CONSIDERATIONS Concerning the present ENGAGEMENT, WHETHER It may lawfully be entered into; YEA or NO? Written at the desire of a friend, by J. D.  JOHN 3.21. 
He that doth the Truth comes to the light.  
November 27. 1649.  
Imprimatur, JOSEPH CARYL.  
LONDON, Printed by John Clowes for Richard Wodenoth, at the Star under St. Peter's Church in Cornhill, 1649.   

CONSIDERATIONS CONCERNING The present Engagement.  
SIR,  
YOu have obliged me many ways to serve in all that I can for your good; but the matter of your special 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 show 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 doubtful, 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 lawful Heir of the Crown, and the right constitution of the Parliaments, whereunto you are pre-engaged, and from which you cannot recede.  
To satisfy your desire, I shall lay before you, as briefly as may be, my sense thereof, that you who have been always well-affected to the common cause of Liberty, against the designs of Tyranny may be helped somewhat, to discern how lawful or unlawful, how expedient or unexpedient, it will be for you, to take, or not to take this Engagement for the public good, and the discharge of your duty towards the same.  
First then, concerning the Oath of Allegiance, and the Nationall Covenant, represent unto yourself 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 faithful to the King's 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 wills, but only to them & their wills as they had a Legal 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 mutual, 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 sworn to you: as you were bound to be faithful to him, so he was bound to be faithful to his trust: nor is he your Liege further than he is faithful thereunto. If then he be found unfaithful to his trust, you are ipso facto, absolved from your Allegiance unto him; and if according to Law he receives not his Authority, you are not in Law his Subject at all. Now the just and natural foundation of all Laws, is the reason of the Body, of every Nation in their Parl. which hath the sole Right to propose & choose the Laws, by which they will be Ruled. Whence it hath been (as I suppose) a perpetual custom in this Nation, for the Commons at all times to ask 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 public Trustee, for the administration of the common good and wealth thereby; for in a Kingdom there is a Commonwealth, as the intrinsical substance of the Being thereof; for which all things are to be done by King and Lords, as the public servants thereof; and Ministers not Masters of State therein. If the King then should set himself wilfully to be above this Reason of the Nation, which is the only Original of the Law, and refuse obstinately the Laws, which they shall choose to be settled: 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 design 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 unlord themselves in the State thereof, and if this was the guilt of the house of Lords by other practices and proceed more than by an indifferency and compliance 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 perpetual 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, was never meant by those that made it, or that took it, to be opposite to the sense of the Oath of Allegiance; but altogether agreeable thereunto. What then the meaning of that Article is, must needs also be the true sense of the Oath of Allegiance. That Article than doth oblige you, to preserve the Right and Privileges of the Parliament, and the Liberties of the Kingdom in your Calling, absolutely and without any limitation; but as for the King's Person and Authority, it doth oblige you only 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 yielded 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 looked upon as a private man: and your Oath by which you were engaged, to be true and faithful to the Law, by which the Religion and Liberty of the Kingdom was to be preserved, did still remain in force: which if it may be the true substantial sense of the present Engagement, which you think is contradictory to this Oath and to the Nationall Covenant, than 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 sense of either, that it may be rather a confirmation of the ground; for which 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 intrinsical, to that which was called the Kingdom, to which you are bound by the Law of Nature and Nations, to be true and faithful for itself, 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 encroached upon) you were bound for that Commonwealth's sake, which in the bosom of the Kingdom was then, and is now without it exstant, and in being by itself. So than it may seem 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 firm to the same, by the fundamental Reason thereof, as it is wrapped 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 form of Government, is wholly accidental, and no ways essential to any Nation of the world: and therefore is alterable, in respect of forms, as is most expedient for their exigent necessities; but to be governed by Laws, and to have the use of the true Religion, and of the Nationall Freedom, is absolutely necessary, and essential to the being of a Commonwealth.  
It may be conceived then that the intent of the Engagement is to this effect; that seeing there is still a Nationall tie and Association remaining amongst the people of this land; whereof the Common good aught to be procured truly, and faithfully by all that belong thereunto; therefore you are required to declare, that the want of that accidental form of Government, which stood in the having of a King and House of Lords, shall not take you off from being willing to procure the same: which I think you are bound in conscience, as to intent, 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 sworn to preserve the Rights & Privileges of the Parl. now (say you) amongst the Rights & Privileges of the Parl. this is one; that therein 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 obliged to be true and faithful to the Commonwealth, 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 Privilege 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 took it; for if you took 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 private 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 privileges; you did observe your Covenant, & cannot be accused of the infringement thereof; forwhen a fatal necessity of State; in the course of Divine Justice, with a power , not only to men of private, but to all that were in public vocations, did bring about that Change upon the Parliament, no particular men's engagements were considerable. Therefore of that charge, whether you attempted, or attempted not to hinder it, you cannot be counted 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 faithful to the Commonwealth, as upon this breach of privilege they have settled it, than I confirm what they have done, and so make myself accessary to their guilt and breach of Covenant. Here I perceive is that which doth pinch you in the business: you think, they that made the change broke the Covenant, & if you engage under this change, as is desired, you think you break 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 justify, as not being needful for the resolving of your doubt at this time; therefore in the second place as to yourself, 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 only 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 all follow to my understanding; for the direct & plain matter of the Engagement binds you only to procure the good of the Commonwealth, as now it stands: and because at all times & in all constitutions thereof, you are bound to do this; no less by the Covenant itself 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, immediately going before; and not an absolute abnegation of the things looked 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 Commonwealth at present doth stand without a King and house of Lords, and although it doth stand thus; yet I promise to be true and faithful thereunto. Now it doth not at all follow, if I promise, to do my duty to the Commonwealth, although it is at this time thus settled; therefore I am accessary to all that hath been done to have it thus settled; Nor doth it follow, if I seek the good of the Commonwealth, 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 Commonwealth. These things are altogether incoherent: for what ground is there for me to abstain from doing my duty to the public; because others have done (I think) more than theirs? Or because they do it not so as I can allow of it? Can their faultiness 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 Commonwealth, which is contrary to the intention which you had in taking the Covenant; yet I say, that by giving your assent thereunto, as matters now stand, you break not at all your Covenant, because your Obligation to those matters by virtue 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 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 itself impossible to be done, or in reference to our calling unlawful to be prosecuted. It is impossible in nature to preserve the King's life which is cut off, and the House of Lords which is already put down; And it is not lawful for any in a private Calling to attempt the restoring of that which by public power hath been abolished. Nor did the Covenant ever intent, to engage any to such an attempt: nor could any be lawfully obliged to intent such an undertaking: not is there any word of restoring, but only of preserving, in the Article of the Covenant. But if in your meaning, the promise of preserving should extend itself 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 public welfare cannot be obtained. Suppose that in order to the public good, you were obliged by Oath to prosecute some business, 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 public; I say, that notwithstanding your Oath, by which you are engaged to follow such a business, you are nevertheless obliged to desist from it; because your Oath binds no further than it is evident that the public good is advanced thereby; and if the change of circumstances alter the whole case of your business (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 that he would by a new war hazard the ruining of all; which by all humane means possible in nature lawful & not contradictory to the will of God, we are all bound to the utmost to prevent; for to preserve the public 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 pretensions to Right in order to public safety, I transgress the Covenant, which above all doth bind me unto this, which also is nothing else but the express sense 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 add this, that if the third Article of the National Covenant concerning the Privileges of Parl. be yet in force in any degree, as you suppose it is, than it binds you to preserve the privileges of Parliament that now are, as well as those that then were. For if there hath not been a total 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 public 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 guiltless yourself, if you intent to make void all that which remains? Therefore so far as there is yet any ground of order & settlement in the Commonwealth 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 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 settled, 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 only by the Parl. that now is, which certainly is your duty at this time; And if this is clearly your duty for the public good than 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 main end of this very Article whereof you make a scruple, was evidently to preserve the Parliament and Commonwealth for itself, 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 virtue of this very promise, you are bound to take the present Engagement; and if you take it not, that you make yourself a transgressor of that very Article which you pretend to keep; for if you refuse to be true and faithful to the Commonwealth as it is now Established, you do what in you lieth 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 itself, as possible to be without him; and consequently, that although he should not be, yet that the Commonwealth 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 cross the main intention of their Covenant, and become guilty of dissolving the whole tye of this Commonwealth. 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 lawful, or an unlawful 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 righteousness thereof.  
For mine own part then, I have taken this to be a Rule, whereby all private men (such as I am) as Christian's ought to walk unblamably under the superior powers of this world. Namely; That it doth not be long to us, to judge definitively of the rights which the Supreme powers over us in the world, pretend to have unto their places. And the Reason is this, because I find it no part of the profession of Christianity to meddle with this matter, nor can I see that God doth allow private 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 pretensions to power. For we are to behave ourselves as spiritual men in this world, by the Rule of our profession; and as strangers and pilgrims therein. taking it as our passage to a Kingdom 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 & pilgrim, taketh 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 journey's 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 walk in the fear of God towards others This is all that a Christian as a Christian, that is, by virtue of his Profession, is to meddle withal about the affairs of this world, which in so doing he doth judge in the spirit of righteousness; but if he doth make himself a judge in another kind of particular rights & pretensions 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 than Christ would do on earth; for Christ our Master in this profession would not become a judge 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 pretensions to power in this world? We must therefore beware of entertaining the motions and practices 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 Subject's 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 & deuce, and of giving honour, fear and respect for Conscience sake unto Superior powers, because they are God's Ordinance over private men, and they bear not the sword which God hath put in their hand, in vain. Now the Commandments thus delivered, without any limitation or restriction of their Rights to rule, or of our obedience (further than 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 private 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 lays upon Subjects, in respect of their Superior powers: so than the duty which God hath appointed Subjects to observe towards those that are over them, in the places of power, is clearly inconsistent with the scrupulosity of this question, concerning their Right and Title to Rule. Nor should those that are in places of power suffer their titles by mere private Subjects to be questioned; for either they should actually suppress the disputes & disquiries of that nature in private 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 proceed (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 proceed therein. Nor last, can it stand with sound Reason or a good conscience in any private man, to take upon him to be a Judge of that matter, & to suspend his acts of obedience in things otherwise good & lawful in themselves, till his scruples in that kind 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 all 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 God's hand alone, to order the incidency of those circumstances between those that have power, and the competitors for the same places: & private 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 claims to places; therefore no justice nor reason can allow private men to be judges 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 special inquiry, without which they become unreasonably and unconscionably presumptuous, if they settle within themselves, 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 lawful things, only because he is not satisfied in their right to require those things of him, and in their Title to their places, as if Superior Powers that are actually in the possession of places, which God hath put in their hands to rule others by, and serve the public with, were accountable to every private man, concerning their right, by which they stand under God in their Charges, and as if it were lawful for men professing Christianity, to dispense with matters of duty in themselves commendable and profitable to common edification, only because they will appear opposite for some worldly respects unto those that are over them, to whom they own 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 lawful Superiors to whom they own 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 show 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 show 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 show that he to whom God hath committed the plenary administration, of public affairs with unconfrontable power, is God's vicegerent over the society of those to whom his administration doth extend itself, either by virtue of a contract, which makes a law, or by virtue of a conquest, which is bound to no law but the will of the Conqueror; for if the Apostle doth teach us that [all souls 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, aught to be obeyed as God's Ordinance; for it is not possible that any can attain to the height of power without God's disposal of it into his hands. Here then a Christian rests, and freely performs his duty toward him in all things good and lawful and makes no further inquiry, after the rights to titles according to laws of men; because he doth consider that the most high giveth the Kingdoms 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 yourself without cause, and entangle your Conscience against your duty.  
But here again it may be said, if this be 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 unnatural usurpation of tyrannical 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 redress the tyrannical 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 laws 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 thereby to venture his life and welfare to observe the dictates thereof: by these means subjects without judging of the titles of Superiors, may repress the undue usurpation of power in tyrannical spirits: where you may take notice that although you and I, as private men ought not to make ourselves 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, lest 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 families, or of chosen Deputies who are entrusted with a delegated power from all the rest) doth make or unmake rights in all places and persons within itself, 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  power which God hath set over you, and your duty is to submit thereunto, in all things agreeable to the will of God, judging yourself that you put no stumbling block, or an occasion of offence in any man's way, Rom. 14: 13: yet I will not say but in the judgement of discretion as you are a member of this Commonwealth, and concerned in the public welfare thereof, you may look upon your superiors 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 proceed; as if your private judgement 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 yourself 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 rationality: wherein that I may help you yet a little further: Consider soberly with yourself what can be answered to this plea, which they will allege for themselves.  
1. Whether yea or no, the Nationall tie and association, by which we were a Commonwealth while we were yet called a Kingdom, hath ever been dissolved.  
2. If it hath not been dissolved, what hath kept it entire in the midst of all these shake? 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 lawful power and government?  
4. If nothing be wanting to a legal protection, for those that acknowledge the jurisdiction, than 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 public good, and which is actually & fully possessed with all the places of public 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 legal 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 less upon his determination to suspend his actings towards the public good. Yet if in this also you desire to reflect upon the passages of Right, without obliging 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 impartial meditation, as a Plea which they do allege 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 man's natural 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 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 Commonwealth in their own way, and what settlement that hath by God's 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 allege for its proceed, 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 profess themselves desirous to overthrow the present safety and public welfare 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 itself, and just and neceessary for me to do in reference unto others can derive no guilt before God from others, of the evil which may be in them, upon me. All Moral actions are to be counted good or evil, lawful or unlawful, according to the justice of the rule by which they are done, and according unto the usefulness and conveniency of the immediate 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 show 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 commonwealth is required of us; which if we desire not 10 perform, we deserve not to have a being in it: and if we desire to perform this, there can be no cause why we should not profess it, or why the profession of our willingness to do this should make us guilty of other men's sins.  
As concerning the end for which the Engagement is to be taken, it is to oblige all to ented one and the same public 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 Commonwealth.  
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 some finister ends usurped the places wherein they are, yet by God's permissions and direction over me they being now therein, and finding themselves obliged by their places to procure peace and unity among the subjects of this Land, and to preserve the public 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 amiss 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 Commonwealth, 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 useful and necessary in itself for the good of the Commonwealth? If they were guilty one way (as you imagine) by taking upon them more than they had right to do: take heed lest you be more guilty another way, by refusing to do that which before God and men you are obliged to do: if you are afraid of partaking of their sin, then take heed that you disturb not the public welfare as much or more by this sin, than 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 all other ways which henceforth may be taken towards a happy settlement only by the refusal of due subjection unto the power that is now over you, because you think yourself or your party wrongfully deprived of the power which you had. If you strive for power as much as you think they have done, than you are more accessary to their usurpation by doing that yourself for which you condemn them, then by yielding to any lawful Engagement for the good of the Commonwealth, which they propose unto you. Thus while you pretend to avoid a doubtful guilt of another man's sin, lest it reflect upon you; you contract an undoubted guilt of your own sin by refusing a necessary duty to the Commonwealth. The truth is, they cannot be said guilty of Usurpation of Power; for it was by all the Authority of the Commonwealth 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 express 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 faithful to the peace and prosperity of this state, for some of the council of State themselves, would not be engaged to approve of all proceed past, and yet sit still in council with them to advance the public welfare in time to come, whereby you may perceive that by this engagement they mean not to draw in others to be accessary, to their past proceed, but to know who they are that are faithful in the land, & wiling to concur in good and lawful undertake in due time: for this is all that the engagement can rationally be stretched unto, and he that will not admit of it in this sense makes himself actually liable to a greater sin than 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 sinful.  
Hitherto I have insisted upon your two first doubts, more largely than 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 lawfulness and necessitsy of a duty, it must cast the events & consequences upon the performance of God's providence, and not by the conjectural appearances of your own apprehensions, in the balance therewith. In the third doubt you say the [consequence of the engagement seems to tend to the opposition of two things] first [to exclude the lawful 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 former's 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 righteousness, and consequently, that it is not conscionable to act unrighteous, or to suspend righteous actings, only for appearances of evil, and as it is absund to do evil that good may come of it: so it is also unconscionable to leave off the doing of that which is infallibly good, that no doubtful evil may come of it: & then consider the duty which you refuse to do; relates to the whole Commonwealth, the safety of all, and your own necessary peace and preservation, and the evil which you fear will come upon it, relates only to the seeming violation, of a particular 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 wilful but a conscionable preingagement, and that you cannot lawfully recede from it: but if the contrary hath already appeared and is clear to your conscience now, that your duty and preingagement to the whole Commonwealth cannot lawfully and conscionably be put in the balance, with a particular engagement to some persons depending thereon; than you cannot make any further doubt of that which should be done in this case: for I cannot imagine that you will think it lawful for you to dispute your interest toward the universal good of the Commonwealth, for any particular 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 Commonwealth without them: than it is clear, that in your esteem they are more than the Commonwealth to you, and that the common cause, for the maintaining of which all your engagements, are wrought upon you is not so much valued by you, as the particular cause of these persons, which how you can with a good conscience allow in yourself, I am not able to understand. I say then that if the particular interests and pretensions of any, come to justle with the public good in your affections, and justle out the same, it is clear that you are not faithful 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 yourself in the bottom more than the public good: because it cannot be doubted, that if you will subordinate your zeal and love to the commonwealth unto the respect which you have to other men's advantages, that you will far more if occasion be offered, 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 yourself thus far, that you cannot entertain the thought of any engagement or obligation lawfully, which doth cause your engagement and obligation, to be true and faithful to the Commonwealth, 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 Privileges of Peers, fall cross and opposite 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 proposal 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 Hypocrisy, rectify the intentions of the heart with uprightness and sincerity. And all this I offer to be considered by you, supposing your preingagement to have been just and lawful, as no doubt it was, but yet that now your resolution not to recede from it, cannot be still just and lawful 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 do and counsels, 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 Commonwealth, 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 by the putting of one into the actual possession of a ruling power, and by taking of the same power away from another, to fulfil his own counsel 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 than promoters of the public good: And what God who doth exalt one and put down 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 King's good also; what I say, he determines thus in this kind against men's intentions and expectations, whose affections have been sincerely set for the King's just Rights, no less than 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 special 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 pass 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 days shall be visited. Then than the Moon shall be confounded and the Sun ashamed, when the Lord of hosts shall reign in mount Zion and before his ancients gloriously. I shall not now stand to open these words unto you further than their sense is obvious to show 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 haughtiness of men bowed down, and the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day, for the day of the Lord of hosts shall 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 will as Israel once did say to the seers, see not, & to the Prophets prophesy not right things unto us; prophesy deceits, & cause the holy one of Israel, & 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 perversenese, & lean upon their word and stay thereod, they must take notice, they shall be taught to know with dear experience, if they altar 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 cometh 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 Forest: how shall the smaller shrubs be borne withal, when they are guilty of the same misdemeanour? they therefore that stand before the Lord of the whole earth, let them be wise and fear; 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; learn of him that he is meek, and humble of heart. If they seek themselves and not the Commonwealth, whereunto they pretend to engage others; they shall be found out by those whom they engage to the Interest of the Commonwealth, who mind it sincerely; and being discovered, they shall be cast out of their greatness in it. We have seen several ●●●ties up, and their several Interests set a foot; and their changes came, because the true Interest of Christianity, wherein all Commonwealths 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 still their failings, yet that they 〈◊〉 not be split upon this Rock, and we should watch also over our 〈◊〉 ●●les, lest we be made a cause of their own splitting, and of the 〈◊〉 ●f all, by being enticed to be wilfully scrupulous in these matters; 〈◊〉 perhaps 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 do assuredly. For if they acknowledge the jurisdiction deceitfully to betray it; God will find them out, if they will not acknowledge it, nor any thing (though never so good) offered to the public interest by it; only because they will keep men's spirits at a distance from it: they shall not escape to be consumed by the fire, which they do maliciously kindle to destroy the Commonwealth: if the common interest, which I am persuaded, 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 real 〈…〉 ●●●mation of all our grievances; but if those that complain of pressures 〈…〉 grievances, and of the charge of an Army, by their own disaffection 〈…〉 public, and unruliness under Government; make an Army abso●●●● 〈…〉 ●●cessary, and occasion the grievances themselves, whereof they make complaints only to cast an odium upon the Government: they will be found to be the Children of their Father the Devil, 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 lays 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 yourself 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 entangled into scruples and suspicions, 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 lawful 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 easy 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 fear of God by you; as in his presence without humane respects they are offered to you, by  
From my Chamber Novemb. 27. 1649. Your faithful and affectionate Friend in Christ. I. D.  
FINIS.