A PACK OF OLD PURITANS.  
MAINTAINING THE Unlawfulness& inexpediency  
Of subscribing the new ENGAGEMENT.  
PROFESSING The dissatisfaction of their judgements, and the unresolvedness of their Consciences, with Mr. JOHN DURY'S Considerations and just Reproposals concerning it.  
And answering the most material Allegations that are urged by him or others for subscription.  MAT. 18. 26. In the mouth of two or three Witnesses, every word shall be established. 
LONDON.  
Printed by the Company of Covenant-Keepers, dwelling in Great britain. 1650.   
Mr. John Duries just Reproposals, page. 1. line 6. IT is neither just nor conscionable, that any matter should be pressed upon the Conscience of any, as a duty, otherwise then by clear demonstration of the righteousness thereof, and a conviction of the judgement therein. Mr. Cayroll in his Sermon( worthy of serious consideration by the Covenant-breakers of these times) preached October 6. 1643. at the Assembly for taking the Covevenant. WHere Conscience is indeed unsatisfied, we should rather pitty, then impose; and labour to persuade, rather then violently to obtrude, page. 16. Mr. John Goodwins Anti-cavelarisme. HE that refuseth to obey a superior an unlawful Command, giveth notice to him, that his foot is in a snare of death, and that his preservation stands in his desisting and Repentance.  

TO THE CHRISTIAN READER.  
AS there is no post so rotten, but through the Painters Art and Industry, may easily be cast into the form and colour of a marble pillar: So( Christian Reader) there is no action so corrupt and( rotten in itself) but if it may be of use to support a prevailling faction, shall have many who will strain both their brains and Consciences to cast it into such a colour as may render it most subservient to that design.  
For the proof of this, we shall need to produce no other Evidences, and Instances, then those new State Chaplains, who daily appear like so many parascitical Painters in their several Pamphlets, to varnish over that complicated piety of subscribing the new Engagement, with the orient colours of an indispensible duty, necessary, just and equal.  
And although to teach others to break the least of Christs Commandements, will certainly hinder the spiritual and eternal advancement of all such Doctors of disobedience; for Christ who is the truth itself, hath said, That he which teacheth others to break the least of his Commandements, shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. Mat. 5. 26.  
Yet have the aforesaid Tutors shewed too much of the old Serpents subtlety, in teaching the black Art of breaking, all sacred bonds and obligations whatsoever, and that under the notion of satisfying the Consciences, and resolving the scruples of such who cannot swallow down this camel of perjury as easily as themselves.  
That we might therefore be satisfied in our judgement●, and resolved in our Consciences, about this great business of subscribing the ENGAGEMENT. We have seriously vowed and weighed what hath been written by Mr. DURY. By the Northern Subscribers in the Plea. In the ENGAGEMENT vindicated. In the Logical Demonstration of the lawfulness of subscribing the new ENGAGEMENT. And in the Explanation of the Covenant, in reference to the taking the ENGAGEMENT, &c.  
But finding all these Pamphlets to be full of irreligious and irrational Arguments, and not in the least satisfying to any, except such who are willing to couzen their Consciences, we hold it our duty, the Lord having lighted our Candle, not to put it under a bushel. But publish the grounds of our dissatisfaction with them all. And especially with Mr. JOHN DURIES Considerations and just Reproposals, which( although, through their often printing or impression) we fear hath taken too much impression upon weak and unstable souls: yet have we found them so full of contradictions, absurdities, and irrational reasonings, vented with such heights of Majesterial confidence, or impudence, as makes us fear, that if ever he had any ministerial gifts or abilities, they are, by the just judgement of God, blasted, for undertaking a service so sinful, as to render him accessary to the perjury of all those persons who have subscribed the new ENGAGEMENT by his persuasion.  
Although therefore the Reverend, Learned, and Conscious author of the Proposals, nor any other of his own Function( as we conceive by their silence) will not so far undervalew themselves, or disparaged their judgements by vouchsafing an Answer to his weak and worthless Pamphlets, because he hath so fully confuted himself in several places.  
Yet lest through the want of a reply to them, his pupils and proselytes should take him for an infallible Oracle, an irrefragable Doctor, and so conclude their Champion invincible. Though in our own sight we are but as little David, in comparison of this great goliath, for our scolastick parts, and polemique abilities. We have adventured to appear against him, after his fourth edition, or appearance in the field without opposition. And whether we have not cut off the head of this great Champion with his own Sword, we leave to the judgement of the Reader and Spectator.  
Be pleased also( Courteous Reader) to take notice, that had there been as free a passage for Truth as there is for error, and that the Men of this Generation exceeded not the Prelates for their strict suppression of the press; we had not onely followed him at the heels of his first Edition, but many more able Combatants had got through the press into the field against him, and long since laid him flat on his back, and broken the neck of his Printing pride.  
But seeing the divine providence hath through much difficulty brought this discourse to thy hand, wherein we have discharged our Consciences in a faithful discovery of the unlawfulness and inexpediency of subscribing this new Engagement, and have answered the most material passages in Mr. DURIES Considerations and just Reproposalls to the contrary, in which is included an Answer to the other forenamed scribblers after his Copy. We leave it to thy serious perusal, beseeching thee to consider what we have said; and the good Lord, who is the Father of lights, give thee a discerning spirit in these times, wherein men are given up unto strong delusions for detaining the Truth in unrighteousness.  
Amen.  
VALE.  
FINIS.   

A PACK OF PURITANS MAINTAINING The unlawfulness, and unexpediency of subscribing the New Engagement; and professing the dissatisfaction of their Judgements, and unresolvednesse of their tender Consciences. With Mr. John Dury his CONSIDERATIONS and JUST RE-PROPOSALS concerning it.  
THough we delight not to revive that odious, and reproachful name of Puritan, with which in the height of Prelacy and Prerogative Royal, all conscientious men were stigmatized, that scrupled Conformity to superstitious Innovations in the Church, and opposed illegal Taxations and Impositions in the State.  
Yet when we do consider, how that all those unhappy Commotions that have been in this Kingdom, to the subversion of the Government both of Church and State, are charged upon all the zealous professors of the Gospel, under the Notion of the 
The case of the King stated.  Puritan Faction. Because of the unjustifiable Proceedings of some, both against the King and the Kingdom; whose sins( we profess) have been, and still are the matters of our Sorrow and shane.  
Yet, lest that all that do profess the Gospel of Christ in sincerity, and are careful to keep a good Conscience, voided of offence both towards God and Man, should for the miscarriages of some professors, be condemned for a pack of seditious, dissembling hypocrites and 
As they are in the Bish▪ of Downs Speech against Puritans, which hath been published in several languages to the world.  Knaves.  
We have chosen rather in these perilous Times, to profess ourselves A pack of Puritans; and to testify, that we are so far from having any Fellowship with those unfruitful Works of darkness, which have been committed in the light of the Sun, to the dishonour of the Gospel, that we do reprove them rather; and as an evidence of our dislike of their Transactions, do publish the Grounds and Reasons for our non-subscription to this new Engagement with them.  
But before we begin, we shall, as in the presence of the Searcher of all hearts, profess and demonstrate; That the Grounds of our devulging what we have conceived of the unlawfulness and unexpediency of this new Engagement negatively, are not, To create unnecessary Scruples and Fears in other mens heads and hearts, or factiously and maliciously to kindle a Fire to destroy the common welfare of this Land of our Nativity; but positively, according to our duty as Saints, to preserve the Souls of our Brethren from the shipwreck of a good Conscience, upon the rocks of unrighteousness, Disloyalty and Perjury. In Mr. Dury's Dialect. Just Repr. pag. 20. To uncase ourselves, and propound our Doubts. By which, to provoke Master Dury or any other, to give better satisfaction to our tender Consciences, than what we have yet received. And to evidence to the World, that when we are called out to suffer Proscription and non-protection for our non-subscription, we expose not ourselves to suffering either through ignorance or arrogance; not because we are contentious, but because we are conscientious, and dare not sin to keep ourselves from suffering.  
We do indeed profess to all the World, that when we partend so liberally with our Estates, to preserve our Propriety in them, as also to purchase that Liberty for our Consciences, that nothing might be urged upon them contrary to the revealed will of God; we could not imagine that when we were delivered out of the danger of it, from our professed Enemies, we should be exposed to it by our professed Friends. But as now we see our folly, in looking to live godly in Christ Jesus, without Persecution, and to go to Heaven a new way, and not through many tribulations; so we do unfeignedly desire to humble ourselves under the Almighty hand of our God, who is pleased to curse our Blessings, and to use those as Rods in his hand for our correction; from whom we expected in our most precise and circumspectly walking, both countenance, encouragement, and protection. And now through the strength of Christ do resolve to deny ourselves, to take up his cross, to suffer rather than sin.  
We must needs say, that we are not in this juncture of time without some such suggestions from our very good Friends, and near Relations; as our Saviour had sometimes from Peter, for to spare and pity ourselves, that none of those miserable Evils may come upon Us, our Wives, and Children, which necessary will be the fruit of our non-subscription.  
And would we be guided by President rather than by Precept, we have the Examples of too many professors before us; That to keep themselves from the wind of Persecution, and Affliction, for keeping a good Conscience, can set their Consciences as Diogenes boasted, he could set his barrel in which he lived, any way to keep out the wind. But we have learned to be Followers of others( though eminent for Profession) no further than they are Followers of Christ Jesus: who though he knew how much it would prejudice him, not to comply with the Pharisees, in a seeming civil 
Matth. 15. 2. 11 Mark 7. 5. Ephes. 5. 11. Prov. 1. 10. Isai 8. 12. Rev. 18. 4. 1 Thess. 4. 1. Mal. 10. 28.  Action of washing his hands, yet he not onely refused it, but reproved it, as the Scriptures testify.  
But this being our indispensible Duty, To have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness; not to consent with sinners when they entice us; neither to say, a Confederacy, a Confederacy, with them, though they should enforce us.  
We dare not through a base and slavish fear of men, be drawn into a sinful Engagement, or Confederacy with them; and that not onely lest we should thereby partake of their sins, and so of their punishments: but also lest that we should dishonour our most holy Profession, and testify that we are such as do fear them that can kill the body, more than him that can cast both body and soul into hellfire. Such as have but little love unto our Lord and Master, and therefore had rather that his Gospel should suffer, than ourselves; such as have but little Faith in Gods All-sufficiency, and therefore will use sinful shifts to preserve ourselves from a suffering condition; such as are inordinate lovers of ourselves, and of the world. And that we answer not the end of our Redemption through the precious 
1 Cor. 7. 23.  blood of Jesus Christ, who hath bought us with a price, that we should not be the sinful Servants of Men, by any sinful Compliance 
1 Cor. 7. 23.  whatsoever.  
Upon all which Premises, which we have seriously weighed in our most deliberate thoughts, and have closely laid to our awakened Consciences: we must profess, that we cannot, we dare not, by Subscription, or any other way whatsoever, testify our assent unto any sinful Engagement or Confederacy.  
Now, because that we know it will be here objected. What? Do you look upon this Engagement imposed by the Supreme Authority of the Nation, viz. To be true and faithful to the Commonwealth of England, as it is now established, without a King and House of Lords: as a sinful Engargement? If you consult with Mr. John Dury, you shall find, that to subscribe this Engagement is an Indispensible Duty, and that you are bound to subscribe it by your Covenant, and other sacred Oaths which you have taken( vide. Consider. concerning the present Engagement, pag. 16 line 17. pag. 6. line 18. pag. 9. line 23.)  
For answer to this, We do in the sincerity of our hearts profess, That we should have looked upon it as matter of much complacency and joy,( both in relation to other mens sins, and our own sufferings) if we could have found Mr. Dury's Confirmations to have been as clear, as his Affirmations are confident; and that upon our serious search that we have made into this present Engagement, we could have given as fair a Character of it, as the Apostle doth of the Commandment; That it is holy, just, and good.  
But seeing to the grief of our hearts, we have found it otherwise; and that therefore we cannot subscribe it without wounding our Consciences; we shall for the Reasons already propounded, demonstrate the Grounds upon which this present Engagement appears unto us to be both unlawful and unexpedient.  
To this purpose, we shall do these two things:  
First, Propose as considerable; when Engagements, and what Engagements in general are sinful.  
Secondly, Expose this particular Engagement to Examination; wheter sinful or no, by the aforesaid Consideration.  
For the clearing of the former; what Engagements, or when Engagements, or Confederacies are sinful? We conceive that to be engaged, or to engage ourselves, or to be in Confederacy with others, is not simply sinful in itself; but according as it is circumstantiated, it may not onely be sinful, but be very much aggravated. For although Circumstances are inconsiderable in Relation unto natural bodies in Philosophy: yet even Circumstances, they are the Essentials of moral Actions in Theology, and they do give the formality of moral good or evil, to such things or Actions which are in their own Nature but indifferent.  
If it be demanded then, What are those Circumstances which make Engagements sinful?  
We answer, that though there be but two Circumstances in all natural things, the ubi and the quando. Every created natural being, is somewhere, and at sometime: yet in Morality there are more, as the quis, quid, ubi, quibus atque cvi, cur, quomodo, quando.  
Most of which Circumstances, applied to Engagements in general, will render them to be exceeding sinful: if we do consider either the quis, who it is that doth engage himself or others; the quid, the matter of the Engagement itself; the quibus atque cvi, the Persons with whom, or to whom we do engage ourselves; the cur, the end wherefore we do enter such Engagements; and the quomodo, the manner of our entering into Engagements and Confederacies?  
Now here, as we are Bible-bearing Puritans, we could at large 
Matth. 14. 7. Matth. 26. 72. Acts 23. 21. 2 Sam. 15. 12. Num. 30 Josh. 2. 17. Eccles. 9. 2. Gen. 24. 5. 8.  demonstrate from the Scriptures Engagements to be sinful for the quid, or the matter of them, when they are not onely unlawful, but inexpedient. To be sinful in respect of the quis and quibus, when if a public Engagement be prescribed by those who have no lawful Authority over them that are to subscribe, or when subscribed by those who have no power over themselves, because preengaged already. To be sinful in regard of the cur or the quare, The end wherefore we enter inter into such Engagements and Confederacies; as when 'tis to confirm and ratify former Acts of Oppression, Injustice, and Cruelty, and is not like to be an end of strife and contention, but rather to make strife and contention to be end less. And also in respect of the manner of engaging, when we do it rashly without taking counsel of God, incautelously without serious and mature deliberation with ourselves, ignorantly without true information of the nature of it, and doubtingly, without full satisfaction 
Rom. 14. 13.  to our Consciences, of the lawfulness of it.  
But we conceive, that by this light touch in transitu, we have sufficiently demonstrated what we proposed in the first place; to wit, when or what Engagements in general are sinful.  
Now therefore that we or others may not enter upon this present engagement ignorantly, rashly, doubtingly, or incautelously, we shall proceed to expose this particular engagement, which is to be imposed upon us unto the Trial, by those Circumstances we have already tendered to Consideration; which do render engagements to be sinful.  
In the first place therefore, we shall consider of the quid, or the matter of this present Absolute, and positive Promise or Engagement: To be true and faithful to the Common-wealth of England, as it is now established without a King or House of Lords.  
But before we come to determine of the matter of this engagement, whether it be unlawful or unexpedient, we shall briefly resolve this Question:  
When an Act may be concluded to be unlawful or unexpedient?  
For Answer to this in short; A thing is then materially unlawful, when contrary unto the holy Law of God, the Rule of Perfection revealed in the Scriptures: or secondly, when contrary unto such wholesome and truly constituted Laws of the Land in which we live, which are not repugnant to the Laws of God. And a thing is then unexpedient( though lawful) when either we cannot come to the Good in it, unless we do that which is evil; or when the thing done, or to be done, is not like to bring 
Mr. Crad. Gosp. liberty, 63. &c.  Glory to God, and his Gospel, advantage to others, or benefit to our own selves.  
Now this being premised, we must needs conclude, till better informed, notwithstanding what we have from Mr. Dury; That to engage ourselves to be true and faithful to the Common-wealth of England, is sinful, because unlawful, in some kind in both senses; as contrary to the wholesome Laws of this Kingdom, agreeing with the Word of God, and so consequentially contrary to the Law of God also▪  
We find indeed Mr. Dury often mentioning the Common-wealth in his Discourse, p. 4, 6. to which he saith, We are bound to be true and faithful.  
Now as we apprehended his meaning by the Common-wealth, to be the welfare of all degrees and conditions of men within the three kingdoms, which is implied in several passages of his, when he saith, The Common-wealth was in the bosom of the Kingdom, and intrinsical 
From. M. Dury's Pen, Repro. p. 13.  with it. We conceive it not simply unlawful, faithfully to seek its welfare. But it is evident both by the Preface to the Act imposing, and also by the express Letter of the engagement, that by the Common-wealth, is meant A State of Government, contradistinct unto Monarchy; without a King and House of Lords.  
Now under this consideration, the matter of the Engagement appears unlawful; and that first, because we are  told by the skilful in Law, It is absolutely against the Laws of the Land. For by this Engagement to the Common-wealth, we oblige ourselves to yield that fealty and homage to our fellow Subjects, which is due unto the King onely, as is very clear, in Cooks Instit. p. 64, 65, 66, 67. And therefore is no less than Treason within the Statute of 25 Edw. 3. chap. 2.  
Secondly, engaging to the Common-wealth as a Government, is consequentially unlawful by the Law of God, because it tends to the abolishing of a long settled Government amongst us by the Law of the Land, which is also agreeable, and no way contrary unto the Law of God, but rather Gods especial Ordinance, Deut. 17. 14, 15. Prov. 15. 16. prophesied of, and promised as a great blessing to the Church in Gospel times. To which Kingly Government, we are not onely obliged to submit for the Lords sake, as agreeable to his will, 1 Pet. 13. 14, 15, 17. but also to pray for it in the first place, 1 Tim. 6. 15. That under it, we may led a peaceable life, in all godliness and honesty.  
But in the next place, suppose that this Engagement for the matter were lawful, yet if the matter of it appear unexpedient, there will be Ground enough for us that do profess the Gospel, to take heed of subscribing it; such as we are, must be careful, that what we do hath no appearance of evil in it, that it be honest in the sight of all men, that it be of good report; that what we do, for the matter of it be not onely lawful, but expedient; 1 Cor. 10. 23. That what we do may bring Glory to God, Honour to the Gospel, advantage to others, and benefit to ourselves; and that, for the obtaining of that which is Good and lawful, we do not that which is sinful and evil.  
Now the matter of the engagement being brought unto this trial, will not onely appear unlawful but inexpedient, To engage ourselves to be true and faithful to the Common-wealth as now established.  
For first, suppose to abolish Monarchy, and to be faithful to the Common-wealth as now established were lawful, yet considering we cannot come at it without manifest Perjury( of which more by and by) to ourselves, and by giving our consent to all those sinful and indirect means, by which the said Government was founded, and to this day supported; it must needs be inexpedient for us to subscribe it, and we cannot do it without being accessary unto the sins of others.  
How Mr. Dury hath answered this material Argument against the engagement, as we find no satisfaction to our Consciences in it, so we leave it to the judgement of his best Friends, whether it will pass for the appearance of an Answer; for saith he, Pag. 6. l. 1. Here I perceive is the thing which doth pinch you in the business, you think that they that made the change in Government, broken the Covenant, and if you engage under this change, you break your Covenant also, and make yourself accessary to their guilt, Pa. 5. li. ult. To which I shall say, that I see not how it will appear, that the consequence at all doth follow, although they that made the change should be guilty.  
Now had Mr. Dury given any Argument or Scripture ground to satisfy us or any other, we should have rejoiced in the sight of it. But because Mr. Dury is so dim-sighted, and cannot see how such a Consequence will follow, That if we do subscribe this engagement, we shall make ourselves accessary unto the sins of others, we will help him to a little spiritual eye-pleasing in these following Reasons or Arguments: First, if to bid others God speed in an evil Work, makes us Partakers of their sins, 2 John 5. 11. And to have a hand unadvisedly in bringing in an unworthy Person into a public Office, makes us Partakers of those sins they shall commit in it, as the Apostle implies, 1 Tim. 5. 22? Then deliberately to engage ourselves to the support of this Government sinfully established, must needs make us accessary to the sins of others in it, it being the highest Consent with others in sin that can be.  
Secondly, if to allow of the sinful ways of others, onely by our presence with them, involves us in their guilt, Acts 22. 20. And to favour those that do evil, be as great a Crime, as to commit the sin itself, Because it makes our damnation just, Rom. 1. 32. Then to subscribe this engagement, which testifies our approbation of the established Government, with the means by which it was effected, &c. must needs make us accessary to the sins of others.  
Now therefore, seeing that without sinning ourselves, and contracting the guilt of other mens sins, we cannot subscribe upon that Account, though the matter of the engagement should be lawful, yet it is inexpedient; We cannot come to enjoy it without committing of evil.  
But suppose in respect of the quid, or the matter of the engagement; that it were not unlawful, to engage ourselves to the Government of a Common-wealth, in opposition to Monarchy, nor yet inexpedient upon the former Ground.  
Yet, if it appear so upon the latter, that the subscribing of the engagement be like to be so far from bringing honour to the Gospel, advantage to others, and profit to ourselves, that the fruits of it are like to be otherwise altogether. It will be inexpedient for us to subscribe, and consequently sinful.  
Now that we may not with Mr. Dury confidently affirm, but prove nothing( as he doth P. 18.) about the expediency of the engagement, that it is a duty that relates to the whole Common-wealth, the safety of all, and our own necessary Peace and Preservation, lin. 35. We shall not onely affirm, that to subscribe this engagement will be inexpedient, as it will bring forth dishonour and a scandal upon the Gospel. Secondly, extreme peril and prejudice to the whole Common-wealth. Thirdly, unconceivable damage unto every particular Subscriber; but we shall confirm it by many clear and evident demonstrations.  
First, to subscribe this engagement for to establish a Polarchy or Popular Government, and to abolish Royal Dignity, will be so far from honouring the Gospel, as that we shall bring a great scandal upon it, and dishonour our most holy Profession. And that first, as it will justify all those who have been accounted traducers of Puritans, as enemies to Monarchy, that this was looked upon as an intolerable calumny, we find in Mr. Case his Sermon before the House of Commons, 26. Octob. 1642. Pa. 11, 12. where he hath these words, It is and hath been from ancient times the cursed Policy of desperate malignant Courtiers and counsellors, when they would arm Princes and Potentates against the poor People of God, to possess their ears and hearts with this prejudice, That they are enemies to Monarchy. And saith he, Doth not these Rehums and Shimshies fill our Kings royal ears with this Odium, that the Parliament and Puritans are enemies to Monarchy, and intend nothing but to bring all into a Parity, and after they have pulled down Bishop, then down with King too; with a world of such Calumnies invented by the father of lies.  
But now to subscribe this engagement against Monarchy, would make it appear, that such Assertions were no unjust aspersions. But that they said truly in charging Puritans with a design of altering, and subverting the Government of the Kingdom.  
Secondly, the subscribing of the engagement would dishonour the Gospel; as it would bring an odious scandal upon the Work of Reformation in the Church to which we are by Covenant obliged. And that, as it would ratify a Prelatical aphorism, which we always looked upon as a stumbling block in the way, devised to hinder the Reformation of the Church, No Bishop no King, no mitre no sceptre. As if so be, there could be no real Reformation in the Church, without Regal extirpation in the State.  
But thirdly, to subscribe this Engagement will be inexpedient and scandalous, as it may nullify all those Apologies which have been made in the behalf of professors: that much hath been said for them is very evident, as by many public Writings 
A plea for the innocent, in Q. E●. time, 1602. A Vindication of Puritans 1641.  for their Vindication; That the Ministers and People falsely called Puritans, were injuriously slandered, for enemies to Regal Government, and for Troublers of the State. So that, by what hath been from time to time solemnly professed by the zealous Desirers of Reformation, when calunniated by the Prelates: but now for such to subscribe this Engagement, the end whereof is Eradication of Monarchical Government, will render all those Apologies to be false, hypocritical, and voided; and that what was then said in their behalfs, was onely to keep them from crushing, till they had ability or an opportunity to turn the Kingdom up-side down:  
So that now, upon these Considerations it is evident, that to subscribe this Engagement would be inexpedient, as it would bring dishonour to the Gospel, and a great scandal upon the zealous professors of Religion, and them onely.  
But in the next place, as we cannot subscribe without much dishonour to God, the Gospel, and Religion we profess. Secondly, not without extreme peril and prejudice unto the whole Common-wealth, unto all degrees, ranks, and conditions of men in the three kingdoms: first, to subscribe, To be true and faithful to the Common-wealth as now established without a King, would be extremely injurious and prejudicial unto the Supreme Magistrate of the Kingdom, who notwithstanding his forcible expulsion and dis-possession is not devested of that Right and Title he hath unto the English Throne. Now if it were a sin so provoking in a King, for to take away his Subjects Vineyard, because the inheritance of his father: What is it then for a subject to take away the inheritance of a King from him? which is virtually done, in taking this Engagement.  
Secondly, to subscribe this Engagement, to be true and faithful to the Commonwealth as now established, without an House of Lords; would be prejudicious and injurious to the Nobles of the Land, and deprive them of their birthrights: which is to sit in Parliament, and as one of the three Estates, to be Legislators, and coordinate with King and Commons. Now, by subscribing this Engagement, we dis-inherit and dis-seize them of their Right, and that with the greatest wrong and injustice that may be; because, excluded without a lawful judgement, or trial.  
Thirdly, to subscribe to be true and faithful to the Common-wealth, as a Government contradistinct unto Monarchy will be inexpedient; because not onely unprofitable, but prejudicial, perilous, and of dangerous consequence to the whole Commonwealth in general; For, upon the former grounds, the Heir and successor, with the Nobility of the Land, being thus unjustly and violently dispossessed of their Right, and Barracadoed from re-entering by this sinful engagement; it must needs bring upon the kingdom, not onely a privation of that Honour and Reputation which we had with other kingdoms, making us who were the Head, the chief among the Princes, to become the Tail, the puniest State in Christendom, dissolving all those ancient Leagues which were made with foreign Princes for the kingdoms good; and also the union between the three kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland. But will positively involve us in perpetual Warres and Troubles. And through the maintenance of Armies, by intolerable Taxes and Impositions( transcendently exceeding all former Monopolies and shipmoney) render us the miserablest and slavishest People under Heaven; such as shall never know when we are secure, either in respect of our soul, body, or estate: for as we find by experience, in reference to Impositions upon our Estates, that since the promise of Liberty to the People; whereas in the Kings Time that Dutch Devil of Excise was but attempted to be conjured up amongst us, in the Rule of the Keepers of our Liberties, it hath not onely been imposed, but in some things doubled and treble. So in reference to Impositions upon the Conscience. Though at first the Engagement against Monarchy was onely imposed upon the Creatures, that divided the spoil of the Kingdom, and were in Offices of profit; yet it stays not there, but is now to be enforced upon all. And what great Augur this little Wimble must make way for, as we know not, so peradventure not they themselves, whom by this subscription we should constitute to be our new and absolute Governours. For as necessity hath put them upon taking away the Life of the Father of our Country; so it may enforce them to impose upon us the Murder of our own natural, and spiritual Parents, if they will not comply, and be in Confederacy with them.  
But besides all these, with many other Miseries which are like to come upon the Common-wealth, with those horrid Injuries to the Chief and most noble Parts of the Body politic, by subscribing this Engagement.  
In the third place, it will be so far from procuring Peace and Preservation to every particular Subscriber, as Mr. Dury hath affirmed, Pa. 18. That it will bring unconceivable detriment and damage unto every individual Subscriber thereof. And that not onely as shall be instrumental, in putting on the yoke of intolerable slavery upon his own neck with his own hands, but also of rivetting it fast( by the absolute and unlimited Engagement) from falling off. And as he shall by his transcendent Perjury expose himself and Posterity to perpetual Infamy, to the ruin of the outward man. But as he shall deprive himself of the inward Peace and tranquillity of a good Conscience,( and as it is reported of some Subscribers of this engagement already) be filled with life extinguishing horrors and terrors of Conscience. Besides the hazard of damnation to the immortal Soul, by subscribing unto an engagement, which for the matter of it is so contrary unto the Law of God, and of the Land, and through its inexpediency so scandalous, injurious, and perilous, as it appears to be.  
But to all this it may be objected, That if there were no alleviation, or palliation of what hath been propounded about the seeming unlawfulness and inexpediency of this Engagement for the matter of it, by the Supreme Authority of the Power of imposing this Engagement, It would be then most dangerous and dreadful to subscribe: but the Authority imposing this Engagement have legislative Power, not onely to declare what is lawful, but to make things which are onely of an human concernment, to be lawful and warrantable.  
Now in Answer to this Objection, we shall fall upon the Consideration of the second particular Circumstance, which we propounded for the discovery of the sinfulness of an engagement, and that is the quis, relating to the Persons engaging or to be engaged.  
But before that we begin to consider of the quis, in relation to the Power imposing the engagement, we shall a little examine what is said by Mr. Dury, against this present practise of ours; For( saith he, Pa. 9, 10.) as concerning the present Power, by which the Engagement is tendered, whether it be an usurped Power; he affirms, it doth not belong unto us to judge definitively of the Right which the Supreme Power over us in the world, pretend to have unto their Places; and the Reason( saith he) is this, because I find it no part of the Profession of Christianity to meddle with this matter; nor do I see that God doth allow private men to take so much upon them over their superiors, &c.  
Now for Answer to this, in the first place, by way of Concession; though we grant, that in a constituted Government of as long standing as Monarchy hath been in britain, which hath been upon Record 441 yeares before the Incarnation of Christ; as we find 
Captain Audley Mervin's Speech.  proved by a Speech delivered in Parliament, May 24. 1641. and made so glorious and unquestionable by Antiquity: as when conquered by Saxons, Danes, and Normans, yet had their Laws and Government unaltered; as we find in the Lord Keepers Speech, Novemb. 3. 1640. Though under such a long continued Government derived to us by our ancestors. For a Subject by Birth to question the Right or Authority of the Supreme Magistrate commanding, we cannot see that God doth allow private men to take so much upon them over their superiors, because their Authority is beyond all dispute.  
Yet when a government is to be settled and constituted, while the Change of so long an established government is before our faces, and that by a Power so disputable as this is; it is our duty, and we are bound as Christians, by the Word of Life, before we do engage ourselves to be in subjection to any such Power, to satisfy ourselves concerning their lawful Authority to rule over us. For though as Mr. Dury doth urge, that the Rule of Subjects behaviour, as Subjects, is clearly determined, Rom. 13. 1. 1 Pet. 2. 13, 14. Tit. 3. 1. To be for conscience sake, and because Gods Ordinance, Pa. 11. yet we conceive that Tyranny and Usurpation is none of Gods Ordinance; and it concerns Christians to be satisfied whether it be to a lawful Magistrate they do engage themselves, or unto Jacke Straw, or John of Leyden; and this we are to do in obedience to Gods Command, by which we are obliged to yield Obedience to the lawful Magistrate, Commandment the fifth. But also forbidden to engage ourselves to Obedience and Allegiance to those that are no lawful Magistrates. For this is one Rule given by all Divines, in expounding the moral Law, That positive Precepts do imply and enjoin negative Duties, as we must honour our Fathers, and governours, with the honour of Obedience and Allegiance; so we are by the same Precept forbidden to honour such as are not our lawful Rulers and Governours, but Usurpers. When the Princes of Israel are like unto them that remove, Hos. 5. 10. We must take heed of walking willingly after their commandment with Ephraim, vers. 11. lest when we are oppressed and broken in judgement, we may thank ourselves.  
And now having thus cleared the way to our work, and having made it appear to be our duty in this juncture of time, though private Persons, to question the quis or the Authority of the Prescribers of this present Engagement.  
We should proceed to discover the Grounds of our dissatisfaction about subscribing the Engagement, in relation to the quis, the Persons prescribing, or imposing it. But knowing the Times to be so very perilous, that we must be made offenders for a word, and that to speak truth and reason, is like to be adjudged Treason.  
We shall onely say, that if in Utopia, the Supreme Authority should consist of three Estates in Senate, assembled; a King, Lords, and Commons,( though engaged by several sacred Obligations, to preserve the said Supreme Authority,) should by the assistance of a rebellious Army raised for the defence thereof, exclude the mayor part of the said Commons, and having declared themselves The onely Supreme Authority of Utopia, should destroy and take away the life of their King, and abolish both the Estates of King and Lords; and although by the known Law of Vtopia, the said Commons have no power to impose upon the said Vtopians( pre-engaged to be true and faithful to the King, his heirs, successors, and kingly government) an Oath or Engagement, To be true to their New Government established, without a King or House of Lords, though it hath been done by force, and without their consent.  
In this case, we may boldly say, that the said engagement, in relation to the quis, the Prescribers or Imposers of it, is altogether unlawful; and that because the Engagers of the said Vtopians, are onely a selfe-created Power, and so far, from being The Supreme Authority of that Nation, which consists of three Estates, as that they are not a third part of one of them, the Commons; and also so far from having any Authority to impose the said engagement upon their fellow Subjects, as that they have no Authority by the utopian Law to administer any Oath whatsoever. And if so, then not to impose an Oath or engagement for fealty to themselves, contrary to all those sacred Obligations, by which they were bound to preserve the said Supreme Authority.  
But in reference to our own case, to say any thing concerning the Authority of the Imposers of this present engagement, our mouths being gagged, by two strong Instruments made this last year, we cannot. And therefore passing over the consideration of the quis, in relation to the Prescribers, we shall come to consider of the second Particular, proposed in reference to the quis, as it relates to the Persons to be engaged, which are the Subscribers.  
As public Oaths and engagements cannot be prescribed, or lawfully imposed, by those who have no power over others; so they cannot lawfully be subscribed by those who have no power over themselves. Qui non est sui juris, obligare se non potest. Which is the condition of all persons pre-engaged by former Oaths and Obligations.  
Now that this is the case of the whole Kingdom. If the Oaths of our ancestors bind us as it did Saul, for the breach whereof God dealt so severely with his Family: or at least, of all those that ever took, either the Oaths of Supremacy, Allegiance, or of a Freeman, the Protestation, or the Covenant, we shall demonstrate in the proving of these two Assertions.  
First, that this present engagement is contradictory, and strongly militates against the oaths of Supremacy, Allegiance, and all those sacred Obligations before mentioned.  
Secondly, that these sacred oaths and Obligations are still binding the Consciences of those that have taken them.  
First, the matter of the engagement, which is to be true and faithful to the Common-wealth in opposition to Monarchy, without a King and House of Lords, is expressly contrary unto the Oath of Allegiance, which obligeth the Taker, not onely to bear faith and Allegiance to the heires and successors of our late King,( of which more in another place) but also to defend their Crown and Dignity against all Conspiracies, which must needs be monarchical and kingly Government; because that to defend their Crown or Dignity, is expressed distinctly from their Persons. So that to engage against kingly Government, is point blank contrary unto the Oath of Allegiance.  
Secondly, the matter of the engagement, is contrary unto the Oath of Supremacy, which binds the Taker clearly and plainly, not onely to bear faith and true Allegiance to the Kings Highnesse, his Heires, and successors; but to their power, to assist and defend all Jurisdictions, privileges, pre-eminences, and Authorities granted unto the Kings Highnesse, his Heires, and successors, or united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this realm.  
But now to establish Polarchy, and to abolish Monarchy, and to our power to assist and defend all Jurisdictions, privileges, pre-eminences, and Authorities, united or annexed to the Imperial Crown, are as contrary as darkness is to light.  
Thirdly, it is contrary to the Oath of a Free-man of London, which obligeth the Taker to be faithful to such Heires, and successors onely, as should wear the Imperial Crown, describing them either to be Kings or Queens. So that, though the Imposers of the Engagement should require our Allegiance, because de facto they are the Kings successors in Government, yet being neither Kings nor Queens, we should violate this sacred Oath by this Engagement.  
Fourthly, the matter of this engagement, as unto a Commonwealth without a King, is contrary unto our most solemn Vow and Protestation, May 5. 1641. In which we have promised and vowed, unto▪ Almighty God, with our Lives, our Power, and Estates, to maintain and defend, not onely the Kings Person, but his Honour, and Estate; which Estate is not personally to be considered, but politicly, in relation to his Government; because the defence of his Person is expressly provided for in the said Vow. Secondly, it is contrary unto this Vow and Protestation, by which we are solemnly obliged to maintain the Power and privileges of Parliament. Now it is the unqu●stionable power and privilege of the Parliament, to have the King, if not personally, yet legally and politically present. And, it is his honour and estate, which by our Protestation we have promised to maintain and defend, to be the Supreme Estate, in that high Court of Parliament.  
Fifthly, the matter of the Engagement, as unto a Common-wealth without a King, is expressly contrary unto the solemn Covenant we have taken: wherein we engaged sincerely, really, and constantly, to 
Art. 3.  endeavour, and that with our Lives and Estates to defend and preserve not onely the Kings person, but his Authority. But now to be true and faithful to a Common-wealth, contradistinct unto Regal Authority, and with our Lives and Estates to defend the Kings Authority, are the greatest Contradictions that can be.  
Sixthly, to be true and faithful to the Common-wealth, as now established without the House of Lords, is expressly contrary not onely to our aforesaid National Covenant, but to our Promise, Vow, and Protestation▪ of May 5. 1641. As being engaged by it to maintain and defend the Power and privileges of Parliament, and by the Covenant, to preserve the Rights and Privilodges of Parliament. Now it being the Right, Power, and privilege of Parliament, to have the House of Lords as the onely Judicature in that Supreme council. But to subscribe the said Engagement is neither to maintain, defend, or preserve this undoubted Right, and privilege; but to give our consent to their extirpation.  
Seventhly, to be true and faithful to the Common-wealth, as it is now established, in a violent and forcible way, without the lawful and free consent of the People, is contrary unto that part of our Protestation and Covenant which engageth us( in the former) to defend the lawful Right and Liberty of the Subject, and to oppose all such as shall by force or conspiracy do any thing to the contrary,( and in the latter) to preserve the Liberties of the Kingdom, of the Right of the Subject is to be free, not onely from all Impositions upon their estates,( without their consent) but also upon their Consciences, by any Engagement, which may oblige them to yield obedience or Allegianee to such Persons, as by a selfe-created Power, shall assume the Government over them.  
And thus having now proved our first Assertion, that the matter of this Engagement is contradictory, and diametrically opposite to all our former oaths and sacred obligations.  
We shall proceed to the proof of the second, which we proposed: That these sacred Bonds and obligations do indispensably bind the Consciences of men who have taken them.  
Now this we shall prove; first, from the consideration of the binding nature of an Oath in the general. Secondly, by considering these particular oaths and Obligations.  
First, that any Oath that is lawful and possible, indispensably binds the Conscience till the thing sworn be accomplished, appeareth upon this Ground, because that in every lawful Oath there is a double obligation; one of Man to Man, the other of Man to God, whom in lifting up our hands unto, we not onely call to be a witness of our sincere intentions to perform what we have sworn to Men, but to take revenge upon us if we be perfidious: and therefore we find the Oath that passed between David and Jonathan, is called The Lords oath, 2 Sam, 21, 7. 1 Sam. 20. 6. And the Oath of Allegiance, by which Subjects are bound to their sovereign, is called The oath of God, Eccles. 8. 2. I counsel thee( saith the Wise-man) to keep the Kings commandment, and that in regard of the oath of God. And therefore we have a Command from Christ himself, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform thy oath to the Lord. So that, we cannot be absolved in our Consciences from an Oath, no not by the Parties to whom we are sworn; because we are obliged in all lawful oaths to God, as well as Man; and he hath not onely commanded us to perform our oaths, Numb. 13. 3. but as he is a jealous God, hath threatened, that he will not hold those guiltless that taketh his Name in vain.  
Now if all oaths lawful and possible are thus indispensably binding, then it must needs follow, that all those particular oaths and sacred obligations, which we have taken, do chain us by our Consciences, and do remain and abide at this present in full force, effect, and virtue.  
But it may be objected,( as it is too irreligiously affirmed by many Patrons and Advocates for Perjury, in these perfidious Times) that these obligations by oaths, Covenant, and Protestation, are all dissolved, extinct, and voided.  
We shall onely examine what hath been asserted by Mr. John Dury to this purpose, who takes upon him in his Considerations, concerning the engagement, and his just Reproposals, to resolve the Conscience in this great business; to which end he affirms, That the oath of Allegiance is voided, pag. 2. That the Covenant bindeth not▪ pag. 7. That all Engagements in which we were bound to the King or Lords, are voided, pag. 15. Reproposals.  
Now having seriously weighed his Arguments, by which he would confirm his Allegations, we shall consider distinctly of them, and show their extreme unsatisfactorinesse to the Consciences of any, but such as through fear or interest desire to bribe, corrupt, and cousin their Consciences, that they may take it without Regret.  
In the first place, concerning the Oath of Allegiance, to prove it voided, he expasiates from page. 2. to 4. upon this Supposition, which he maketh to be his onely Argument, That if the King be found unfaithful in his trust, we are ipso facto absolved from our Allegiance unto him.  
Now this being the marrow of this Proof, we shall show the unsatisfactorinesse of it to our judgement and consciences; and that not onely as 'tis laid down as a Supposition( with an If it can be made out) which he doth not in the least prove, but upon these Grounds following:  
First, if he had proved what he doth but suppose, That the King had been unfaithful to his Trust, yet this dissolveth not the Oath of our Allegiance to him.  
For first of all, the Oath is absolute, there is no such Condition expressed in it, That if the King prove unlawful to his Trust, that then our oath shall be voided and null.  
Secondly, Allegiance to our Savereigne is our Duty, by the Law of God and the Land, though we were never engaged to it by Oath: otherwise such as were not obliged by the Oath of Allegiance, might for their Disloyalty to the King, be exempted from suffering as Traitors▪  
But thirdly, the dissolving of Subjects from their oaths upon neglect of Duty on the Magistrates part, is not onely contrary unto express Texts of Scripture, that require obedience, not onely to good, but the froward, for Conscience sake. But contrary to Mr. Dury's own judgement, who in his Considerations, pag. 11. is positive, That the Rule of Subjects behaviour, as Subjects, is clearly determined in Rom. 13. 1. to 8. 1 Peter 2. 13, 14.& Titus 3. 1. Where we find nothing but a Command of Submission and Subjection of not res●sting, and of paying Taxes and deuce, and of giving honour, fear, and respect for Conscience sake.  
Now, if this be the Rule of Subjects behaviour, as Subjects, that they are to be absolute in their obedience, without any limitation, further than( as he saith) that we are bound to obey God rather than Man, and to suffer patiently, where we find cause to refuse obedience. Then Master John Dury is {αβγδ} condemned by himself; and that which he supposeth to be the Ground of the dissolving the Oath of Allegiance, viz. a supposition of Abuse of Trust on the Kings part, is both false, absurd, and sinful, by his own Argument; and therefore the Oath of Allegiance is not dissolved, but binds the Conscience indispensably; notwithstanding all that Master Dury hath hath held forth to satisfy and resolve the Conscience.  
We now come in the next place, to examine his Grounds upon which he builds the down-fall of the Covenant; For, saith he, page. 7. Suppose that in your apprehensions this Engagement doth materially settle something in the Common-wealth, which is contrary to the Covenant; yet I say as matters now stand, you break not at all your Covenant, because your obligation to those matters by virtue of your Covenant was extinguished: now that which is extinct and made voided, cannot be said to oblige any more. And( saith he) all promises are ipso facto made voided and extinct, in respect of the Tie 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.  
Now for Answer to his Grounds, though in the Thesi we grant, That then oaths, promises, and obligations do cease to bind, when they become impossible or unlawful: yet we deny it to be so in the Hypothesi, in the present case of the Covenant; and therefore we shall examime and answer his Grounds particularly and distinctly.  
First, saith he, It is impossible in Nature, to preserve the Kings life which is cut off, and the House of Lords which is already put down.  
Secondly, It is not lawful for any in a private Calling, to attempt the restoring of that, which public Power hath abolished.  
Now in answer to the first, whereas he makes the Covenant to be impossible to be kept, the Kings life being cut off, &c.  
We conceive, that first according to the Law of the Land, the King of England never dies; and that our obligation by the Covenant is not rendered impossible by the Death of King Charles the first, is evident, in that the Person of the King and his Authority, which are the objects of our Preservation, are supposed to be in being all the dayes of our lives.  
But, though it should be granted, that there is an impossibility in the matter of the Covenant, in relation to the Preservation of that Kings life then existent, yet Regal Authority, and the Kings Posterity, they are still in being, and it is unto them that we are obliged by our solemn Covenant, and all those sacred Bonds that are upon us.  
As for the impossibility of it in reference to the House of Lords which is already put down. We answer, that impossibility is onely present and not absolute, there is not a total cessation of all hopes of Recovery of our ancient Government by King and Lords, though at present it be violently obstructed, by such a Force as renders the keeping of our Covenant at present impossible. But being still in esse both King and House of Lords, we must take heed that we do not by the subscription of this Engagement, bury them alive, because in a weak and crazy condition, for this would not onely be Perjury, but great Injustice and cruelty.  
As to his second Ground, that the Covenant is extinct and voided, because unlawful to be presented, it being not lawful for any in a private calling to attempt the restoring of that which hath been abolished by public Power.  
We answer, that though it be unlawful, for any in a private Calling, or by a private Call, to attempt the restoring of that which hath been legally abolished by public Authority, yet not to help to restore that which hath been suppressed or abolished by public force and power of the sword, especially if they are obliged to preserve them in being( and consequently to restore them) against all force and conspiracy, and to bring the Attempeers of it, if they be able, to condign punishment; which is our case.  
As to that which follows in the same page., That if you are engaged by promise to restore them, yet still it must be in, and according to our Callings, and as far as lawfully we may, not out of our Callings, or beyond them.  
We answer, It is true, and we desire to be conscientious in this particular. But by subscribing this Engagement, we disable our selves from our Duty in this respect, and so break our Covenant. For when we are called by a lawful Power, with our lives, power, and estates, to perform our Promise, Vow, and Protestation, our oaths, and Covenant, we are sinfully precluded by this Engagement.  
But it may be objected, that if the Covenant and other sacred oaths of Allegiance are not extinct and voided, upon the former Grounds; yet this present imposing Power hath made them null and voided, by taking away all Allegiance from the Kings heires and successors, and by the institution of this new Government.  
To which we answer, that such a dispensation from them, would not onely be more then impious in them to propound, but exceeding ridiculous for us to believe. For how can we imagine a man that is manacled himself, to be able to unbinde and loose others. But now this is the Case of the present Imposers, that would absolve us; themselves being obliged by all those Sacred Bonds( and that with so fast a knot, that in one Oath which they have assuredly taken, viz. the Oath of Supremacy) they do profess; that they do believe, and are in conscience persuaded, that neither the Pope, or any other person whatsoever, hath power to absolve them of this Oath, or any part thereof.  
So that de facto they are excluded from being able to dis-oblige us from those sacred chains. Now that they are excluded de jure also, is very evident. Jure divino, according to the judgement of all Divines, grounded upon the Scriptures; It is not in the power of any creature, to absolve us from an Oath lawful and possible to be performed. And Jure human, they are likewise excluded from any such power; for in the statute of the 13. of Queen Elizabeth, it is expressly conferred upon the three Estates in Parliament, the King, Lords, and Commons, to alter the fundamental laws and Government of the Land, by Oath established: but not upon the Commons, though Free and Full.  
Now that we may the more convinceingly demonstrate, that all those Sacred oaths[ the Protestation, and the Covenant] are still binding to our Consciences;( besides what hath been already proved) we shall add some further Considerations, from the words that are in those sacred Ties. Omitting therefore what wee last mentioned, concerning that passage in the Oath of Supremacy; wee find, that the Covenant was not pro tempore, binding onely during the present Exigent we were then in, But that we are obliged to keep every Article thereof, constantly and zealously, all the dayes of our lives: so that nothing but death, which dissolveth the knot between our Bodies and our Souls, can dissolve this Covenant, and set us at liberty to be free for other engagements. And that the Protestation of May 5. 1649. hath still the same obligation upon us, and none but God onely can absolve us from it; appeareth, in that we have not onely protested, but have promised and vowed in the presence of Almighty God, that with our lives, power, and estates, we will maintain and defend, not the Kings person onely, but His Honour and Estate, as also the ●ower and privileges of Parliament, the lawful Rights and Liberties of the Subject.  
But that we will oppose such as shall by force or conspiracy do any thing to the contrary, and that we will neither for hope, fear, or other respect, relinquish this Promise, Vow, or Protestation.  
By all which Passages, with many other in the said obligations, it is most evident that all those sacred oaths are still binding; and that therefore to subscribe the Engagement, which hath been proved is so point blank against them, must needs be sinful and unlawful, upon this account, in respect of the quis, relating not onely to the Prescribers, but also to the Subscribers, who being( as hath been proved) so indispensably engaged, cannot subscribe to this, without perspicuous Perjury.  
And thus having now examined this present Engagement, to be true and faithful to the Common-wealth, as it is now established without a King and House of Lords; by two of those Circumstances, which render Engagements to be sinful, the quis and the quid of it, omitting the consideration of the quibus or the cvi, the Persons with whom, and to whom we do engage ourselves, because coincident with what we have said in relation to the quis, as referring to the Power imposing this Engagement.  
We shall now come to consider of another Circumstance, that renders Engagements in the general to be sinful; and that is the cur, or the quare; the end wherefore we enter into Engagements. Now if the end appear to be sinful, so also will be the Engagement.  
Now that the end of this Engagement is sinful, is very obvious to the dimmest sight: for though it be expressed in the said Engagement in terminis, yet the Eradication of Monarchy( under which this Nation hath flourished for so many Generations, and which we are engaged to maintain, and preserve by so many obligations) and also the settlement of a prodigious Polarchy, whose Foundation hath been laid in Rebellion, Murder, Treachery, and Perjury, are the designed ends of this Engagement; and not onely so, but to deprive the the lawful Heir unto the Crown of his Birth-right, which is to succeed in the Throne, not onely by the Laws of the Land, in particular, by the statute of the first of King james, Chap. 1. 2. wherein the whole kingdom do engage themselves to King james, his Heirs, successors, and posterity for ever; To defend their undoubted right to the Crown, with the last drop of their blood: But also, by all those Sacred oaths of supremacy, Allegiance, and of a Free-man, &c. which to do is sinful and unjust.  
But to this it is implyed by Mr. Dury, pag. 18, 19. That to exclude the lawful Heir of the Crown from his Right, and to alter the Constitution of the Parliament, by nulling the House of Lords, is but a seeming inconveniency; but to subscribe the Engagement, is an indispensible duty. The one, is but the seeming Violation of the particular Right of some few persons, which is or may be doubtful whether you are engaged thereunto or no. But to engage, is a duty which relates to the whole Cemmonwealth, the safety of all, and our own necessary peace and preservation. And Pag. 20.( saith he) as for the dissolution of your tie 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 confess, &c.  
Now for Answer unto these groundless Assertions, and confused Suppositions of his, under which he doth extenuate most crying provocations;  
We shall propose and prove these three Assertions: First, that to exclude the Right Heir of the Crown, which is the end of this Engagement, is not only a seeming inconveniency, but a complicated wickedness, made up of Injustice, Disloyalty, and Treachery. Secondly, that to subscribe the Engagement, is no indispensible duty that relates to the good of the whole Commonwealth. And thirdly, that the present forcible extrusion and dispossession of the right Heir of the Crown, cannot without horrid impiety, be charged upon God, the righteous Judge of the whole world.  
But having( wee hope) sufficiently proved the two former already, wee shall to his third Supposition( Pag. 20.) That w●e are dissolved from our tie to the Heir of the Crown, and that it is done by God, whom he saith, hath done what is good in his own eyes, &c. with abundance of such Independent Conclusions, upon which, he with his Posted BRETHREN have( as he professeth for them all) taken this Engagement as a duty, Just Proposals, Pag. 10. Because God hath altered by an extraordinary way the Government, &c.  
We reply, that as we have already proved that Tie and obligation that is upon us, to the right Heir to the Crown, to be still binding, notwithstanding his forcible expulsion. So, to say, that God hath wholly dispossessed him, because that at this time there are others in the actual Possession of the ruling Power, which Master Dury implies, Pag. 20. of his Considerations. We conceive, cannot be charged upon the just and righteous God, in whom there is no iniquity, without making him the author, if not Approver of such unheard of Perjury and Injustice, which to think were Blasphemy. We grant indeed, this great Change now in the Kingdom, effected by those extraordinary and extrajudicial Acts of Murder, Treachery, and Perjury, is not come about without the determinate Counsel of God, by which Judas brought our Saviour to his cross; and that Permissive Providence by which Absalom and Adonijah for a time usurped the Kingdom of Israel. But that the wise and holy Providence of God permitting this, should be interpnted Gods disposing of David or Solomon; and that God is doing that which is good in his own eyes, and should be a ground for the Subjects Engagements to them, with the violation of the Oath of God upon them, cannot be maintained without dishonour to God himself, great injustice to the lawful Magistrate, and plunging our souls into the Pit of Perjury.  
So then, the end of this Engagement being to exclude the right Heir of the Crown, to extirpate and subvert kingly Government, and to introduce through much complicated iniquity, a monstrous and many-headed Government, which must be supported by most horrid oppressions and heavy Taxations, under which( the original of all just Power) the People must crouch, with such silent submission, as for to say publicly, that it is Tyrannical, shall cost them their lives, and all that is dear unto them.  
It appeareth, that though to engage to be true and faithful be a duty, and not simply sinful in itself, yet in respect of the matter of it, relating to the object of the Engagement, The Common-wealth of England, as to a Government; and the qualification of the object, as it is now established without a King and House of Lords, circumstantiated with the quis, relating to the Prescribers, whom we have proved have no lawful Power over others, and to the Subscribers, which have no Power over themselves; and likewise with the cur, realting to the end of subscribing the whole Engagement, to be true and faithful to the Common-wealth of England, &c. is unlawful, inexpedient, and therefore sinful, in the highest degree. And consequently to subscribe it, if there were no more in it than what M. Dury in his Reproposals doth affirm is declared thereby;  
First, our approbation of the present Government.  
Secondly, our ratifying consent unto it.  
And thirdly, our obligation towards the present establishment, doth render it to be out of measure sinful.  
And now, passing over many other frivolous and groundless Allegations of Master Dury's, in his Considerations and Reproposals, for to subscribe the engagement; as flowing from such Principles, which he takes for granted himself, and therefore magisterially propounds them in his own name, without Scripture or Reason. As that the Imposers are our Rulers and Governours. Reproposals. pag. 8. And to subscribe the Engagement, is a duty just, to be required by the present Powers from their Subjects, Consider. pag. 16. And that to subscribe it is a duty, Repropos. pag. 7. A clear and confessed duty, Pa. 12. A lawful and necessary duty, Pag. 13. All which we have fully disproved.  
We shall onely answer two or three Allegations more, which are urged by some for our subscription, and so conclude.  
In the first place, we have heard it alleged by some, that to scruple the Engagement, because pre-engaged by former oaths to the King, his heires, and successors, is altogether a needless scruple: because oaths for fealty and allegiance were enforced upon our ancestors by William the conqueror, being therefore but the Badges of that Norman yoke that was put upon us. The King being now dead, and his Posterity dis-inherited, we are now free from our obligations, in these Times of the Peoples Liberties.  
Now for answer to this, though it should be granted, that such oaths should originally be enforced upon our ancestors by the conqueror,( which we have intimated to the contrary from the Lord Keepers Speech in Parliament) yet in several Ages the sacred Ties have been confirmed by a Parliamentary Power, to be imposed upon the whole Kingdom, especially in relation to our late King, his heirs, successors, and Posterity for ever, as appeareth in that Act 1. Jacob. c. 1, 2. But were not this our condition, but that through force, and as a people conquered, we had engaged ourselves by Oath, To be true and faithful, &c. The forcible Imposition doth no way take off the force of the Obligation. Though Zedekiah were by Conquest brought into subjection unto Nebuchodonozer, yet this being confirmed by an Oath to the said King, his violation of it is accounted a despising of the Oath of God, which he doth threaten to bring upon his head, Ezech 17. v. 19. Thus saith the Lord, as I live, I will surely bring my Oath that he hath despised, and my Covenant that he hath broken upon his own head, vers. 20. And I will enter into judgement with him for his trespass that he hath committed against me. So that, to break an oath of subjectien to a conqueror, is a trespass against God himself.  
But it is further alleged, we may lawfully subscribe this Engagement though the imposing Powers are such as have by the Sword got the government into their hands. If we were a conquered People, either by the turk, the Pope, or the King of Spain, we are to be in subjection to them, as conquerors, their Conquest giving them a Title to Government.  
To this we answer, that it hath not yet been alleged by the Imposers of this Engagement, that we are a conquered People, though we must needs say, that we are a cozened People; through the abuse of the trust which was put into the hands of the Imposers, both in council and camp, for which we are absolved from any fealty and allegiance to them, if any had been by Master Dury's judgement in the Case of the King.  
Secondly, were it our condition, that we are conquered and subdued, yet then were we to submit unto such a Power onely in lawful things, and things necessary for the preservation of ourselves and others; but to subscribe this Engagement, appeareth to be altogether unlawful, and no way necessary to the preservation of ourselves or others, unless it be to keep and preserve us in our enslaved and oppressed condition.  
But it is alleged, that though the government of the Kingdme was altered in an extraordinary and extrajudicial way, yet God having blessed it with such extraordinary successses both in England and Ireland, by which he hath sealed his approbation of it, why should not you come in, and seal your approbation of it also, by your subsciption to this Engagement, To be true and faithful?  
To this we answer, that success in sinful ways, as it must be no ground for our compliance or approbation, who do profess our Guide to be the Law and the Testimonies. So neither can it be a Seal of Gods approbation. For though we find that usurpation was attended with success, as it was for three years together in Bramble Abimelech's time, Judges 6. v. 22. yet after the success in the ruining the men of Shechem, his own Party, which were instrumental in bringing him to the government, and in taking in many strong Holds and Garrisons, putting them to the sword, vers. 45, 49, 50. The Lord shewed his dis-approbation, by a sudden and ignominious Death, as we read vers. 53. 54.  
And as Abimelech found in conclusion after three years success that God approved not of his usurping the Goverument, but executed his vengeance by a miserable Death.  
So we find, that Absalom, who although in the Language of the northern subscribers Plea for the Engagement, pag. 10. might look upon his successful flattery, hypocrisy, rebellion, and usurping the Government of Israel, as a wonderful appearing for him, yet in conclusion he came to confusion; and the Lord appeared to be so far from owning or approving his usurped Power, notwithstanding former successses, that he was by Providence brought to such an end, he might affright any from presuming to be his successors in disobedience, treachery, and usurpation.  
But it may be objected, that surely you are more baptized into the spirit of atheism than the Egyptian Sorcerers that withstood Moses, or else you would never produce such an infamous instance as that of Absalom, to parallel with these present Powers, whom God hath so approved of, as he hath done. He will surely curse that man and his house, that saith, it was an arm of flesh that did what was done in England, as making way for this Change, or what hath been done in Ireland since▪ North. Plea, pag. 10. where he refers to Master Cromwels Letter from Ireland, Decemb. 1649. to this purpose.  
Now in answer to this objection, because that we find the North subscribers in the Plea for the Engagement, laying down this Argument for their subscription, viz. The being of these present Powers over us from God, Pag. 7. Testified by those extraordinary successses, Pag. 9, 10. where they say, This is the main foundation upon which they build their obedience, being of such powerful and direct influences upon their Consciences, Pag. 11.  
We shall enlarge upon our Parallel, between Absalom and the Utopian Powers, and show what a sandy foundation Prosperity and success, is for obedience and Allegiance to usurped Powers; and that it doth not in the least, seal Gods approbation thereof.  
And because, our North subscribers lay claim to Gods signal evidencing of his approving the present Change of Government, by those wonderful Appearings of God, antecedent, concomitant, and subsequent to the same, Pag. 10. lin. 13.  
We shall first consider the Antecedent Appearances of Providence succeeding Absalom, before that he discovered his ambitious and treacherous design of usurping the Government.  
In the first place, knowing that if he could but be Master of the hearts and affections of the Kings Subjects, he would soon command both their heads, hands, and purses. He so far succeeded in his Machiviliau be-spattering of the Kings Government, 2 Sam. 15. 3. Insinuating, that the King was altogether careless of his Subjests welfare. And therefore there was none deputed to hear the Cause, though never so just and righteous, vers. 3. And in his subtle intimations of his deep sense of the Peoples sufferings, attended with a Profession of his readiness to relieve them, and do them justice, if he were but once made a Judge in the Land, vers. 4. That it is said, he did steal away the hearts of the People of Israel. So that it is evident, that by the antecedent Appearances of Providence, his design was very successful, and he might say with those oppressors, Zach. 11. 5. Blessed be the Lord, for I am rich; I am like to get the Crown, my design takes according to my hearts desire.  
But now in the next place, lest Absalom should fall short of his expectation, for want of an opportunity to get the Militia into his hands, and the People( whose hearts he had stolen away) into a Body. We shall find in the Language of the North subscribers, the Almighty smoothing that roughness, and making him so successful, as that the King himself doth become instrumental in that very work; for having varnished, and guilded over his design with a religious pretence of keeping his Vow and Covenant, the King not onely dismisseth him, but sends him away with a blessing to Hebron, 2 Sam. 15. 7. By which means he had an opportunity to get the People about him; and whilst he was at his pretended devotion, to increase the Commotion, for it is said, vers. 12. whilst he offered sacrifices, the People increased still with Absalom. Having thus succeeded in laying of this design, we shall consider of the concomitant and succeeding Providences with which this wicked wretch might have been confirmed as well as the Utopian Powers.  
As first, his forcing and driving away the King from his Metropolis, the Imperial City Jerusalem, 2 Sam 15. 14.  
Secondly, his glorious entrance into the same himself, taking possession of the Palace Royal, 2 Sam. 15. 16. And being there acknowledged for the supreme Magistrate, vers. 16.  
Thirdly, his being possessed of all the Land unto Jordan, whilst the King was forced to retreat to Mahanaim by the Fourd Jabbok, 2 Sam. 17. 24. Now here was an uninterrupted series of good success, for a great while together; enough to induce many to do that really, which Hushai did politicly, 2 Sam. 16. 17. aclowledge this Monster of mankind, to be chosen to the Government by the Lord himself, and all the men of Israel. And to say with Shimeah, 1 Kings 12. 24. return every man to his house, for this thing is from the Lord.  
But yet notwithstanding, the Lord to vindicate his own glory, by making known to the World, how much he hateth such horrid hypocrisy, treachery, and usurpation, not onely put a period to his prosperity, by punishing that unnatural and rebellious Usurper with an ignominious death, 2 Sam. 18. 9. but also shewed his direful displeasure against those that engaged with him, vers. 7. there being twenty thousand of his Confederates slain also the same day.  
By all which it appears, that the success of an usurping Power, though to the present dis-possession of the lawful Magistrate, is no evidence of Gods approbation of it, nor can be a Scripture-ground for obedience or all egiance to it.  
And that therefore, as we cannot in Conscience be persuaded of the lawfulness of subscribing this Engagement, upon such a mahometan Principle; so we must needs rejoice in the faithfulness of all those learned, orthodox, and conscientious Ministers amongst us, who though they are much condemned by many in these sinful Times, for their non-compliance with Absalonisme, yet are they justified by Radok, Abiathar, and those godly Levites, that would not worship the rising Sun, nor forego their Allegiance to their oppressed sovereign, 2 Sam. 15. 24, 29.  
But it may be further objected, How can ye, who have been always well affencted to the common Cause of Liberty, against the design of Tyranny; and that have acted so highly against the Forces raised by the late King? How can ye refuse the subscribing this Engagement, withoui deserting the godly and faithful in the Land, and adhering to the Malignant Party, which ye have opposed all this while?  
To which we answer, that in declining and opposing this Engagement, we do not apostatise in the least from our first Principles of opposition of Tyranny, and contending for the lawful Rights, and the Liberties of the Kingdom; but our opposing and refusing this Engagement, as a sinful support unto usurpation is a clear evidence of the uprightness of our aims and ends, in what we did at first upon the Parliaments Remonstrance. For if we should now close with Tyranny and usurpation( because now carried on by some Persons whom we otherwise honour and love for their Profession of godliness) we should demonstrate our opposition of tyranny and oppression out of faction; not because the thing was evil in itself, but as it was an evil in such Persons that we did not reverence and esteem.  
As for an appearance of adhering to Malignants, which we have all this while opposed. We answer, that this refusing of the Engagement, is no such Indication; for we desire nothing more than to be in a capacity according to our Covenant, of bringing all Malignants, and evil Instruments that have hindered the Reformation of Religion, divided the King from his People, and one Kingdom from another, and made a faction amongst the People to condign Punishment.  
But it may be also objected, Can ye deny but that this Engagement is, and hath subscribed by many that are truly godly. Why then should ye by this your opposition and scrupelosity make yourselves more wise, holy, and conscientious than they?  
For answer to this, though we grant it, that it is possible, that there are many godly Persons whose understandings being muffled, by Master Dury's Sophistry, may in the simplicity of their hearts subscribe this Engagement, as the People followed Absalom in his Rebellion. Yet comparing them with the number of those that do it upon design, as for to keep up that ungodly Toleration that is yet permitted to error and heresy: to keep themselves still in Places▪ of Profit and Advantage, out of which others are excluded; or to preserve themselves from being called to account for all those extrajudicial Proceedings.  
We think we may without breach of Charity, conclude their number to be very few; but yet if they were many more than they are, and such as were of good repute for godliness, yet we are to be followers of their example no further than we find them to be followers of Christ, and of his will revealed in his Word; neither must we set the Watch of our Consciences by the Consciences of others, but by the sun-dial of the sacred Scriptures.  
And now for our vindication of what we have done in disputing the Right and Title of the present Imposers of this Engagement, and discovering the unlawfulness and inexpediency of it. We shall conclude with a short answer to what is alleged by Master Dury against this practise of ours, who in his Reproposals, pag. 11. propoundeth Reasons, why none should question the Imposers of the Engagement, nor interpret it as the Proposers have done. It is( saith he) not onely preposterous, and contrary to the nature of healing of Breaches, and of advancing of public good in this time of distraction, but inconsistent with charity, and opposite to that wisdom which is from above, teaching us to have pure and peaceable thoughts in all our actings, to perform Duties in godly simplicity, and without worldly wisdom, &c.  
To all which we shall onely say, That if Master Dury can prescribe no better way to heal our Breach, than by the use of such untempered mortar; no way to advance the public good in this time of distraction, but by subscribing this sinful Engagement without the least dispute or contradiction. As we cannot much wonder that the pains he hath taken in healing the Breaches between the Calvinists and Lutherans hath been to so little purpose. So we must needs say, that this Argument for blind obedience to this Act for subscription without any dispute or examination of the lawfulness of it.( Because it would demonstrate our godly simplicity, gentleness, and easiness to be entreated.) is not onely contrary unto Master John Goodwin's judgement, Antecavelerisme from pag. 18. to 22, where he hath six Arguments for his Confutation and our Vindication: but is an exceeding simplo and sinful Argument; and that because it not onely condemneth the Generation of the just in former Times, who have with the three Children disputed, questioned, and opposed unlawful Commands with undaunted resolution: but also condemneth all that hath been done by this Generation, in their refusing Conformity to superstitious Innovations in the Church, and illegal Impositions in the Commonwealth, as being contrary to the nature of healing of Breaches, inconsistent with the wisdom that is from above: and as testifying their godly simplicity, and that they have not been such who should have been gentle and easy to be entreated.  
And we add further, that had this Doctrine of Master Dury's for blind obedience, and non-resistance of the present Powers from Rom. 13. and other places, being preached at the beginning of these Troubles by Master John Goodwin, Master Hugh Peters, and many other of the present State Chaplains. In stead of conjuring us to stand up for our Liberties, and not to be afraid, but to fight for our Brethren, our Sons, and Daughters, our Wives and our houses, Nehem. 4. 14. Which was Master Peters frequent Text, when he preached away our Plate and Apprentices.  
Our King had not onely been upon his Throne, and our money in our Purses, but our fields had never been dunged with the dead Carcases of so many thousand of our slaughtered Brethren.  
But though all this be come upon us, through the cunning craftiness of some, whom we now see had an ungodly design for the Eradication of Monarchy, the King, and his Posterity, when they with the Parliament awakened us, to the defence of our Liberties▪ and not to lye crouching down with Issachar, between our burdens; which being effected, they would now have supported by subscribing this sinful Engagement, without dispute, as the way to heal our Breaches and to testify our godly simplicity, &c.  
Yet shall not we fall from our first Principles, deal unfaithfully with our Covenant, or let go our integrity till we die. But as our Consciences do witness that we had no such designs in our cheerful and cordial assistance of the Parliament with our Lives and Fortunes, To preserve the true Protestant Religion, the Kings Majesties Person, the Rights and privileges of Parliament, and the Liberty of the Subject▪ So to witness to the world our souls abhorrency of what hath been done unto the contrary, and that we cannot in Conscience consent unto it, or ratify the same by our Subscription to this sinful Engagement, which would make us meddlers with those that are given to change, Prov. 24. 21. We say with Pilate in another Case, What we have written, we have written.  
FINIS.