An ANSWER to Mr. J. Dury: OR, Animadversions upon his Considerations concerning the present ENGAGEMENT.  
SIR,  
IT is not long ago, since you gave the world a short Discourse concerning the Ministers not meddling with State Matters; and now you venture to break your own Rule: the onely difference is, you forbid them to meddle in the Pulpit, and yourself do more publicly, by the press. And both almost with the like success: For as there, you yield in the latter part as much as any Minister desires or practices; so you here contradict in one place, what you assert in another; as I shall give you to understand in due time. It is your unhappiness, that in both, you mistake, and mis-state the Question. What the reason of your so eager undertakings should be, in the present case the world cannot imagine, unless it be, that having rashly engulfed yourself( before you needed) into a scandalous compliance, you desire( like you know whom) to fetch in as many partners as you can; to bear the reproach the better. I believe, as you will hear ill abroad,( as most known) so you will have but little thanks at home, by them whose cause you pled; having delivered some impolitique, and dangerous State maxims, which may in time help to undermine and blow up their power, as well as others: I shall give you an account of them, as they fall in my way. And the first thing I meet with, is of this nature.  
P. 2. f. As you were sworn to the King, so he was sworn to you.— 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 subjects at all;  
1. This is both strange in politiques, and Heterodox in Divinity; For the latter, reverend Calvin shall give you an answer; towards the end of his Institutions, you shall find your words, and his return; speaking of this very case, thus he writes. Satis habeamus, quod eam, voluntate Domini, personam sustineant, cvi inviolabilem majestatem impressit ipse& insculpsit. At mutuas( inquis) subditis suis vices debent praefecti. Id jam confessus sum, verum sex eo stauis, non nisi justis imperiis rependenda obsequia, insulsus& ratiocinator, &c.  
2. This is very impolitique, for Magistrates; If Subjects be absolved from their Allegiance, upon every unfaithfulness in their Trust,( which Subjects will easily conclude, may they be their own Judges) no Magistrate shall stand long in his place: nothing but confusion follows.  
3. This is dangerous for the present Powers; For, 1. if they according to Law have not received their Authority, you are not in Law their Subject at all: 2. If unfaithf●lnes in their trust, absolves people from their Allegiance— then— But there is more of this.  
P. 3. If the K. set himself wilfully to be above the reason of the Nation, and refuse obstinately the Laws, which they( the Commons) shall choose to be settled; he put himself ipso facto, out of the capacity of being any more a King to them, &c.  
1. But then, how often, how long ago had many Kings, unking'd themselves; by denying to confirm Laws, chosen, and presented by the Commons and Lords too? And granting, King, Lords and Commons to be coordinate Estates, they must be allowed equally their negative voice; and so upon deny all of any one, the fundamental of the Kingdom had been destroyed.  
2. The Reason of the Nation, if it be in the Commons onely, it must lie in the majority of voices: But then this arinoritie not yielding to the Votes of the greater part( passed the night before their breaking) have put themselves ipso facto, out of the capacity of being any more the supreme Power.  
3. This is dangerous to the present Powers, to unpower them, who set themselves wilfully above the Reason of the Nation, the mind and choice of the people— But yet again you say:  
P. 4. He refractorily either casting off those Laws, or seeming to yield in such a way, that no trust could be given him, that he would keep what he yielded, the Parliament did actually lay him aside; from which time he was to be looked at as a private man, no object of Oath of Allegiance, &c.  
A. But, 1. The Non-Addresse Votes were revoked by a fuller House, and a new treaty agreed upon, and prosecuted far, with him as a King.  
2. A full House, in the majority of it, voted his concessions a ground to proceed on for a concluding of a peace, &c.  
3. They did not by their Votes of Non Addresses, actually lay him aside, as no King, or as freed from their Oath of Allegiance, but onely quoad hoc, to settle the Kingdom without him, till he should comply with them.  
4. yourself did not( I believe) after those Votes, look upon him, as a private man, but waited on his Children as Children of a King.  
P. 5. To have the use of the true Religion, and of the national freedom, is absolutely necessary, and essential to the being of a Common-wealth.  
A. This is incautelously spoken; For, 1. This implies, that no Common-wealth can subsist, without true Religion; which is evidently false in heathenish and Popish Countreys: It is for the well-being, not necessary for the being. 2. This afterwards is left out, as none of the things we are bound to by Covenant, p. 10. To preserve the public in peace and safety, is the main end of all the promises of the Covenant, whereunto all particular matters are subordinate; ergo not essential.  
P. 6. If you did, when time and place was, what in you lay to prevent the breach of those privileges, you did observe your Covenant, &c.  
A. True, so far; But the Covenant binds to the future, all the dayes of our life, to preserve the Kings Authority, which respects his posterity, though he be taken away.  
P. 7. By the Act of Engagement, you are so far from breaking your Covenant, that except you take it, and observe it faithfully, you will formally break that Act of the Covenant.  
A. This proceeds from a grand mistake, which runs through all your book,( as appears p. 5. 11. 20.) That the direct and only matter of the engagement binds only to procure the good of the Commonwealth as now it stands; though without King and Lords. But, 1. None, or very few, beside yourself, understand it so: They that tender it, I am confident, intend more: For to be true to the Common wealth as now established, &c. hath reference to that Act of theirs, that established this a Common-wealth without King and Lords: and so binds to be true to that absolute abnegation of King& Lords, clean contracy to the Covenant, which vows the preservation of them. 2. They intend also, that you be true and faithful to them, without King and Lords; so much yourself yield, when you say, the end of it is, to give the Supreme Power assurance, that we shall not betray it, maintain all good intelligence for public Government, with it; which, is to be true and faithful to the Government by them established, as well as to the Common-wealth. 3. The 3d. Article of the Covenant( which you say was not opposite to the Oath of Allegiance) being agreeable to that Oath; must needs intend more then the preservation of the Common-wealth, viz: the preservation of the King, and his posterity, with the Authority of both: if then the Engagement bind to no more then the preservation of the Common-wealth, it agrees not with the Oath of Allegiance, or third Article of the Covenant: and so a man may take the Engagement in your sense, and break the Oath and Covenant: and if he take it in the sense intended the present Power, he breaks it then much more: which ought not for to be. Let th●● declare publicly that to be the sense, which you put upon it, that they intend n● more, but to bind men to procure the good of the Common-wealth, and many will be easily persuaded to take it: though it were as easy to make out, that the taking of it, in their sense, will in a short time destroy the welfare of it.  
P. 8. If the Engagement settle something in the Commonwealth which is contrary to the intention of the Covenant, yet you break not your Covenant; because your obligation to those matters by virtue of the Covenant, was extinct, before you were called to take this Engagement: promises are voided, when become impossible or unlawful.  
A. 1. This is a fine way to elude all Oaths and Covenants; do but take away the matter of them( as here King and Lords) and so freed from them: may not the like be done by this present Engagement, by destroying the present Power, by a stronger?  
2. This supposes, a man cannot be guilty of a sin before the fact is past: whereas consent, approbation, compliance with an unrighteous Power, makes men partakers of it. Psal. 50.18.  
3. The things promised in the Oaths and Covenant, are not impossible, though the Kings person and life is irrecoverable, yet his Heirs are existent, to whom bound by Oath of Allegiance,( which you say intends the same thing with the 3d. Article:) A●d the Lords are alive to receive their right; Nor yet unlawful; for private men to endeavour in their place and calling, the restoring of the right Heir, who is by force and unjust violence, kept from it, at least to join with him in recovering of his right, being sworn to it; cannot be unlawful: more then for a private man oppressed in his possessions, to endeavour the recovery of it.  
P. 9. Your calling is to acquiesce at the abolition of that which is made voided; and not to declare the abrogation of the Lords, &c.  
A. But Sir; 1. If thieves had taken possession of your house and goods, would you think it your calling to acquiesce in their possession,( there is a providence of God in this) and not to seek the restauration?  
2. The Engagement, in all mens reason but your own, declares, and more binds to maintain the abrogation of the King and Lords, and( as I said) to be true and faithful to the establishment against them, if they attempt the recovery of their right.  
Ibid: If any should now prosecute( the Oath) by force, it is evident, he would by a new war hazard the ruining of all, &c.  
A But, 1 If the Prince, or any right Heir should make a strength to recover his right,( which I think you will not say is unlawful for him to do) there would be a new war; but who are the Authors of the war and ruin, but those that usurp the right?  
2. We are bound to prevent war and ruin, not by all ways possible, but( as you say) lawful, righteous and just; Fiat justitia, ruat coelum, was said of old: but you beg the question, if you say, this Engagement is a lawful way to prevent it: an unjust peace, is secure unrighteousness. But that which follows is more strange.  
P. 10. If the 3d. Article be yet in force, it binds to preserve the privileges of Parliament that now are; as well as those that then were.  
A. But, 1. you beg the question again that this is a Parliament; for wise men think the Parliament is destroyed, at least that Parliament which we swore to defend: and then that Article cannot bind us to defend another Parliament, which is usurped.  
2. Suppose the Army had turned all the Members out, and taken upon themselves to rule the Kingdom by their counsel of War, though according to the former Laws; I pray Sir, had not the Parliament been utterly broken? or had we by that 3d. Article been bound, to preserve their Power? yet we were bound by the Law of Nature( not by that Article directly) to seek the welfare of the Common-wealth, which may be done, otherwise then by this Engagement, to be true and faithful to them: yea to engage to ●●e true and faithful to them, had been as contrary to that Article as darkness to light, ●c. How hardly will you persuade rational men then, to believe, that they make themselves transgressors of the 3d. Article, if they take not the present Engagement?  
P. 12. This is a rule for private men; That it doth not belong to us to judge definitively of the rights, which the Supreme Powers over us pretend to have unto their places, I find it no part of profession of Christianity, to meddle with this, &c.  
I pray consider, 1. If Oaths of Allegiance, or Engagements be lawful to be taken by Christians, it concerns them to know in some measure, the rights of them to whom they so engage: else they swear not in Judgement and righteousness.  
2. Apply this to the present Supreme Powers the Army, who of late were Subjects as well as we, under the same Engagements; yet they not onely questioned, and judged, but quiter destroyed the rights( the clear determined rights) of their superiors.  
3. Are not those that pretend to power unjustly, to behave themselves as spiritual men, strangers and pilgrims, as well as men? persuade them they are so, and then they will not usurp anothers right, or defend themselves in an unjust power, but( as you advice us) take things as they find them, and study how to behave themselves without blame and offence to God and man, with a good conscience.  
4. If this be a character of Antichrist to exalt himself above all that's called God, &c. hath not the Army too much of that spirit among them( and in them) who have- exalted themselves above all that's called God, King, Lords and Commons; by becoming Judges of all their Rights? The jesuits( Antichrists eldest sons) are in the bottom of this design, for certain.  
P. 13. But that you should make Usurpers, the ordinance of God, and ergo to be obeied for conscience sake, from Rom. 13. and the other texts; is to me the strangest paradox, yea heterodox asserted of all: you say, these commandments delivered without any limitation of their rights to rule, or of our obedience, I suppose do oblige all Subjects, either to obey, or suffer patiently, &c.  
But, 1. it s evident by 1 Pet. 2.13, 14. and Tit. 3.1. that the Apostles do clearly presuppose the lawfulness of the powers, and therefore needed not to name that limitation: whether is the King as supreme, &c. a King lawfully established.  
2. For Rom. 13. there is more colour, because that Epistle was written to the Romans, over whom Claudius or Nero then reigned, supposed( perhaps unjustly) to be usurpers: yet that the Apostle, doth intend it of a lawful Authority, may be suggested upon many irrefragable reasons, from the text.  
1. To be of God, must not mean onely, by a way of providence, for so are plagues and famines, and tyrants equally: but by divine approbation; and its not likely the Apostle would speak no more of a Magistrate, then of all evils in the world. And then, there had been no force in the argument to persuade obedience, and no resistance: submit to the powers, for they are of God, by way of providence; but so are plagues and enemies, &c. yet I may lawfully resist, and endeavour their removal.  
2. The powers here are said to be ordained of God; but nothing is an ordinance of God, but by way of institution and warrantable approbation: That not onely the office be ordained, but the person designed, and put in by Gods ways and rules: either immediately, or by those who have the power of settling them. Hence of Usurpers he says, They have set up kings, but not by me: Hosea. 8.4. taken of Jer●b●am and his successors.  
3. The Powers here spoken of may not be resisted, under pain of damnation: But Usurpers power may lawfully be resisted, as is evident in many instances, in the b● of Judges, and Samuel: Jebojada against Athaliah, &c. And it is the resolute judgeme● of Casuists, that a tyrant sine titulo, may be killed, by any private man: But if this doctrine of yours were true, a Prince oppressed,& excluded, might not endeavour his own restitution, but under pain of damnation, must sit down, and not resist.  
4. The Usurpers, that got power by resistance( and more) have committed that crime which deserves damnation; ergo it cannot deserve damnation to oppose them; It seems very absurd, that the Apostle should at the same time condemn their act( of Resistance) and yet confirm their Authority, and make it damnable to resist it.  
5. He is called a Minister of God to take vengeance of evil: But, 1. no man is properly a Minister( though a rod he may be) of God, but he is a just Magistrate, and you suppose him to be unjust: 2. None can be a Revenger for good, but he must have a divine Authority; and so is a lawful Power; whereas an Usurper, is unlawful: And who ever takes upon him to be an Avenger without a warrant from God,( vengeance belonging to him) not onely by way of providence but approbation, he is unjust: though the thing he does be materially just, yet not formally,( wanting a right principle of warrant from God) and if he put a man to death, without Gods warrant, he is a murderer.  
Lastly, this opens a door to rebellious spirits, if they can but procure a power, to endeavour the removal of the most lawful power, if they be, upon their pre-eminency the ordinance of God, and to be obeied for conscience sake: And this doctrine is very dangerous to the present pretended Power of Parliament, the power of Arms, being in the Souldiers hands, if they shall dislike the Government, and take it to themselves, they also must be an ordinance of God, and obeied, &c.  
P. 15. Obj. Is this the case of Subjects? what shall private Christians make themselves slaves to any that will rule over them? without judging rationally who are their lawful superiors, &c. and what way left to be freed from unnatural usurpation of tyrannicall powers?  
A. Truly in your way, there's none in the world: For if they be the ordinance of God, and not to be resisted under pain of damnation; what ever, sense, reason, conscience judge, they must all be quiet, and live and die slaves: yet you have found out 3. ways to the wood.  
1. To settle subordinate officers under him, without whom he cannot act:  
A. poor help, God knows: For, 1. Inferior Officers have no more right to judge of their superiors power or rights, than you allow us, by your rule, pa. 12. Nor, 2. have they any power to question their acts, if they had will to do it; for you call it an unconfrontable power, pa. 15. uncontrollable power set over them by God, pa. 16. And, 3. Are not all his subordinate officers of his own choosing; and all of his own mind?  
2. To settle Laws to circumscribe him and their actings, and a Law-making Power, to whom both he and them accountable.  
A. But, 1. who shall put the ball about the Cats neck? you know the Fable: who shall make him call the Representative, to make those Laws but himself; either they shall never meet, or have no power to make Laws to kerb his tyranny, more but what he likes; being men of his own choosing.  
3. The great and invincible Law of necessity, whereof every one is so far the judge in his own cause, and place, as he is moved thereby to venture his life and welfare to observe the dictates thereof.  
A. Now, 1. Is not this to contradict and overturn what you said before, that Inferiors must not be Judges of their Superiors power? this is more then a judgement of discretion, if men may venture life and all upon it.  
2. Is not this also the way to run themselves upon the danger of damnation, for re●isting the ordinance of God, as you have often,( little less then blasphemously) called it?  
3. Is not this also the way, to raise up a new war, to the ruin of the Common-wealth, so much cautioned against?  
4. Is not this the way to confusion and rebellion,( if particular persons may be judges of that necessity) even against the present Powers? they are little beholden to you for this Doctrine.  
P. 17. You bring them in pleading their own cause& right, by propounding 4. queries.  
Yet pa. 7. you said you would leave it to themselves to justify, as not guilty of any breach of Covenant. And now as if you were either of their judgement, or were hired to be their Advocate, you pled strongly for them, without any show of answer; yea p. 19. you say expressly, the truth is they cannot be said to be guilty of usurpation of power, &c. let us hear what they say for themselves, or you for them: you ask.  
1. Whether the National tie and association, by which we were a Common-wealth, hath ever been dissolved?  
A. We answer: It hath been dissolved, as we were a Kingdom; viz: those bonds of Oaths of Allegiance and Covenant, betwixt King and people, are all broken. And though the Laws be materially continued, yet formally,( a new Power animating them) they are changed, and dissolved.  
2. If it hath not been dissolved, what hath kept it entire? was it not a Parliament, and subordinate officers, &c. We say; that which kept the Kingdom before this last shaking by the Army, was a Parliament, with subordinate officers legally placed: But not that Parliament that now is, that hath changed both the Parliament and the subordinate officers, formally if not materially; the Army is the soul of the present Government.  
3. If a Parliament is still remaining, and subordinate officers, so that all men may have protection legal from injuries, what is wanting to a lawful power& Government?  
A. It is answered partly from the former; you beg the question in all: And we add, what protection there is I know not, but legal( as afore) it is not: I will put you a case; If some of your servants should turn you out of doors, and take upon them the government of your family, by the same rules that you did, and give protection to such of the rest( perhaps yourself) as would submit to them; was the government of your family legal, and the same it was? or were their protection legal? you may see then what is wanting to a lawful Power and Government.  
4. If nothing be wanting for a legal protection; then such as aclowledge not the jurisdiction, do put themselves out of this protection; and if resist the power, which God hath set over them, &c. they resist the ordinance of God, &c.  
A. I pray apply but this to the former case; and judge of the weakness of it: would you think yourself well dealt with, to be put out of protection in your own house, because you cannot aclowledge the jurisdiction of some usurping servants? and if you resisted this power, which God( by providence, and the other is no better) hath set over you, would you think you resisted the ordinance of God, and should purchase to yourself damnation? They then that aclowledge not this jurisdiction, living legally, do not put themselves out of legal protection, which is their birth-right; nor do they resist any ordinance of God, or need to fear damnation.  
But you pled further for them, p. 17. 1. That it's not unjust for equals, to resist force with force. 2. That he that invades another right, is to be accounted the usurper: 3. That he that is deprived of that whereof he attempted to deprive another, is justly defeated of the power which he did abuse: And this they say was the case between the King and Parliament.  
A. Yet some things are here begged, and will be denied. As 1. that what ever equality there was in the King& Parliament, yet it was not so in the partes in the Parlia●●●● the minority was not equal to the majority, yet the minority invaded the rights the majority. 2. He that attempts to deprive his neighbour of any thing his own, 〈◇〉 justly deprived of it again; But if upon that, he shall be deprived of all he hath, thats not just: The war betwixt King and Parliament, was not for Monarchy, or destruction of Parliamentary power wholly; as both sides pretended and held forth to the world: But the King contended for his Prerogative, the Parliament for Liberties and Religion: They did not fight to destroy Monarchy( so they pretended) nor he to destroy the government by King, Lords and Commons: ergo they having conquered him, had reason to settle and secure that they fought for, but not to destroy Monarchy. The King did not ( jure) forfeit his Regal rights( which they also professed to preserve) much less his life. 3. Suppose all were granted, yet there is no justice to deprive those of their right, who never attempted to deprive them of their right; who were their friends, and assisted them with their estates and lives, in the defence of the same cause, which whether it be done or no, or being done, be just, I leave it to you to judge.  
P. 18. The Rule of Justice is, we are bound to show fidelity to those of whom we desire protection.  
A. By this doctrine, the Parliament must( as some think it doth) yield fidelity and subjection to the Army, from whom they desire and receive protection. Yea thus, a man must be bound to establish a company of thieves that have got possession of our house& goods; because they give us protection from others, that would molest us& themselves.  
The end of the Engagement is public good, and to give the supreme Power an assurance that we shall not betray it, &c.  
A. The public good may be sought by better ways, then by establishing an unjust power, as every one engaging, for his part, does. But when you say, to give them assurance we shall not betray them, you discover your either prevarication, or contradiction to what you said afore; for there you said, is binds onely to procure the good of the Common-wealth, p. 7. f. and elsewhere: But here you say, the end is, not to betray them, that is to establish them, in their usurpation; for so you add; to give them assurance, that we are willing to maintain all good intelligence for public Government, that is, the Government by them established, without King and Lords.  
P. 19. If they having done amiss formerly, set themselves now to do well, can I with conscience oppose them therein?  
We use to say, and find it true, that he that is out of the way, the farther he goes, the worse: and he cannot set one step right till he come into the way again. They that are usurpers of Authority, may do some thing good or just, materially, but nothing well, formally, till something make their power legitimate: And he that refuses to follow a man out of his way, doth not oppose, but endeavours rather to reduce him into his way.  
Ibid: You cannot be guilty to the former abuse of their power, if you give not express consent and approbation thereunto, which they urge not.  
A. 1. This seems to say, that a man can no way be guilty to anothers wickedness, but onely by consent, or approbation of it: whereas the assisting and strengthening them that did it, continuing in that injustice, is enough to make an accessary. 2. Yea accompanying them, while impenitent, involves a man in the guilt of their sin: 1 Cor. 5. and for not mourning for it: 3. Those( you speak of) that fit in counsel of State, though they said they would not be engaged to approve of proceedings past, yet sitting and acting with those that continue so far from repenting of what they have done, that they defend it, will,( I fear) be found guilty of all their wickedness, what ever they may say or think. See Jer. 23.14. They strengthen the hands of evil doers, that none doth return fro● his wickedness, &c. By that Protestation of theirs, that thy could 〈◇〉 ●uld not joy●, In approving what was past, they aclowledge the former pro● 〈◇〉 unjust; and by assisting and joining with them, continuing still their injustice, 〈◇〉 ●o involve themselves in their guilt. And therefore some of them, who did,( as they ●●d) abhor the former proceedings, are come now to defend them, and so to approve ●●em, to free themselves( as they think) of this after guilt; and so are twice accessary; in favouring and defending them that did it.  
Ibid: The truth is, they cannot be said to be 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, their guilt, if any, is, they abused their power.  
And now Sir, have you not brought the guilt, I last spake of, upon your own head? Heretofore you pleaded their plea for themselves: but now you make your own defence of them; They cannot be said, to be guilty of usurpation: then surely none can be guilty of usurpation: They do usurp the power of the 3, Estates, King, Lords and Commons, and yet not guilty of usurpation? See how far your Engagement carries you: to defend yourself, you defend them; and so make yourself guilty of all their miscarriages: No, it was put into their hands, by all the Authority that then was; was this power put into their hands by any to destroy themselves? may not Julius Caesar( who is said to be an usurper) by this way justify himself from usurpation? his power, whereby he did it was put into his hands by the Authority of the Senate: say the like of any usurping Tyrant, entrusted with Power: It was indeed an abuse of their power, but was it not an usurpation also of more power then was given them? And are they not guilty then of both, the Abuse and usurpation of power?  
P. 20. Your Resolution of the 3d. scruple of your friend proceeds upon a mere begging of the question; That it is a necessary duty to take this Engagement,( confuted in the former) and so I might dismiss i●; yet I note what you say: your pre-Eng●gement to the Common-wealth cannot lawfully and constionably be put in balance with a particular Engagement to some persons depending thereon, &c.  
True; but how come these to be incompatible, which for so m●ny hundred yeers, have agreed so lovingly together? The Government by King, Lords and Commons, being judged by other Nations, and experienced by our own, one of the best in the world, for the good of the Common wealth.  
P. 21. Him, whom you call the Heir of the Crown; and the men, called the Peers of the Kingdom, &c.  
Contemptuously enough: Did not you call them so, not long since? and if a change should happen, would you not be glad to call them so again? You are too like him, called Shimei; who thus scornfully bespoke his King, in an usurpation time. 2 Sam. 16.7. &c.  
Ibid: As for the d ssolution of your tie to the Heir of the Crown, I shall refer you to look upon God, &c.  
But Sir, 1. Gods providences, are no path for us to walk in against, or beside a Rule. He may have done all this to that family, as for their own sins, so for a judgement to the Land, for an humiliation to ihe Children, to fit them for Government, for a probation and discovery of many false hearts, &c.  
2. The Heir( as you call him) considering his relation, hath not, in many mens judgement, deserved, an utter dethroning.  
3. Much less for his Fathers or Mothers miscarriages; as against that Rule; The Son shall not die for the Father, &c.  
4. Suppose he repent of what he hath done amiss, and resolve to Rule well for the time to come, can you in conscience( they are your own words afore) oppose him therein?  
5. If none of these prevail for him, yet there are others of the line, to which you are engaged by Oaths, that never offended the Common-wealth, why should they suffer?  
6. God hath not yet declared his Determination for the utter casting off, that Family. The Crown hath heretofore been usurped, and yet reverted to the right Heir: and so it may now, for ought we can know: and the sooner, by how much the usurpation is more unjust: God using to right the wronged.  
P. 22. From this place to the end, you spend yourself in an advice to the present Power, to use it well, &c. You do well in that,( its the best of all your book) but I think you had done better if you had exhorted them not to use it at all, except in reference to a fair Retreat, and the setting up of those Powers who have, though no strength, yet an unquestionable Authority.  
FINIS.