YOu have obliged me many wayes to serve in all that I can for your good; but the matter of your speciall concernment, wherewith you have acquainted me of late, doth lead me of mine own accord, by mine own inclination, beyond all obliga­tions, to endeavour your satisfaction. See­ing then your conscience is scrupled about the engagement which by the Parliament is offered to be taken, and you say you cannot subscribe thereunto, till three main doubts concer­ning the same be cleared; I shall take them into serious consi­deration, to shew you what I think of the weight thereof, which indeed is of exceeding great moment. For you say, 1. That the Oath of Allegiance, and the Nationall Covenant are still binding, and contradictory to this present engagement.

2. That the present Power by which the engagement is ten­dered, is very doubtfull, as a power unlawfully usurped; to which usurpation you think you will be accessary if you take the Engagement.

3. That the consequence of the Engagement, seems to tend to an opposition against the lawfull Heir of the Crowne, and [Page 2]the right constitution of the Parliaments, whereunto you are pre-engaged, and from which you cannot recede.

To satisfie your desire, I shall lay before you, as briefly as may be, my sence thereof, that you who have been alwaies wel­affected to the common cause of Liberty, against the designs of Tyrany may be helped somewhat, to discerne how lawfull or unlawfull, how expedient or unexpedient, it will be for you, to take, or not to take this Engagement for the publick good, and the discharge of your duty towards the same.

First then, concerning the Oath of Allegiance, and the Nati­onall Covenant, represent unto your self the true meaning thereof, and so order your thoughts to do that which is answe­rable thereunto.

The Oath of Allegiance, as you know, did bind all men as Subjects in Law, to be true and faithfull to the Kings Person, to his Heirs and Successors, as they were invested with the Au­thority which the Law did give them: nor was it ever meant by the Parliament which Enacted the Oath of Allegiance, that any should be absolutely bound to the King & his Heirs, as they were men, to be true and faithful to their personal wils, but on­ly to them & their wils as they had a Legall standing: that is, to the Authority conferred upon them by the consent of the Peo­ple, which was testified in & under a Law; whereunto the King and his Heirs were bound for the Kingdoms good by Oath: So that the obligations of King and subjects are mutuall, and must needs stand and fall together, according as the condition by which they are begotten is kept or broken; which is nothing else, but the Law according to which he and his Subjects agree, that he shall be their King, and they shall be his Subjects. For as you were sworn to the King, so he was sworne to you: as you were bound to be faithfull to him, so he was bound to be faithfull to his trust: nor is he your Liege further then he is faithfull thereunto. If then he be found unfaithfull to his trust, you are ipso facto, absolved from your Allegiance unto him; [Page 3]and if according to Law he receives not his Authority, you are not in Law his Subject at all. Now the just and naturall foun­dation of all Lawes, is the reason of the Body, of every Nati­on in their Parl. which hath the sole Right to propose & chuse the Lawes, by which they will be Ruled. Whence it hath been (as I suppose) a perpetual custome in this Nation, for the Com­mons at all times to aske and propose the making of Laws; and for the Lords and King, to give their consent thereunto: the Lords as the Judges in cases of transgression, and the King as the executer, and publick Trustee, for the administration of the common good and wealth thereby; for in a Kingdom there is a Common-wealth, as the intrinsicall substance of the Being thereof; for which all things are to be done by King and Lords, as the publick servants thereof; and Ministers not Masters of State therein. If the King then should set himselfe wilfully to be above this Reason of the Nation, which is the onely Originall of the Law, and refuse obstinatly the Lawes, which they shall chuse to be setled: he puts himself ipso facto, out of the capacity of being a King any more unto them, and if this can be made out, to have been the way wherein the late King set himself, and that it was the designe of the House of Lords, to uphold and enable him to follow that way: it is evi­dent, that so far as he did by that means actually un-King him­self as to this Nation: so far also, they that assisted him in that design, did un-Lord themselves in the State thereof, and if this was the guilt of the house of Lords by other practises and pro­ceedings more than by an indifferency and complyance with the Hamiltonian in vasion, to help the King to such a Power, I know not what to answer for them.

But as to the meaning of the oath of Allegiance, as by the per­petuall consent of all ages it never was otherwise understood; and by the third Article of the Nationall Covenant, (which is another branch of this doubt) may be made manifest. It is then undeniable, that the third Article of that Nationall Covenant, [Page 4]was never meant by those that made it, or that took it, to be opposite to the sence of the Oath of Allegiance; but altogether agreeable thereunto. What then the meaning of that Article is, must needs also be the true sence of the Oath of Allegiance. That Article then doth oblige you, to preserve the Right and Priviledges of the Parliament, and the Liberties of the King­dom in your Calling, absolutely and without any limitation; but as for the Kings Person and Authority, it doth oblige you onely thereunto, conditionally and with a limitation; Namely in the preservation and defence of the true Religion and Liberties of this Kingdom: If then the King did not give to the Representatives of the Nation that assurance which was sa­tisfactory and necessary, that their Religion and Liberties should be preserved, none but his Subjects were bound either by their Allegiance or Covenant, to defend his Person and the Authority, which was conferred upon him. The Oath of Alle­giance therefore was bottomed upon the Laws, which the Re­presentatives of the Nation in Parl. had chosen to be observed concerning their Religion, and the Liberties of the Kingdom; which he refractorily either casting off, or seeming to yield unto, in such a way that no trust could be given him, that he would keep what he yeilded unto; the Parliament did actually lay him aside, and voted, that no more Addresses should be made unto him: from which time forward he was no more an object of your Oath of Allegiance, but to be lookt upon as a privat man: and your Oath by which you were engaged, to be true and faithfull to the Law, by which the Religion and Li­berty of the Kingdom was to be preserved, did still remaine in force: which if it may be the true substantiall sence of the pre­sent Engagement, which you think is contradictory to this Oath and to the Nationall Covenant, then you are to look well to it, that you be not mistaken. For to an indifferent eye, it may be thought so far from being opposite to the true sence of either, that it may be rather a confirmation of the ground; for which [Page 5]both the Oath of Allegiance, and the third Article of the Nati­onall Covenant was then binding; For the ground of all these Obligations, is nothing else, but the welfare of the Common­wealth, which was intrinsicall, to that which was called the Kingdom, to which you are bound by the Law of Nature and Nations, to be true and faithfull for it self, and to the King, to the particular Laws whereof the King is a servant to keep them and see them kept; and to the Liberties, which by Law were limited (lest they should be exorbitant) and preserved, (lest they should be incroached upon) you were bound for that Common-wealths sake, which in the bosome of the Kingdome was then, and is now without it exstant, and in being by it self. So then it may seeme that you are so far from being put by this Engagement upon any Declaration contradictory to your for­mer Oaths, that you are rather obliged thereby to stand firme to the same, by the fundamentall Reason thereof, as it is wrapt up in the common cause of Religion and of the Liberty of the Nation: which notwithstanding any alterations which are fal­len out, or may fall out hereafter are to be constantly and unalterably preserved: for this or that outward forme of Go­vernment, is wholly accidentall, and no waies essentiall to any Nation of the world: and therefore is alterable, in respect of formes, as is most expedient for their exigent necessities; but to be governed by Lawes, and to have the use of the true Re­ligion, and of the Nationall Freedom, is absolutly necessary, and essentiall to the being of a Commonwealth.

It may bee conceived then that the intent of the Engagement is to this effect; that seeing there is still a Nationall tye and Association remaining amongst the people of this land; whereof the Common good ought to be procured truly, and faithfully by all that belong thereunto; therefore you are re­quired to declare, that the want of that accidentall forme of Government, which stood in the having of a King and House of Lords, shall not take you off from being willing to procure [Page 6]the same: which I thinke you are bound in conscience, as to in­tend, so to declare and really to endeavour.

But you will press this further and say, that in the third Ar­ticle of the Covenant you are sworne to preserve the Rights & Priviledges of the Parl. now (say you) amongst the Rights & Priviledges of the Parl. this is one; that therin should be a house of Lords distinct from the Commons, and this another, that all the Members of the Commons should sit and Vote freely; for when you swore, you meant a parliament so constituted, and none other: but now (say you) I am put upon a Declaration contrary to the intent of that part of my Oath: because I am oblieged to be true and faithfull to the Common-wealth, as it is without such a House, and such Members of the Commons.

To examine this Scruple I shall grant materially all that you say; First concerning your sense of the Rights and Privi­ledge of Parliament. Secondly the present Parliament that it is not such as the former was without any alteration. Thirdly concerning the intention, which you say you had in that Part of your Oath: that it cannot now be prosecuted to that effect, whereunto you say you tooke it; for if you tooke it, to pre­serve those Rights of Parliament which you have mentioned; it must be granted that such an intention cannot now be prose­cuted by you in your privat calling: But yet for all this which I have granted, I must say that the taking of the present Engage­ment, will not make you more guilty of the breach of this part of your Covenant than you are already: for if you did when time and place was, according to your calling, what in you lay, to prevent the breach of those priviledges; you did observe your Covenant, & cannot be accused of the infringement there­of; forwhen a fatall necessity of State; in the course of Divine Justice, with a power irresistable, not only to men of privat, but to all that were in publick vocations, did bring about that Change upon the Parliament, no particular mens engagements were considerable. Therefore of that charge, whether you at­tempted, or attempted not to hinder it, you cannot be counted [Page 7]guilty; what ever the intent of your promise was in the Cove­nant, because it was neither morally possible nor lawful to you in the way of your calling, to hinder the cause or effect of that change; and therefore to you it cannot be imputed as a breach of Covenant. But you will here say, true indeed I am not guilty; but others in my opinion are: But if I promise now to be true and faithfull to the Common-wealth, as upon this breach of priviledge they have setled it, then I confirme what they have done, and so make my self accessary to their guilt and breach of Covenant. Here I perceive is that which doth pinch you in the busines: you thinke, they that made the change broke the Covenant, & if you engage under this change, as is desired, you thinke you breake your Covenant also. To this I shall say; First, that they who made the change will plead for themselves, that they are not guilty of any breach of Cove­nant notwithstanding that change; but this I shall leave to them to justifie, as not being needfull for the resolving of your doubt at this time; therefore in the second place as to your self, I see not how it will appear, that the consequence which you draw from the act of the Engagement to the breach of Cove­nant, doth at all follow, although those that made the change should be guilty, as you think they are. And then also this I am confident of, to be able to let you see further, that although you may think that the effect of this Engagement is materially contrary to some intention which you had in the third Article of the Covenant; yet that by the act of the Engagement, you are so far from breaking your Covenant, that except you take it, and observe it faithfully, you will not onely materially, but formally break that very Article of the Covenant, for which you scruple the taking of the Engagement.

As for the consequence you make from taking the Engage­ment to a breach of the Covenant, it doth not at al follow to my understanding; for the direct & plain matter of the Engage­ment binds you onely to procure the good of the Common­wealth, as now it stands: and because at all times & in all con­stitutions [Page 8]thereof, you are bound to do this; no lesse by the Co­venant it self than by this Engagement; therefore your taking of this, to this effect, can be no breach of that, For the Nega­tive words, without a King and House of Lords, (whereat you stumble) in the Engagement, may be properly and most obvi­ously taken, as an explication of the words Now established, im­mediatly going before; and not an absolute abnegation of the things lookt upon truly as in themselves: so that the obvious meaning of the words, is to me as if they had been utterly thus assertorily. This Common-wealth at present doth stand with­out a King and house of Lords, and although it doth stand thus; yet I promise to be true and faithfull thereunto. Now it doth not at all follow, if I promise, to do my duty to the Common-wealth, although it is at this time thus setled; therefore I am accessary to all that hath been done to have it thus setled; Nor doth it follow, if I seek the good of the Common-wealth, al­though it wants a House of Lords; therefore I am accessary to the abolition thereof, or approve of the putting out of the Lords wholly from all share of Government in the Common-wealth. These things are altogether incoherent: for what ground is there for me to abstaine from doing my duty to the publick; because others have done (I think) more then theirs? Or because they do it not so as I can allow of it? Can their faultines one way, excuse my neglect of duty another way? To think so is very absurd, and therefore the consequence which you make, doth not at all follow,

But let us now go a step further, and suppose that in your apprehension of matters, this Engagement doth materially set­tle something in the Common-wealth, which is contrary to the intention which you had in taking the Covenant; yet I say, that by giuing your assent thereunto, as matters now stand, you break not at all your Covenant, because your Obligation to those matters by vertue of the Covenant, was extinguished, before you were called upon to take this Engagement: now that which is extinct and made void, cannot be said to oblige a­ny [Page 9]more: and all promises are ipso facto made void and extinct, in respect of their tye upon the Conscience; when the thing promised, is become in it self impossible to be done, or in refe­rence to our calling unlawfull to be prosecuted. It is impossi­ble in nature to preserve the Kings life which is cut off, and the House of Lords which is already put down; And it is not lawfull for any in a private Calling to attempt the restoring of that which by publick power hath been abolished. Nor did the Covenant ever intend, to engage any to such an attempt: nor could any be lawfully obliged to intend such an undertaking: not is there any word of restoring, but onely of preserving, in the Article of the Covenant. But if in your meaning, the pro­mise of preserving should extend it self also to a restoring endeavour; yet still the limitation of this endeavour must be in and according to your Calling, not out of it, or beyond it: Now your Calling I suppose, at present, is only to acquiesce at the abolition of that which is made void, and not to declare any abrogation (as some would extend it) of the Right which the Lords have to sit in Parliament. They may have a Title to this Right, and yet be obliged, even for the preserving of that Right, which without an inevitable ruin to the publick wellfare can­not be obtained. Suppose that in order to the publick good, you were obliged by Oath to prosecute some busines, and that in following it, you should evidently perceive, that by the change of circumstances the prosecution of your business, in­tended for the good would prove the ruin of the publick; I say, that notwithstanding your Oath, by which you are engaged to follow such a busines, you are neverthelesse obliged to desist from it; because your Oath binds no further then it is evident that the publick good is advanced thereby; and if the change of circumstances alter the whole case of your businesse (as often in State-affairs it falleth out) I say your Oath is made ipso facto void; And thus the clause of the Covenant which relates unto the King & the House of Lords, as sworn in order to common welfare; if any should now prosecute by force, it is evident [Page 10]that he would by a new war hazard the ruining of al; which by all humane means possible in nature lawfull & not contradict­ory to the wil of God, we are al bound to the utmost to prevent; for to preserve the publick in peace & safety, is the main end of all the promises of the Covenant, whereunto all particular matters are subordinate; and if I should not suspend my particular pretentions to Right in order to publick safety, I transgresse the Covenant, which above all doth bind me unto this, which also is nothing else but the expresse sence of the En­gagement which is now offered: so that the iment thereof, is no way contradictory, but altogether coordinate and consistent both with the Oath of Allegiance and the Nationall Covenant, so far as they are obligatory.

And to go yet a step beyond this consideration, I shall adde this, that if the third Article of the National Covenant concern­ing the Priviledges of Parl. be yet in force in any degree, as you suppose it is, then it binds you to preserve the priviledges of Parliament that now are, as well as those that then were. For if there hath not been a totall dissolution of all Government amongst us, but a Parl. notwithstanding all changes still kept up, and therein a right to rule and to order matters for the pub­lick good preserved: then the Oath of preserving these Parl. Rights is still binding, so far as the Parl. is in being: nor can it be agreeable to the intent of that article, or to the rule of con­science, and of sound reason, that because it is supposed some have made a breach upon some of the Rights of Parliament; that therefore it should be free for any to break & dissolve all the rest. For if you count them guilty, who made void the Au­thority that then was in any degree, how can you be guiltlesse your self, if you intend to make void all that which remaines? Therefore so far as there is yet any ground of order & settle­ment in the Common-wealth by the Authority of Parliament, and by the Counself of State and Courts of Justice depending thereon; you are by that very Covenant in Conscience still [Page 11]bound to preserve it: & to this very thing also the Engagement which is now offered doth clearly bind you, & (as I conceive) to nothing else directly; for the obvious sense of the express words can be none other but this: That so far as the Association of this people is setled, in a course of Government and in the admini­stration of Justice, you shall not overthrow but preserve the same, although the administration of this Government and ju­stice, is not now carried on by a King and House of Lords; but onely by the Parl. that now is, which certainly is your duty at this time; And if this is cleerly your duty for the publick good then you cannot understand the words of the Covenant to be binding in any other sense but in this; for the words must be ta­ken in the sense which they can directly bear, and which do im­part the main end for which the Covenant was taken; for the maine end of this very Article whereof you make a scru­ple, was evidently to preserve the Parliament and Com­mon-wealth for it self, and (if need so required) also without the King.

Now this is that which the Engagement doth direct­ly also require, for which cause I say, that by vertue of this very promise, you are bound to take the present En­gagement; and if you take it not, that you make your self a transgressor of that very Article which you pretend to keepe; for if you refuse to be true and faithfull to the Common-wealth as it is now Established, you do what in you lyeth to make the remaining Rights of Parliament, and the beginnings of our settlement void; which though at first it was not intended to be without a King; yet it was clearly presupposed in the Article it selfe, as possible to be without him; and consequently, that although he should not be, yet that the Common-Wealth by the Rights of Parliament, and the Liberties of the Nation should be preserved; which is all that now is sought for by the En­gagement.

I hope then that you shall find no cause to scruple any fur­ther at this; but that such as under the pretence of such scruples take a course to overthrow this Parliament, will be made con­scionably awake to see their error; and that they Diametri­cally by such a purpose crosse the main intention of their Co­venant, and become guilty of dissolving the whole tye of this Common-wealth. And this shall suffice concerning your first scruple at this time.

As concerning the present power by which the Engagement is tendered, your Doubt is, what you ought to think of it: whe­ther you should count it a lawfull, or an unlawfull and usurped Power? and if such, whether you will not be accessary to their usurpation, by taking the Engagement?

To these Questions I shall answer distinctly, and let you see the Rules by which I order my conversation, in these cases, that if you have nothing to except against them, you may take them up, and walk in the righteousnes thereof.

For mine own part then, I have taken this to be a Rule, where­by all privat men (such as I am) as Christians ought to walk unblameably under the superiour powers of this world. Name­ly; That it doth not be long to us, to judge definitively of the rights which the Supreame powers over us in the world, pretend to have unto their places. And the Reason is this, because I finde it no part of the profession of Christianity to meddle with this mat­ter, nor can I see that God doth allow privat men to take so much upon them over their Superiors, nor ought Superiors to suffer it in their Subjects, nor will sound reason, or a good Conscience allow it in any.

It is no part of our Christian profession, to become Judges of the great ones of this world, in respect of their rights and pre­tentions to power. For we are to behave our selves as spiritu­all men in this world, by the Rule of our profession; and as strangers and pilgrims therein. taking it as our passage to a Kingdome that cannot be shaken; and using it as the subject wherein our Faith & Patience, our mortification to things pre­sent and our hope for things to come are to be exercised. A stranger, pas­senger [Page 13]& pilgrim, takes things as he finds them on his way, makes the best of them that he can, and meddles only with his own matters, how to advance prosperously, and easily towards his journeys end; that is, how to behave himself without blame and offence towards God and men, in all things, with a good Conscience: holding forth the Word of life, which is the Rule by which he doth walke in the feare of God towards others This is all that a Christian as a Christian, that is, by vertue of his Professi­on, is to meddle withall about the affairs of this world, which in so doing he doth judge in the spirit of righteousnes; but if he doth make himself a judge in another kind of particular rights & pretentions of the great ones in this world, he takes upon him that which doth not belong unto him in his Profession of Christianity, for he doth more then Christ would do on earth; for Christ our Master in this profession would not become a Iudge of the least matters between man & man in the world; and how shall we that ought to be his followers and Disciples, take upon us, to judge of the greatest of all? How shall we Answer this to him? Is not this one of the great Characters of the spirit of Antichrist, that he exalts himself above all that is called God? and wherein hath he done this more remarkably towards Magistrates who are called Gods amongst men, then by exalting himself over them to become a Judge of all their Rights and pretentions to power in this world? We must therefore beware of entertaining the motions and practises of his Spirit, whereof this is a very eminent one, to judge of the Right of power to Rule in the world.

Nor doth God allow in the Word, those whom he hath made Sub­jects to Superior Powers, to take upon them to judge of the Rights & ti­tles of those that are over them. The Rule of Subjects behaviour as Sub­jects is clearly determined in Rom. 13.1, till 8. & 1 Pet, 2.13, 14. & Tit. 3.1. Where we find nothing but a command of submission & subjection, of not resisting and of paying taxes & dues, and of giving honour, fear and re­spect for Conscience sake unto Superiour powers, because they are Gods Ordinance over privat men, and they bear not the sword which God hath put in their hand, in vain. Now the Commandements thus delivered, with­out any limitation or restriction of their Rights to rule, or of our obedi­ence (further then that we are bound to obey God rather than man) I sup­pose do oblige all Subjects that are under them either to obey, or to suffer patiently if they find cause to refuse obedience: but that privat men in our­ward and humane concernments; and for worldly considerations of their own taking up, should not find any cause to refuse obedience, I conceive is the meaning of those absolute and unlimited injunctions which the Scrip­ture layes upon Subjects, in respect of their Superior powers: so then the duty which God hath appointed Subjects to observe towards those that [Page 14]are over them, in the places of power, is clearly inconsistent with the scru­pulositie of this question, concerning their Right and Title to Rule. Nor should those that are in places of power suffer their titles by meer private Subjects to be questioned; for either they should actually suppresse the dis­putes & disquiries of that nature in privat men, as not at all belonging to their cognizance, or they should prevent it in others who are to be accoun­ted their equals, & to whom in reason they are accountable of their procee­dings (for God hath made no men so Supreme, as not to be accountable un­to others in a reasonable way) by some satisfactory declarations or demon­strations of the grounds of their Right to their places & of the equity of their proceedings therein. Nor lastly, can it stand with sound Reason or a good conscience in any privat man, to take upon him to be a Judge of that matter, & to suspend his acts of obedience in things otherwise good & law­full in themselves, till his scruples in that kinde be satisfied. For first, no sound reason will allow any man to take upon him the judicature of rights, whereof it is not obvious to him, to know the true grounds circumstantial­ly; & seeing al claims to places amongst men depend upon the concurrences of many circumstances, which in the way of justice give to one & take a­way from another a right to the same; & it is in Gods hand alone, to order the incidency of those circumstances between those that have power, and the competitors for the same places: & privat men cannot possibly in their ordinary way (wherein they are bound to stand and walk) know assured­ly the incidencies of these circumstances, which change the nature of rights and claimes to places; therefore no justice nor reason can allow privat men to be Iudges of things whereof it is not morally possible for them to have a true insight, and whereinto they have no calling by God or men to make a speciall inquiry, without which they become unreasonably and unconscionably presumptuous, if they settle within themselvs, or utter to­wards others any judgement definitively. Then in the second place, it is a most unconscionable practice in any whom God hath put in the place of subjection, and of living in a private station, to resist the powers that are over him, requiring good and lawfull things, onely because he is not sa­tisfied in their right to require those things of him, and in their Title to their places, as if Superiour Powers that are actually in the posession of places, which God hath put in their hands to rule others by, and serve the publick with, were accountable to every private man, concerning their right, by which they stand under God in their Charges, and as if it were lawfull for men professing Christianity, to dispense with matters of duty in themselves commendable and profitable to common edification, onely because they will appear opposite for some worldly respects unto those that are over them, to whom they owe due respect and submission.

Now after all this; if you say: what? shall private Christians then make them­selves slaves to any that will rule over them; without judging rationally, who are their lawfull Superiours to whom they owe obedience, I say to this, no: for Christians are the only free men of the world: all the rest are slaves to their pro­per passions, lusts, opposite interests; but he that is subject to the law of liberty, doing all by a Rule; is truly free and none but he. But you will say; by what rule then shall he discern, who is his superior? I answer by a rule agreeable to sense, to reason, and to conscience. Sense will shew him who is actually in profession of all power and places of Government over him, and by this he will perceive under whom he doth stand. Reason will shew what he who is over him pre­tends unto; whether yea or no, his pretences are backed with power to maintain his right against all adversaries therein? and whether yea or no, the use of that power be limited by law; or let wholly to his own will without any law? And Conscience will shew that he to whom God hath committed the plenary ad­ministration, of publick affairs with unconfrontable power, is Gods vicegerent over the society of those to whom his administration doth extend it self, either by vertue of a contract, which makes a law, or by vertue of a conquest, which is bound to no law but the will of the Conqueror; for if the Apostle doth teach us that [all soules ought to be subject to the higher powers] because [there is no power but of God] and because [the powers that be] in place [are ordained of God] then it will follow, that those who are actually supreme, and in a plenary possession of power, ought to be obeyed as Gods Ordinance; for it is not possi­ble that any can attain to the height of power without Gods disposall of it into his hands. Here then a Christian rests, and freely performs his duty toward him in all things good and lawfull and makes no further inquiry, after the rights to titles according to lawes of men; because he doth consider that the most high gi­veth the Kingdomes of men to whomsoever he pleaseth. Thus keeping my Spirit from flying out beyond his bounds one way, and following the directions of a clear rule another way; I prevent this example wherewith you trouble your self without cause, and intangle your Conscience against your duty.

But here again it may be said, if this bee the condition of subjects, and if their duty toward Superiors is thus circumscribed; what way is there left for them to be freed from the unnaturall usurpation of tyrannicall powers? I answer there be three ways which God hath left to the reason of men to make use of partly to prevent, partly to redresse the tyrannicall usurpations of an over ruling Roman. The first is to settle subordinate Officers under him with out whom he cannot act. The second is, to settle lawes whereby to circumscribe him, and their actings, and a law making power to whom both he and they are to be accountable. And the third is, the great and invincible law of necessity, whereof every one is so far the judge in his own cause and in his own place as he is mo­ved [Page 16]thereby to venture his life and welfare to observe the dictates thereof: by these means subjects without judging of the titles of Superiours, may represse the undue usurpation of power in tyrannicall spirits: where you may take notice that although you and I, as private men ought not to make our selves judges of the rights which superiors pretend to have in & to their places; yet that they are not without a judicature over them in those places: for the subordinate Officers belonging to a state are bound to judge of the rights of those that are over them; both by which they stand in their places of supremacy, and by which they pro­ceed in their actings toward subjects, least they be made the instruments of Ar­bitrary power and Tyranny, and then also the law-making power, which in all Nations resides by the law of Nature. in the convention of the Representatives of the whole body of the people (whether it be made up of the heads of familes, or of chosen Deputies who are intrusted with a delegated power from all the rest) doth make or unmake rights in all places and persons within it self, as it from time to time doth see cause. As for the Law of necessity which begetteth war, whereby God is immediately appealed unto by those that pretend to have no Superiors on earth, that he may judge of their rights; whatsoever his hand doth determine in the event, is to be counted the right of those in favour of whom the determination is made by his judgement.

By these rules then quiet your mind according to your place, concerning the right, which the present powers have to Rule, do not take upon you to define matters whereof you are no competent judge: you are made a competent judge only of your own actions which belong to a subject, as you are under a visible and uncontroulable power which God hath set over you, and your duty is to submit thereunto, in all things agreeable to the will of God, judging your self that you put no stumbling block, or an occasion of offence in any mans way, Rom. 14: 13: yet I will not say but in the judgement of discretion as you are a member of this Common-wealth, and concerned in the publick welfare thereof, you may look upon your superiours to see how they pretend to stand: that is, by what apparent right, and with what visible power they possess their places, but this you ought not to do so peremptorily, as to oblige your conscience as to be suspended upon the observations which you shall happen to make of them, and their proceedings; as if your private iudgement in such cases should be the Rule by which you ought to walk in point of obedience: I say you ought not to set up this judgement of yours so high within your self and over others as to drown the thoughts of all other rules: but you ought to limit it as I have said before, within the bounds of Christianity, and discreet rationallity: wherein that I may help you yet a little further: Consider soberly with your self what can be answered to this plea, which they will alleadge for themselves.

1. Whether yea or no, the Nationall tye and association, by which we were a Common-wealth while we were yet called a Kingdome, hath ever been dissol­ved.

2. If it hath not been dissolved, what hath kept it entire in the middest of all these shakings? was is not a Parliament? and the subordination of all Of­ficers throughout the nation under it?

3. And if a Parliament is still remaining, and all subordinate Officers in places of judicature and execution, stand under it throughout the whole nation, so that all men may have a legal protection from injuries; what is there wan­ting to a lawfull power and government?

4. If nothing be wanting to a legall protection, for those that acknowledge the jurisdiction, then such as acknowledge it not, do put themselves out of that protection: and if they resist the power which God hath set over them for the publick good, and which is actually & fully possest with al the places of publick administration, they resist the Ordinance of God; and they that resist this Or­dinance (saith the Apostle) shall receive to themselves damnation, Rom. 12.2.

As for the point of enquiry, how these particular men in whose hands the power and government is are come to their present places, whether in a legall way, or that which you call usurpation, it doth not belong to the Conscience of any man, who is in a private station, to determine peremptorily, far lesse upon his determination to suspend his actings towards the publique good. Yet if in this also you desire to reflect upon the passages of Right, without oblieging your Conscience to stand engaged either way by that which you shall observe, I shall further suggest these heads of matters appliable unto the case of those whom you suspect to be usurpers, unto your impartiall meditation, as a Plea which they do alledge for themselves.

First, Whether yea or no, it be any way unjust by the law of Nature, among men that are equals, to resist force with force?

Secondly, If it be just among equals to resist force with force, the second point will be to consider, Whether he that invades another mans naturall right, or he that defends his own, is to be accounted the Usurger?

Thirdly, If he that invades and seeks to deprive another man of his right, be the Usurper; then he that by resistance is deprived of that whereof he attempted to deprive his neighbour, is not wronged by way of usurpation, but justly defeated of the power which he did abuse.

Now they will say, that the case was thus first between the King and Parlia­ment, if you count them Equals (which is the least can be given, say they, to a Parliament by the Law of Nature and Nations) and then afterward between the one party and the other in the Parliament, the same case was acted again, as between Equals: whereupon the City Militia on the one hand, and the Army [Page 18]on the other was depending and see on work for action. And how far (these pow­ers having dashed) those that prevailed did think themselves necessitated to settle the safety of the Common-wealth in their own way, and what settlement that hath by Gods permission brought forth, and upon what ground it now stands, I shall not need to represent unto you: only the sober consideration of the grounds which the party accused of usurpation doth alleadge for its proceedings, are to be thought upon indifferently, without prajudicat affectus, if you will free your Conscience from a snare.

And this shall suffice also, concerning the first branch of your second doubt: but let us now come to the second branch thereof, which supposing the power to be usurped, doth question how far by taking the Engagement, you become ac­cessary to the guilt thereof?

To this question, I shall answer briefly thus. That the Engagement being a duty just to be required by the present Powers from their subjects; without the performance of which, there is no protection due unto them; and necessary to be performed by all, that will not professe themselves desirous to overthrow the present safety and publique wellfare of the nation: it cannot make those that take it accessary to the guilt of those that tender it, if any be in them; because the performance of a thing good in it self, and just and neceessary for me to do in reference unto others can derive no guilt before God from others, of the evill which may be in them, upon me. All Morall actions are to be counted good or evill, lawfull or unlawfull, according to the justice of the rule by which they are done, and according unto the usefulnesse and conveniency of the imediate and proper end, for which they are done: and if both these be found in the Agent thereof, no guilt can from without be brought upon him, by any co-Agents.

Now the Rule of Justice in this case, is, That we are bound to shew fidelity unto those of whom we desire protection: And that we are bound to be ready to every good work, towards those with whom we live, which is all that in the present state of this common-wealth is required of us; which if we desire not 10 performe, we deserve not to have a being in it: and if we desire to performe this, there can be no cause why we should not professe it, or why the profession of our willingnesse to do this should make us guilty of other mens sins.

As concerning the end for which the Engagement is to be taken, it is to ob­liege all to ented one and the same publique good, so far as in the present con­stitution of affairs, it may be advanced: and to give the Supreme Power an assu­rance that we shall not betray it, but that we are willing to maintain all good intelligence for publiqe Governments with it, notwithstanding the present chan­ges brought upon the Common-wealth.

Suppose those that have the present Power had without any apprehension of necessary for common safety or danger to their own safety and liberty, only for [Page 19]some finister ends usurped the places wherein they are, yet by Gods permissions and direction over me they being now therein, and finding themselves oblieged by their places to procure peace and unity among the subjects of this Land, and to preserve the publique interest for the good of all, according to their best under­standing, if they use any expedient which doth tend thereunto, and offer it unto me to concur with them therein, with what Conscience can I refuse a concur­rence to such an intention? If they having done amisse formerly, set themselves now to do well, can I with any conscience oppose them therein? Is it just or pi­ous, that because they found no safety in the way by which I would have settled the Common-wealth, and have altered it, that therefore I should refuse to con­cur with them henceforth in any other way or at their motion do any thing al­though it may be found never so usefull and necessary in it self for the good of the Common-wealth? If they were guilty one way (as you imagine) by taking upon them more then they had right to do: take heed least you be more guilty another way, by refusing to do that which before God and men you are oblie­ged to do: if you are afraid of pertaking of their sin, then take heed that you di­sturb not the publique welfare as much or more by this sin, then they did by that: If their guilt was by the usurpation of power to dissolve the way of settle­ment wherein we were, take heed lest you obstruct al other ways which hence­forth may be taken towards a happy settlement only by the refusall of due sub­jection unto the power that is now over you, because you think your self or your party wrongfully deprived of the power which you had. If you strive for pow­er as much as you think they have done, then you are more accessary to their u­surpation by doing that your self for which you condemn them, then by yeel­ding to any lawfull Engagement for the good of the Common-wealth, which they propose unto you. Thus while you pretend to avoid a doubtfull guilt of a­nother mans sin, least it reflect upon you; you contract an undoubted guilt of your own sin by refusing a necessary duty to the Common-wealth. The truth is, they cannot be said guilty of Usurpation of Power; for it was by all the Au­thority of the Common-wealth that then was, both of King and Parliament, put into their hands, but if their guilt lies any where, it is this, that they abused their power: now you cannot be made accessary to this abuse thereof, which is already part, if you give not your expresse consent and approbation to that which they did, which I am confident they will never urge any man to do, who will promise henceforward to be faithfull to the peace and prosperity of this state, for some of the council of State themselves, would not be ingaged to ap­prove of all proceedings past, and yet sit still in councell with them to advance the publick welfare in time to come, wherby you may perceive that by this en­gagement they mean not to draw in others to be accessary, to their past procee­dings, but to know who they are that are faithful in the land, & wiling to concur [Page 20]in good and lawfull undertakings in due time: for this is all that the engagement can rationally be stretcht unto, and he that wil not admit of it in this sense makes himself actually lyable to a greater sin then that which he pretends to be afraid to fall into, which is a way of proceeding very preposterous and unconscionable of sin for fear of being found sinfull.

Hitherto I have insisted upon your two first doubts, more largely then I did purpose at first, therefore in the third and last, I shall be more brief, for if in the two former you be well satisfied concerning that which is your duty, I cannot see how in this last you can be much further scrupled, for if your conscience is once throughly convicted of the lawfulnesse and necessitsy of a duty, it must cast the events & consequences upon the performance of Gods pro­vidence, and not by the conjecturall appearances of your own apprehensions, in the ballance therewith. In the third doubt you say the [consequence of the en­gagment seems to tend to the opposition of two things] first [to exclude the law­full heir of the crown from his right]: Secondly [to exclude the Lords from sit­ting in Parliame] to which things you say, you [are preingaged, and from which you cannot recede.] To which I shall offer these considerations to your more deliberate judgement. First, if those be only seeming inconveniences, and the other a certain and undoubted conveniency, nay a necessary and a dispen­sable duty your conscience cannot justly suspend the latter for the formers sake, for there is no proportion of obligation in respect of conscience, between that which is seeming a, and that which is undoubtedly certain, we are commanded [not to judge according to appearances but to judge righteous judgeme] Joh: 7.24: by which we must conclude that to follow appearances; is not to follow the rules of righteousnesse, and consequently, that it is not conscionable to act un­righteous, or to suspend righteous actings, only for appearances of evill, and as it is absund to do evill that good may come of it: so it is also unconscionable to leave off the doing of that which is infallibly good, that no doubtfull evill may come of it: & then confider the duty which you refuse to do; relates to the whole Common-wealth, the safety of all, and your own necessary peace and preserva­tion, and the evill which you fear will come upon it, relates only to the seeming violation, of a perticular right of some few persons which is, or may be doubtful, whether you be any further engaged thereto yea or no, for when you say that you are preingaged so that you cannot recede; I must suppose that you mean not a wilfull but a conscionable preingagement, and that you cannot lawfully re­cede from it: but if the contrary hath already appeared and is cleer to your con­science now, that your duty and preingagement to the whole Common-wealth cannot lawfully and conscionably be put in the ballance, with a perticular en­gagement to some persons depending thereon; then you cannot make any fur­ther doubt of that which should be done in this case: for I cannot imagine that [Page 21]you will think it lawfull for you to dispute your interest toward the universall good of the Common-wealth, for any perticular engagement though never so strong otherwise, and lawfully undertaken at first: for if the interest of him, who you call the heir of the crown, and of the men called the Peers of the Kingdom, is of so much weight with you, that you will do no good also to the Common-wealth without them: then it is clear, that in your esteem they are more then the Commonwealth to you, and that the common cause, for the maintaining of which a'l your engagements, are wrought upon you is not so much valued by you, as the perticular cause of these persons, which how you can with a good conscience allow in your self, I am not able to understand. I say then that if the particular interests and pretentions of any, come to justle with the publick good in your affections, and justle out the same, it is clear that you are not faithfull to your principles of conscience and reason before God and men, but that you are willing to betray the common cause to particular designs and consequently that you will seek your self in the bottome more then the publick good: because it cannot be doubted, that if you will subordinate your zeal and love to the com­mon-wealth unto the respect which you have to other mens advantages, that you will far more if occasion be offerd, subordinate the same unto the respect which you have to your own advantages. For the rsolution of this scruple you ought as I conceive to understand your self thus far, that you cannot entertaine the thought of any engagement or obligation lawfully, which doth cause your engagement and obligation, to be true and faithfull to the Common-wealth, at all times or at any time, therefore with a good conscience if you find your obli­gation to the heir of the crown, or to the Priviledges of Peers, fall crosse and opposit by change of circumstances (as all human masters are changeable by circumstances) to the common good of the nation; (I say) you cannot in such a case maintain that obligation so, as not to be receded from it with a good con­science: and if the proposall of this engagement, doth discover thus much of your corruption unto you by such a scruple, you are to be humbled for it before God, and laying aside henceforth all Hypocrisie, rectifie the intentions of the heart with uprightnesse and sincerity. And all this I offer to be confidered by you, suppo­sing your preingagement to have been just and lawfull, as no doubt it was, but yet that now your resolution not to recede from it, cannot be stil just and law­full as matters now stand in the state, if you will make that preingagement to justle out of your affection this engagement, which now is offered unto you to be taken.

As for the dissolution of your tie and obligation to the heir of the crown, I shall refer you to look upon God, whether he hath not dispossessed him wholly by his own doings and councells, and by the guilt derived from his father and mother upon, him of all his interest in this Kingdom, and Common-wealth: for [Page 22]because his aim and the aim of those that are about him is not for the Com­mon-wealth, but for the Kingdom, that is not for the good of the society: but for selfe greatness.

Therefore God, who takes and gives the Rights of Government by the put­ting of one into the actuall possession of a ruling power, and by taking of the same power away from another, to fulfill his own counsell and judgements over this people, and over those that exalt themselves over them by destroying the earth, he hath done as it seemeth good in his own eyes, both with him who ac­cording to men claims the Crown, and with those that were the supporters there­of, more then promoters of the publique good: And what God who doth ex­alt one and put downe another, determines in this kind, in the fight of all the world, and (I may say) against the clear intentions of all that engaged themselves at first for the good of the Nations, and for the Kings good also; what I say, he determines thus in this kind against mens intentions and expectations, whose affections have been sincerely set for the Kings just Rights, no lesse then yours you and I have no warrant to contradict or oppose in our thoughts: but we must observe this way of changing the rights, and shaking the titles of the earth, that the Lord alone may be exalted in the day of our common, and their speciall visitation; for I conceive that the Prophecy of the Prophet Isaiah, cap. 24. v. 21. is begun to be fulfilled amongst us, somewhat more remarkably then in other parts of the earth as yet, which is this: And it shall come to passe in that day, that the Lord shall punish the host of the high ones that are on high, and the Kings if the Earth upon the earth; and they shall be gathered together as pri­soners are gathered in the pit, and shall be shall be shut up in prison, and after many dayes shall be visited. Then then the Moon shall be confounded and the Sun ashamed, when the Lord of hosts shall raign in mount Sion and before his [...]cients gloriously. I shall not now stand to open these words unto you further then their sense is obvious to shew that which with another ear the same Pro­phet saith, to the same or like effect, That the lofty looks a men shall be hum­bled, and the haughtinesse of men bowed down, and the Lord alone shall be ex­alted in that day, for the day of the Lord of hosts shal be on every one that is proud & lofty, and upon every one that is lifted up, and he shall be brought low: which is a warning also to those that are now exalted in power over us: lest they be high minded in their own conceits & their ruin come suddenly, & without remedy, if they all or any of them wil as Israel once did say to the seers, see not, & to the Prophets prophecy not right things unto us; prophecy deceits, & cause the holy one of Israell, & his law to cease from before us, & if when they begin to despise his word (as some of them otherwise very active & instrumental in out­ward changes seem to do) they trust then in oppression, and perverseneses, & lean upon their word and stay thereod, they must take notice, they shal be taught to [Page 23]know with dear experience, if they alter not their course; Esa. 50.11.12.13. that this iniquity shall be to them as a breach ready to fall; swel­ling out in a high wall, whose breaking commeth suddenly and at an in­stant; for if the tallest Cedars are not spared, but cut down, when they exalt themselves above the Trees of the Forrest: how shall the smaller shrubs be borne withall, when they are guilty of the same misdemeanor? they therefore that stand before the Lord of the whole earth, let them be wise and feare; he standeth among the Gods and judgeth: even he, who being the King of Kings, came to serve all men through love, and doth teach all men to deny themselves, and deceive his Disciples; learne of him that he is meeke, and humble of heart. If they seeke themselves and not the Common-wealth, whereunto they pretend to engage o­thers; they shall be found out by those whom they engage to the Inte­rest of the Common-wealth, who mind it sincerely; and being discover­ed, they shall be cast out of their greatness in it. We have seene severall [...]ties up, and their severall Interests set a foot; and their changes came, because the true Interest of Christianity, wherein all Common-wealths alone can prosper, hath not been so much minded by them as their own Interests, we should therefore pray for those that are over us now, that though they may have had, and have stil their failings, yet that they [...] not be split upon this Rock, and we should watch also over our [...] [...]les, least we be made a cause of their own splitting, and of the [...] [...]f all, by being intised to be wilfully scrupulous in these matters; [...] [...]erhaps some are for ends of their own, to make the way of Govern­ment difficult, and the standing of those that are in places of power un­safe: If any be such (of which number I know you are none) they shall eat of the fruits of their own doings assuredly. For if they acknowledg the jurisdiction deceitfully to betray it; God will find them out, if they will not acknowledg it, nor any thing (though never so good) offered to the publick interest by it; onely because they will keep mens spirits at a distance from it: they shall not escape to be consumed by the fire, which they do maliciously kindle to destroy the Common-wealth: if the common interest, which I am perswaded, is in simplicity to be aimed [...] by the engagement, according to their sense that offer it; were with­ [...] scrupulosity and contradiction taken up and intended by all; what [...] matter would it be in a short time to bring at last about a reall [...] [...]mation of all our grievances; but if those that complain of pressures [...] [...]evances, and of the charge of an Army, by their own disaffection [...] [...]ublick, and unruliness under Government; make an Army abso­ [...] [...] [...]cessary, and occasion the grievances themselves, whereof they [Page 24]make complaints onely to cast an odium upon the Government: they will be found to be the Children of their Father the Devill, and receive with him their reward; for he obstructs all that is good in every one, and tempts all unto distempers and disorderly Carriages, and then layes them to their Charge to make them odious thereby. Besides the scruples which you have made in this business, I have met with some, that labour to make strange interpretations and inferences upon every word of the En­gagement, as if it were in the meaning of those that offer it, a bundle of snares; but trouble not your self with that, for in all promises of this kind, the Rule is, that you must take the sense which is most obvious, to ex­press an undeniable duty; and by following this, you shall not be in­tangled into scruples and suspitions, what others may strain the words unto. Another told me, (and if I understand by him that many are thus scrupled) that although he could take the Engagement in a lawfull sense, and approve the obvious sense of it; yet that he ought not to do it, by reason of the offences, which many godly people would take at him for it, who cannot but think it a breach of Covenant. To this I answered, that in a necessary matter of duty, an offence wrongfully taken at it, ought not to be regarded by those that perform it; but they ought ra­ther to follow their own Conscience, and give to those that are offen­ded at them in their way, a satisfactory reason of the justice thereof, to instruct them; but in things of an indifferent nature, which are free to be done or left undone, there we are bound to suspend the action which may be taken offensively: as for this matter I say, that on both hands there will be offences given, or taken, and that by the Godly. For as some godly will be offended at the taking of the Engagement, so some others will be offended, at the not taking thereof: the case then will be which of these two offences I am most to avoid; whether that which is wrongfully, or that which is justly taken, both by the godly, and also by those that are in superiority; whom I offend, so as to give them just cause, to deny unto me for my offence their protection, and my necessa­ry safety, and us here, of the same act: the offence on the one hand is sinfully given, and on the other wrongfully taken; it is easie to judge which of the two is to be avoided. I shall leave these things to your conscionable and unprejudicat consideration, to be weighed in the feare of God by you; as in his presence without humane respects they are of­fered to you, by