punishable when the law is transgressed I know that this is the law in Cases of particular concernement wherein some speciall positive laws are transgressed but of the generall concernement whereby the whole ground of all legal governement is taken away that law cannot be understood Besides I conceive that the positive law which you mention doth suppose that the King is oliged to give up his subordinate Agents the transgessors of the laws unto the course of Justice and not to take all their faults upon himself so as to protect them with the shield of his indemnity or with the force of his word against the execution of vindicative Justice for if he doth this then he puts himself as to his own person out of the case of indemnity wherein the law puts it nor can that law be counted valid for him against his own will and against the Equity of the law of nature which in this ease doth make him guilty for if a King as a King by the intent of the law doth act nothing in his owne person but by his agents and yet he will not be counted to have acted by his agents but to have done all their faults in his own person then he declares ipso facto that he will not have the intent of the law valid as to himself but that he will stand in his agents roome and be look't upon as in their person and under their guilt and consequently not as a King but as a transgressor non quod volenti non fit injuria est regula juris Therefore I conceive thus By 3. wayes the prerogatives of exemption from being a transgressor may be lost by Kings That a King may make void as to himself and loose the prerogative of the law made in favour to his person three ways 1. If he set himself directly to disanul the general ground of all laws For this cannot be imputed to any subordinat agents as their guilt for they are lookt upon and made punishable only as transgressors in particular matters 2. If he doth in opposition to the intent of the law made for punishing transgressors and for exempting his own person from the guilt of particular transgressions take up on himself all the guilt of particular faults to protect iniquity and illegality then he doth effectually make void the prerogative which the law doth give him 3. If he doth by force take upon him to hinder the execution of the sentence of the supream Judicature for the protecting of transgressors against the law for to do this is the highest act of illegal government and in effect the putting down of all laws In all which Cases if you can make it appear to me rationally that by your positive law the King is to be meant no transgressor I shall confess a mistake but till then give me leave to think that I am no stranger to Reason when I am bold to say that no positive law of any Nation in the world can disanul the law of Nature which in such-like cases doth present a King even as a King to be in his own person a transgressor to the law-making power of the Nation which is to be governed legally and not arbitrarily The second thing which you take notice of is a seeming inconsistency between two passages of my discourse In the one you think I Judge definitly in the highest way of the Rights which Supream powers have over us and in the other which is pag. 10. I declare that it doth not belong to me or to any privat man to Judge definitively of the rights which the Supreâ—me powers in this world pretend to have to their places To reconcile this seeming inconsistency I shall desire you to reflect upon two things The answer doth shew the grounds of reconcileing it viz. The direct intent and proper subject of each part of my discourse whereunto the things seemingly inconsistent do relate which things in both places being very much different and bringing a different respect upon the passages supposed to be opposite when you shall perceive the same I hope your mistake will be rectified For in the first place my purpose is to declare what the fundamental constitution of the Government of this State is as I conceive it agreeable to the Universal law of nature by which all free Common-wealths are settled within themselves But in the second place viz. pag. 10. my purpose is to declare how my friend ought to behave himself for the quieting of his scrupulous Conscience in the doubts which he had concerning the particular present Powers and the lawfulnes of their coming to their places The proper subject of my discourse in the first place is concerning the Legislative power of all Nations as they are Common-wealths and how in this Nation that power hath been settled of old and the proper subject whereof I speak in the second place is concerning the particular ways by which the present powers are come and have a right to their places which are things of a very different nature Concerning the first if you look upon the Universal law of nature I suppose you wil grant that no man ought to be ignorant of it The application of the grounds to shew the reconcilement of the passages if you look upon the constitution of this State as that law is observed therein I hope you will alow me as one in matriculat into the Common-wealth and concerned as well as others in the common welfare thereof the judgement of discretion to consider and declare what I observe therein which at this time I think is my duty to mention but concerneing the second I give advice to my friend how he may quiet his spirit about the matters which concern him not and whereat he seemes to be troubled and decline to make my selfe a definitive Judge of the particular rights and proceedings of those that God hath set over us to Rule the Common-wealth So then in the formeâ— I observe what the law is under which we live and in the latter I refrain from the judicature of particular matters whereunto I have no calling to be a Iudge A mistake concerning the Commons right to make laws objected and what inconsistency is between these purposes and between the discourses which to this effect I make upon these subjects I shall refer now to your second thoughts to collect wherein I hope your imaginary difficultie to reconcile these passages will easily vanish Concerning that which I say of the Custome of this Nation that the Commons at all times have used to aske and propose the making of Laws that the Lords King were wont to give their consent thereunto you say I do as far in this mistake as I did forget my self in the other To this I say It is well if I am not further mistaken For I shall not stick to declare ingeniously the truth of my present thoughts that when I now reflect upon the expressions which
agitur quibus tot suppetunt remedia it shews that no cure is wanting though the disease may seem desperate for if the supposition which I make were wholly yielded unto as I make it there would be no full opposition between the Covenant and other oaths found otherwise then in the mistaken apprehensions of some that scare themselves at the Engagement without a just cause my labour therefore is not lost if things misunderstood may be rectified as surely they may and I hope by this time in some degree are You admit that that which is extinct made void can no more oblige with this limitation provided that those who are obliged have no hand in extinguishing that which doth oblige them Corcerning the matter of an Oath how it may be extinguished or not extinguished to worke out their own disobligation this limitation I do admit and your instance in Davids case to Jonathan for preserving his seed I allow Yet if God had appointed Mephibosheth to dye and David to have given the sentence in the way of justice do you thinke that David would have been guilty of the breach of oath made to Jonathan for the preserving of his seed it is true we say the King dyes not that is the supream executioner of Laws dyes not but the King in his person was Civiliter mortuus as to his office when he was Voted close prisoner in the Isle of Wight and if there was just cause for it in the Judgement of the Supreame power of the Nation their oath for his preservation being limitted to a condition they will be able to answer before a higher Judge then you or I for what they have done The case which I suppose is concerning a private man who is no Judge in publique affaires who had no hand in sentencing him and therefore although in the preface of the Covenant mention is made of the King and his Posterity yet by his death the matter of the oath relating to him is extinct and by the cause of his death the Law hath involved his posterity That which you say here concerning Parliament-Priviledges being always the same and unalterable is onely said and not proved in like mauner when you tell me that we have now no Parliament actually existing you begge the Question and overthrow the fundamental position of a full House to be in the number of forty Trustees which I believe may be six times told in the List of those that now present themselves to that Assembly Your comparison of a Phisitian who cannot preserve except he recover strength doth suppose many things which are not granted therefore I shall not think them worthy of any larger answer then to tell you that the Covenant never meant that private men of whom I speak should be Judges of Parliament-priviledges or Phisitians to the publick diseases of the State Now whether my friend hath any just cause to scruple further neither you nor I are competent Judges but the impartial Reader the third man to whom and to your own second thoughts I shall leave this matter Upon the second part of my discourse to my friend you make some observations wherein you rather touch matters as it were in transcursu exceptiously then pitch upon a settled exception You tell me first that in stead of cleering the title of the present Powers as just and lawful and acquitting it from usurpation I make it unlawful to inquire and determine concerning it To this I say what the duty of Subjects is to their superiors till you make it appear that it is lawful for every private man to judge definitively of the Titles Rights and Actions of the Powers that are over him so as to oblige his Conscience to abstain from all lawful actings in his Calling under them till he be satisfied in all his scruples concerning them I must still for mine own part abstain from presuming to be their Judge in such matters and diswade others from that practise and perswade them to do their own affaires quietly and pray to God for their superiour Powers Then you blame me for holding forth the Rule by which I walk as if I did intend to make my self in all things my friends president or supposed him to be ready to follow me in all things I see nothing can be so well meant and done but it may be ill taken when men seek to make exceptions and not to edifie I thought the best way of edification was to hold forth the rules by which God doth teach us to walk and because I would have no man to follow me further then he seeth a Rule therefore I am interpreted to have an ambition to get followers truly I shall follow you gladly if you will shew me your Rule to be answerable to the word of God and why shew you not a fault in the Rule it self if it is lyable to exceptions but if you can except nothing against it why are you not so ingenous as to beare witness to the Truth but when we hunt after contradictions this is the Genius which leads us we look not to the thing but to experiences and in their wrong and worst side afterward you say that I have been found a transgressor of mine own Rule I see you allude to that which you said in your second exception but when you shall have answered that which I have said there to rectifie your mistakes then you will give me cause to think that you have a mind not onely to tell me that I have transressed my Rule but also to redress either me or my Rule if either be faulty for which I shall thank you when you intend it as you ought to do Concerning the Character of AntiChrist you deny nothing of that which I say but you desire me to take it into my serious consideration to whom that Character doth belong whether to those that seek out carefully to what power it is they owe justly subjection that they may submit themselves thereunto or to him who doth peremptorily determine of the forfeiture of Rights in those that before were posessed of an undoubted title Concerning the spirit that exalts itself above Magistrates where it appeares most and disobliging Subjects from their Obedience To this I say that I have considered seriously the matter and find that the answer is easie if the Case be stated as you offer it upon a mistake in the second part but let the Case be truly stated and then consider you also where the Character of a Spirit exalting it self above Magistrates doth most appear whether in him that submits himself to the higher Powers which God hath actualy set over him and without disputing their title or making himself a Judge of their actions doth all things just and lawful in his place under them as under the Ordinance of God because he doth believe that all Supream powers that are actually existent in the world are ordained of God and ought to be
I suppose however it fares with the Lords Kings have not often been found guilty in refusal of their assent to Bills of Subsidies Taxes Pole-money Tonnage poundage c. And that it hath been a perpetual Custome for Kings and Lords to assent to all that the Cōmons have proposed is boldly affirmed endeavouring to perswade your reader that not only de jure it ought to be so which sure at some conference or other the Commons for prevention of so many disputes and reasonings would have charged upon the Lords but that de facto it hath been so when all that know any thing of the Custome of this Nation very well know the contrary that the Lords have given their assent or dissent to Bills sent from the Commons according as they have judged it most expedient and often sent them back with amendments according as in their sense they have judged them most meet to pass as Lawes and that Kings instead of yielding assent to Bills sent from Lords and Commons have often times onely returned a Le Roy avisera which sometimes as I have heard from singular Patriots hath turned to the great happiness of the Nation And as you pretend to have cleared the meaning of the Oath of Allegiance which was made in our own age by the consent as you say of all ages so you go about a further explanation of it by the third Article of the Covenant which is not opposite to the Oath of Allegiance and this obligeth you say to the preservation of the Kings Person and Anthority conditionally and with a limitation onely namely in the preservation and defence of the true Religion and Libertyes of the Kingdom Which Comment of yours upon that Article of the Covenant turning In into If to make a condition of it and changing the whole current of the words from our selves to the Kings so that they should be meant of the Kings preservation of Liberty and Religion and not our own when all before and after mentioned is our work and not his is such so forced and strained that it will abide the censure of no indifferent and unbiassed reader and is fully enough contradicted in those words which immediatly follow which you prudently conceale That the world may bear witness with our Consciences of our loyalty and that we have no thoughts or intentions to diminish his Majesties just power and greatness It was as is well known frequently charged upon the Parliament that what ever their intendments were for Religion and the publick Liberties yet they had an evil eye on his Majesty not brooking his power and greatness which was as frequently disavowed as a scandal not sufferable and in the Covenant for this very end this solemn appeal was inserted in which we have first an acknowledgment that his Majesty stood vested with just power and greatness and so no such forfeiture made as before you mention And secondly a serious protestation made that we have no intention to diminish it but as we resolve to preserve Religion and Liberty so we oblige our selves to loyalty to the Kings person and Authority and from all thoughts or intentions to diminish his power and greatness which is the true and clear meaning of it Upon mention of the Lawes and Liberties of the Kingdom you say The King either refractorily casting them off or seeming to yield unto them in such a way that no trust could be given him that he would keep what he yielded unto the Parliament did actually lay him aside and voted that no more addresses should be made unto him Where you seem unresolved whether it were guilt in his Majesty or jealousie in the Houses that occasioned those Votes Whether the King did actually deserve them or whether there was onely jealousie that he would render himself worthy of them The suspected Wife Numb 5. might not be cast off till her guilt was proved though some are pleased to put Kings and Wives both in one condition to be cast off meerly ad placitum the one by the husband the other by the people which as to Kings you seem not to judge unreasonable Then followes in your Letter from which time forward he was no more an object of your Oath of Allegiance but to be looked upon as a private man Yes sure when the Parliament had againe voted addresses to him ejus est tollere cujus est ponere If the Parliament have a legistative they have also legistranslative or repealing power if Votes can set free then Votes can reoblige you go on and say to an indifferent eye it namely the Engagement 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 both the Oath of Allegiance and third Article of the National Covenant was then binding for confirmation of which you say this or that outward form of Government is wholly accidental no wayes essential to any Nation in the world and therefore is alterable in respect of forms 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 National freedom is absolutely necessary and essential to the being of a Common-wealth passing by that State Paradox that to have the use of the true Religion and of the National freedom is absolutely necessary and essential to the being of a Common-wealth so there neither is nor ever was any Common-wealth out of Cristendome nor many in it a few only having that happiness This takes wholly for granted that all our Oaths have respected barely the esse of the Nation or that which you say was called the Kingdom when all that reade them must confess that they had immediat respect to the bene esse in their present constitution and external administration we swear not barely to the remote end which is the intrinsecal good as you speak of the Nation but to the meanes which in the judgement of those which you sometimes call the reason of the Nation had a direct tendency to it namely the continuance of Monarchy in the present line any change attempted by men necessarily in humane reason tending to the Nations danger if not ruin and destruction Consult I pray you casuists when the oath in the express letter looks at the means which appears to lead to an end whether it be enough for the party sworn to intend alone the end in contradiction to the means which was the matter of the Oath If I come to a Garrison and be there questioned whether I come from the enemies quarters yea or no May I deny upon Oath that I came from thence when indeed I did satisfying my self with this that I will not betray the Garrison where I am the question whence I came being onely accidental the safety of the Garrison is the thing the Oath onely intended and to this in such an Oath I answer Inquire whether this be not perjury
Law but to the will of the conquerour were worth observation if you would acquaint us which way the present power doth claim for contract we know none when we make any both they and we ought to be faithful in it Conquest I think you will not say so you leave them to their own wills without any other rule in Government in which you are scarce like to please any party either those in power or such as are in subjection As for the several queries which you there put to your friend I leave to your self to finde out which you can soon do where the question is miserably begged and that taken for granted which men of your friends scrupulosities have never yielded and in all that I have seen in the arguments of those that stand up in defence of present proceedings I do not finde so much as an attempt for the proof of it To the second branch of your friends doubt you say 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 profess themselves desirous to overthrow the present safety and publick welfāre of the Nation it cannot make those that take it accessory to the guilt of those that tender it if any be in them because c. But if the Engagement be not a duty as men affected to the common cause of liberty by your own concessions are perswaded then guilt will follow upon such supposition which you have laid down and here you are very high in passing sentence upon those that being conscious to themselves of the bonds of former Engagements have forborn to subscribe in this that they deserve not to have a being in the Common-wealth In which how prudertial it were to proceed in so high a way I trust those that are in present power how far soever by some forward spirits put on will seriously consider What extreams are apt to beget we have had sad experience such wayes have often tended to the unjoynting and seldom have contributed any thing to the settling of a Nation and how equal I would have you more deliberately to ponder You have observed that the late Kings obligations and his Subjects were mutual he was bound by Oath as well as they here subjects are called to engage without any Engagement at all from them in place of Soveraign power when we are as Subjects tyed they are free as Soveraigns and what example can you finde when a power is new fet up to bring in a people for consent under so high a penalty In Scripture we cannot finde any other consent in such case then voluntary And in the Conquest of this Nation and other revolutions of State we finde capitulations upon terms from either party To press upon a people as soon as under a new power not onely a Command over their Persons and estates which already are in their hands but also their Consciences is a practice I believe scarce to be paralelled and having their persons and purses in their power they have cause to protect them though as yet Subjects desire to stand free in their Consciences protection should be as large as subjection Persons and Estates are already subject and these ought to be protected for subjections sake Here you tell us of the end of the Engagement which is to give the Supreme power an assurance that we shall not betray it but that we are willing to maintaine all good intelligence for publick concernments with it notwithstanding the present changes brought upon the Common-wealth But this gloss of yours put upon the Engagment utterly spoils all assurance that possibly can be given either to this State or any other as formerly hath been shewed and I wish that you would more seriously consider for if no respect is to be had to outward forms but to the intrinsecal good of the Common-wealth only then all are at liberty notwithstanding such Engagement where they will to hold intelligence provided that their judgements tell them that the publick is best provided for that way in which they keep correspondence if former Oaths of Allegiance Supremacy the Protestation and Covenant bound not at all to Monarchy there expressed but to the publick good abstracted from all particular forms so that our Consciences are still free to subscribe to any platform then entring this Engagement it doth no more bind to a Republick or Democratie but leaves us free for Monarchy as formerly settled and established and I pray you farther take into your thoughts which way the publick as now it stands by such proceedings can reap advantage Non-subscibers held back by conscience dictates are most unlike to be forward for their danger being so cautelous before they engage with their pen they will be equally wary how they engage with their sword shewing themselves so tender of their own inward private peace they will not be hasty to infest the publick and as they have so they will still in their place and to their power withstand designs of Tyranny taking care that Monarchy if ever again re-established be kept within its bounds and limits for those whose hands are gained I do not understand what security can be expected by it hearts and hands we know do not alwayes hold pace together and if any have minds bent to the publick this is a good lurking-hole to hide them from suspition and those interpretations of the Engagement which are held out to serve them in together with others wherewith many subscribers as I hear satisfie themselves will also serve for an expedient to help them out rendring their Consciences innocent in engaging and freeing them from all Obligation of Conscience being thus engaged Your third part tending to satisfie your friends scruple that the consequence of the Engagement seems to tend to an opposition against the lawful Heir of the Crown and right constitutions of Parliament presupposed him to stand satisfied in the two former and being built upon that bottome in case of dis-satisfaction in those all this necessarily falls to the ground and nothing needs to be spoken that passage in it seems most observable as for the dissolution of your tye 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 Commonwealth for 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 self-greatness Therefore God who takes and gives the rights of Government hath done as it seemeth good in his own eyes both with him who according to men claims the Crown and with them that were the supporters thereof c. All
you take not up my expressions as they are delivered by me and so contradict not my assertion for you contradict only an absolute negation of the things themselves and I assert that the words do not mean an absolute abnegation of the things lookt upon harely as in themselves I make a difference between the negation of a thing and the abnegation of it I may deny a thing to have a being when it is not existent in rerum natura and yet not intend to renounce all respect which may be had to it lookt upon barely in it self I may confess that a thing is not in this or that respect and yet not declare that I cast it off barely in it self and in all respects Now I say that the meaning of the words of the Engagement in their proper and obvious sence import not the last but only the first acception where I would have you to take notice that the sence which you assert is not proper and obvious but brought in upon many consequences which though not irrational yet not contradictory to what I say Again in my expressions the words barely as in themselves for the word truly is not rightly printed it should be barely are reduplicatives and you take them up without any reduplication and speak of the things themselves Now there is a great difference between a thing in a reflexive sense or reduplicative consideration between the direct notion of it you take up my words as if I spoke of a King and House of Lords themselves that is in a direct notion and I clearly speak of them in a reduplicatve notion barely as in themselves therefore you contradict not what I say although you pretend to shew that my gloss as you call it carries a full contradiction in it self it is true that your wrong allegation of the gloss doth seem to make it contradictory by way of consequences to the Text but how it hath a full contradiction in it self you make it not at all appear And this is the first point of your mistake in the wrong allegation of my words and the non-observing that I speak of a proper and obvious sense of the Engagement and not of a sense by consequence The second is the invalidity of your consequence as to my understanding for you say that the words as now established do fully imply that abnegation of King and Lords House which I there mention because the adverb now in the Engagement say you doth stand in full opposition to the face of things in former Administrations I grant that now stands in opposition to time past by way of consequence but not in a direct and proper Notion for I may look upon things as now established without looking back and comparing them with that which hath been but when you say that as now is a full contradiction to my sense as ever I confess I understand not that for if as ever doth in its proper and obvious notion and in my sense comprehend all times past present and to come then I know not by what good consequence it can be said to be a full contradiction to that which is present for that which is ever must needs also be now or else is not ever I confess that the Common-wealth as now established hath voted down the King and Lords house and declared that at present they are unfit to have any share or hand in the Government of this Common-wealth and in this sense by the words of the Engagement we deny them to have a being in this present establishment which is all that rationally by our Superiours I speak it with respect can be desired and in an obvious sense is offered by the words of the Engagement but from hence doth not follow that King and Lords are voted down being lookt upon barely as in themselves for it is clear that the Declaration all along hath a respect to the safety of this Common-wealth at present to shew the inconsistency of a King and Lords House with it and so much I conceive may be inferred that the Engagement doth imply by consequence a consent in the Subscribers to this but that either the Declaration by which King and Lords were voted down or the Engagement doth oblige any man to assert that Monarchical Government in it self or Aristocraticall Power mixed with it and lookt upon in it self is for ever to be rejected out of a Common-wealth and that neither of them can consist with the safety thereof is much more then was ever as I conceive intended by those that made the Engagement or then can rationally and equitably I say again with respect be imposed upon any men of judgement by their Rulers nor is it at all needful to oblige Subjects to any such assertion for the end for which the Engagement is offered which is only to give the present powers an assurance of fidelity to the present State but you and some others of your strain seem willing to scrue up the sense of the words to such irrationalities as these are by forced consequences that an Odium may fall upon the present Government as if they were set against Monarchy and Aristocraty rather for some self-ends then for the present good of this Common-wealth which to intend if there be any such leaven in the bottom is far from the duty both of a Christian and of a good Subject who should make the best construction of the actions of their Superiours and refer unto them the judicature and management of publick affairs as they shall think it most expedient which if my Friend would lay to heart as he ought and practise accordingly he would soon find himself easd of any thing which in this kind might pinch him I go on not as you say discerning that which is said will not hold for you see it holds invincibly but ex abundanti yielding something to my Friends weakness more then perhaps was needful I suppose in his apprehension of matters that this Engagement doth materially settle something in the Common-wealth which is contrary to the intention which he had in taking the Covenant yet I say that by giving his assent thereunto as matters now stand he doth not at all break his Covenant because the obligation to those matters by vertue of the Covenant was exstinct before he was called upon to take the Engagement to this you say that this opposition of mine is wholly yielded by others both that the Engagement is in full opposition to the Covenant and other Oaths and so all my labour lost in endeavouring to reconcile them and that this which I now bring is only held out for a plea to carry it in the affirmative that the Engagement may be entered malè res agitur say you cùm tot opus est remediis To which I answer malè cum ijs agitur quibus tot applicanda sunt remedia it shews that their Disease may be brought to be stubborn sed benè cum ijs
but also unto his word to walk by a Rule which I shall not contradict but heartily affirm with you and be ready to shew that by the word as a Rule we private men are bound to obey in things good and lawful the supreme powers immediatly and actually over us under God and not such as are not over us whom in opposition unto them we may be inclined to chuse As for the Engagement it doth clearly oblige us to do our duty to the Common-wealth collectively and representatively without a King but to my understanding the expression is not so against kingly-Kingly-power in it self considered but that the supreme power of the Nation may if they see cause and the publick safety in their judgements for they are only the competent Judges thereof doth require it set up a King again to morrow I do not think it in the power of any supreme power if they will be faithful to their trust to bind their own hands in such a way as not to do and undo for this would be to oblige themselves to that which is against the nature of their trust nor is it imaginable that the Covenant or any other obligation of Oath can be so high as to bind us so to a King or his Heire that we should not be able lawfully to promise truth and faithfulness to the Common-wealth without them when they are not in place The example of a Child to his Father beggs the Question and then the Lawes of men bind only to that which the letter directly imports in respect of outward actions mentioned in them and takes no notice of secret inward affections The Argument taken from Gods way of providence after a thing is done to acquiesce in it by doing our duty in all other things which the same providence doth offer can be no occasion to sin or any snare to do evil nor do I press it any further in this case but to acquiesce at things past which God hath altered and to do a duty at things present which God hath setled and if this Divinity will not hold in reference to private men I pray shew us some better Rule and we shall hearken to you in it Concerning the place of Isaiah Chap. 24. vers 21. where it is foretold that the Kings of the Earth shall be punished and afterward visited I shall admit of your caveat for I make onely a probable conjecture of that which God hath done or intendeth to do amongst us and not a peremptory definition of that which shall fall out Concerning the observation of Prophesies what the caveat is your admonition also concerning the doing of our duty I willingly receive and grant that Prophesies touching that which God will do are no rules for our actions but the Precepts touching his will which we should do must guide us That which you discourse of the fulfilling of the Prophesies concerning Christ to be put to death by wicked hands is a Truth Nay if men be wicked and have no respect to God in that which they do although they be sent forth with a special and express command of his own upon their works yet they do not his prescribed will as their duty but onely a material work wherein their aim may be undutifull Jehu is a clear example of this That which you bid me take into my serious consideration concerning the Engagement I hope God will inable me to do I can say it before him that I am not conscious to my self of want of Charity and tenderness to those that are scrupled nor do I think that this Engagement can be so clear to men preingaged in other strong bonds of duty which they cannot seedissolved and prepossessed against the way of the change perhaps more then comes to their share to judge of it and of the persons which have brought it about I say I think not that this Engagement can be so clear unto them The grounds of Moderation towards dissenters about the Engagement as that they should suddenly without any debate in their Spirits be carried to allow of it therefore I have alwayes been Sollicitou fo rs a moderation of proceedings and for amiable conferences to beget a good understanding of doubtfull matters whereinto by the necessities of the times we are fallen I confess that evidence doth not alwayes go along with Truth for to make a thing evident it must be offered ad modum recipientis and although men be such in whom both parts and piety are seen yet sometimes they are so shut up with prejudices wherein corrupons work that they act far below themselves and I dare not say that in the proposal of matters to cure them of prejudicate thoughts there is alwayes that humility love Prudency and imprejudicants used to them which is able to cure their disease without any further distemper and inflammation to their sores somtimes it may be truly said medice cura teipsum the Apostles memento Gal. 6.1 to keep us in a meek temper lest thou also be tempted is remarkable therefore God forbid that any should be pressed to act against judgement the dictates of their Conscience only by Club-law who seek rationally to consider things belonging to duty in the fear of God Concerning the resistance of powers that which you offer is worth the consideration and to help you to a decision of that which seemeth doubtful I pray consider in the Authours which are approved upon that Subject whether any doth allow that private men without all publick respect Concerning resistance of Powers may make such a resistance and about things wholly good and lawful in themselves as for the other question what a just power with right unquestionable may challenge is one thing and what a private Subject under an usurped power may do in opposition to the power which is actually over him is another thing therefore I shall desire you also to consider that private mens opinions concerning forfeitures of rights and usurpations without title are not warrantable grounds to act towards the unsettlement of the publick in opposition to powers that are in plenary possession of all places of Government As for your request in the conclusion that those who see not with my eyes and cannot warrant all that I approve having what to say if called unto it may obtaine from me a more favourable censure then to be judged unworthy of a being in the Common-wealth where by right of birth-right they have their freedome I shall profess that it never came in my thoughts so to censure any Concerning mutual forbearance and the equity thereof although I cannot but assert this to be a fundamental truth without which no Common-wealth can stand That Protectio trahit allegianciam and that whosoever is not desirous to performe every good work to the Society wherein he doth live doth not deserve to have a being therein although he were a hundred times borne in it Birth-right can give no man a just title to be an enemy to the Society wherein he hath a being now he is an enemy to every Society who is not desirous to performe every good work towards it But God forbid that any who hath what to say when called to it should not be heard in the Society where he liveth and is borne It hath been my earnest work to intreate men to say in a Christian way that which they had to say and I have used all the industry I could to bring them without partiality to it that by the things wherein we agree we might come to a further light in that wherein we agree not but I have reaped nothing almost but jealousies reproaches and slanders for my pains and have been worse rejected here even by men otherwise Godly then I have been in Forrain parts amongst the stiffest Lutherans Yet I hope that shall never make me weary in well doing or vary from the Rule whereby as I am taught to judge none before the time till the secrets of hearts and hidden designs of self-interest be opened So I hope the Lord will inable me never to shut the Bowels of pitty compassion or to restrain the affection of prayer and supplication against any whom I shall perceive to be in any dangerous error and ignorance and the like favour I shall also desire you to afford unto me when you look upon me in my frailtys and if we would be but truly carefull thus to beare one anothers burdens rather then to complain and murmur against each other or to misrepresent each other to the publick we should find more comfort in our way then now we do I shall close with you in your last request The Lord give us a right understanding in all things and grace to follow the things which we understand without partiality which is the upright indeauour of your Servant in Christ Joh. Dury From my Study this 24. May 1650. Reader there is lately come out these several Books of Mr. Duries 1. A Case of Conscience concerning Ministers medling with State-matters in and out of their Sermons 2. Considerations concerning the present Engagement 3. Just Reproposal to humble proposals 4. His vindication of himself 5. Objections against the Engagement answered FINIS