers in the City of London took the oath, including Dr. Bates; and about twelve in Devonshire, including John Howe. Bates argued, that the word _endeavour_ might be construed in a qualified sense, according to the preface of the Act, its congruity with other laws, the testimony of members of Parliament,[492] and the concurrent opinion of the Judges. When he, with others, presented himself before their Lordships, Bridgeman courteously observed, "Gentlemen, I perceive you are come to take the oath. I am glad of it. The intent of it is to distinguish between the King's good subjects, and those who are mentioned in the Act, and to prevent seditious and tumultuous endeavours to alter the Government." One of the ministers, Mr. Clarke, replied, "In this sense we take it;" upon which Lord Keeling, the same who introduced the Bill of Uniformity, said in a hasty tone, "Will you take the oath as the Parliament has appointed it?" Bates replied, "My Lord, we are come hither to attest our loyalty, and to declare, we will not seditiously endeavour to alter the Government." When the oath had been administered, Keeling proceeded with great vehemence to interpret what they had done as involving the renunciation of the Covenant, "that damnable oath," as he politely termed it, "which sticks between the teeth of so many." He hoped, as there was one King and one faith, so there would be one Government, and that if these ministers did not now conform, what they had just done would be considered as meant "to save a stake."[493] The ministers retired with sadness, without noticing the insult. [Sidenote: 1665.] A certain interpretation being admitted by the Court, there could be no charge of dishonest evasion against those who, in such a way, publicly declared their construction of the words. Yet they really substituted another declaration for that which was required by the law; and those who allowed the substitution actually set the law aside. The law was no doubt unjust; and to correct the injustice an unnatural sense was put upon its terms. But notwithstanding this kind of sophistry--so often practised even by people who are straightforward in other ways--the pledge of obedience which the Nonconformists gave, sufficed to show the intense cruelty of treating such men as if they had been rebels.[494]