world And thus farre shall suffice to have considered the Protestation The Covenant considered In the last place among former Engagements though not least urg'd against the present comes the Solemne League and Covenant and the Scruples therein The occasion seemes to be taken from some expressions in the Preamble and the third Article For the Covenanters having in the Preamble profest an intention to advance the Honour and Happinesse of the King his Posterity and in the third Article no intention to diminish his just Power and Greatnesse and covenanted to preserve and defend his Person and Authority apprehend that they cannot with truth and faithfulnesse to the Covenant in these particulars promise to be true and faithfull to the Common-wealth without a King This is the first scruple Now that we may come to a right understanding in the Premisses it would be soberly considered that from present intentions to positive execution in things de futuro and of a contingent nature we may not draw conclusions absolute and peremptory but with subordination to the Divine Majesty many times contrary to our expectations by an over-ruling power Wisdome and goodnesse interposing Man purposes but God disposes and frequently things fall out between the intention and execution which may justly alter the one and hinder the other by rendring the performance either unlawfull or impossible Neither is an intention simply as such an Obligation Wherefore that in this case we may come to a cleare issue two things would be remembred First That there is a tacite condition necessarily imply'd in all intentionall Promises Secondly That there is an expresse limitation annext with this Was it not upon the account of a tacite condition that Solomon when he had promis'd his Mother not to refuse her request not onely refus'd to performe his promise but vow'd the capitall punishment of the party for whom the request was made 1 Kin. 2.20 24. And certainly if in a case of the like nature Herod had deni'd the Baptists head he had been true to his duty without being false to his Oath T is true therefore the intent of the Covenanters was to advance the honour and happinesse of the King and his Posterity but with this condition That in their respective capacities they should cooperate and assist at least not obstinately persist to resist the effectuall meanes thereunto conducing For what were it but to put our selves upon a contradictory impossibility if we should intend the honour and happinesse of persons in wayes directly opposite to and inconsistent with either T is said Luke 7.30 That the Pharisees and Lawyers rejected the Councell of God against themselves And may not the Councels of men concerning the honour and happinesse of others though never so really intended be much more rejected by them against themselves Shall the reall intention of the Phisician for the recovery of his Patient be questioned if the Patient obstinately joyne with the distemper of his disease against the advice of the Phisician to his owne ruine But secondly What if the King and his posterity will not be so true and faithfull as could be wisht to their owne honour and happiness must that hinder us from being true and faithfull to the honour and happiness of the Common-Wealth without them Must the Common-Wealth be miserable because they will not be happy What if nothing will content others but an unjust power and greatness must the Common-Wealth loose any part of its greatness for want of the exercise of a just power which may be a terrour to evill doers and apraise to them that do well And can any thing be more equall and reasonable then that they that are careful to see this just power executed should be secured against turbulent spirits and practises in the execution of this power not onely just but necessary The truth is this is so farre from being a question in the true intent and meaning of the Covenant That the Covenant it selfe puts it clearely out of question as will evidently appeare if in the second place we consider the limitation annext For when the Covenanters professe in the preamble that they enter into this Covenant having before their eyes the honour and happinesse of the King and his posterity it followes conjunctim and the true publike liberty safety and peace of the Kingdomes And accordingly in the third Article which mutually interprets and is interpreted by the preamble they ingage to preserve and defend the Kings person and authority but how In the preservation and defence of the liberties of the Kingdome Vpon the foundation of which expressions we may fairely and firmely raise a two-fold conclusion First That according to the sence of the Covenant the liberties of the Kingdome are the greater and more worthy part of this branch and secondly That thererefore they ought to have the precedence in point of preservation and defence For that which comprehends is greater then that which is comprehended and that which limits is greater and more excellent then that which is limitted and by consequence in case of competition to be preferred before it When therefore persons ingage for the discharge of duties different in their worths but yet consistent in their performance at the time of Ingagements if in processe of time they shall prove wholly inconsistent both reason and Religion and the Covenant accordingly obliges to prefer the more excellent and necessary with the rejection of the lesser And so wee are come home to the present Case For the Conscientious of the Nation after yea and by the taking of the Covenant accounted themselves obliged to preserve and defend the liberties of the Kingdome without the Conjunction of and against the opposition made by the King and his personall authority and acted accordingly In short then 't is true that at the entering into Covenant such was the modesty and charity of the Covenanters that they hop'd and desir'd and with a faithfulness answerable a long time endeavour'd a compliance betweene the King and the peoples concernments But now after much patience being clearely convinc't of their absolute inconsistencie if the pertinacious opposition of the Father deceas'd and the pernitious proceedings of the living Son may be beleev'd no wonder if at last they think it time to neglect what hath so long but in vaine beene expected and provide for what must no longer if it might be so long neglected the true publike liberty safety and peace of the Nation though with as much justice as necessiity without the concurrence of the active constant and implacable opposers thereof which according to the Covenant is the chiefe and according to the present juncture of affaires the onely duty in their power And why all that follow peace with holinesse should not contribute their parts to the preservation and defence of that true publike liberty safety and peace of the Nation mentioned in the preamble of this Covenant by promising to be true and faithfull to the
A Disingag'd Survey OF THE Engagement In relation to publike Obligations 1. Precedent 2. Present In the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy the Protestation and Covenant and under the present juncture of affaires Bucer in Rom. 13. Summun jus omnium potestatum regum principum Magistratuum in eo situmest quod à Deo ordinatae sunt Et hujus ordination is Vnum indubitatum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est esse potestates Pacem debet habere voluntas bellum necessitas Aug. If it be POSSIBLE as much as lyeth in YOU live peaceably with all men Rom. 12.18 London printed for John Wright at the Kings Head in the Old-Bayley 1650. A Disingag'd Survey OF THE Engagement IN Relation to publike Obligations FUlly to satisfy Conscience concerning the present Engagement two Questions would be propounded and cleared 1. Whether ex Licito of right we may subscribe when calld to it 2. Whether ex dibito of duty we must subscribe when calld to it For as we sinne by way of Commission if we subscribe when of right we ought not so we sinne by way of Omission if we subscribe not when of duty we ought to doe it The reason of the first Question is because it is objected that we are under the obligation of precedent Engagements which beare a contrariety to the present The reason of the second is because it is asserted that the present Ingagement comes to us in the name of Authority and as an Act in law The first reason stands upon 〈◊〉 First the Contrariety Secondly the Obligation Of these neither can stand if either faile but both with the whole weight of the objection must of necessity fall to the ground For if those former Engagements be either contrary but not binding or bindding buy not contrary nothing can hinder but that we may as lawfully subscribe the present Engagement as if they were neither binding nor contrary The former Engagements which minister matter of scruple concerning the present are the Oathes of Allegiance and Supremacy the Protestation and Covenant The Oathes of Allegiance and Supremacy considered The first scruple arises from the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy both in effect one Their parts are two 1. Declaratory 2 Promissory The Declaratory part consisting of an Act meerely transient leaves no ground of doubt the Promissory part is onely scrupled and therein the word Heires or as the Oath of Supremacy Lawfull beires and Successors for what concern'd the King is extinct with his person The doubt may be thus stated Whether a promise made and sworne to beare faith and true Allegiance to id est as t is afterwards interpreted to defend the Kings lawfull heires and Successors their Crown and dignity to uttermost power be not contrary to and obliging against a promise to be true and faithfull to the Common-wealth as it is now established without a King for the Lords in this place signifie nothing The parts of the quere are two 1. the Contrariety 2 the Obligation And first for satisfaction to the point of Contrariety It may be considered that all Oaths being to be taken in their sence that give them the intention of the first giver must certainely be the most proper key to open their true meaning And therefore such subsequent emergencies as at first had no place in the intention of the giver ought not afterwards to be scru'd into the meaning of an Oath seeing they doe not properly fall under it but rather beyond or beside it Now the intention of the giver will appeare from two things First from the Occasion Secondly From the equity of the Oath The one shews us what first was the other what still should be in the intent of the giver And first for the occasion 't is evident concerning the present Oathes that they were at first occasioned by and by consequence intended against the frequent and pernicious attempts of Papists chiefely and collaterally other Delinquents by forraigne invasions and domesticke Conspiracies against the then peaceably established Princes in Conjunction with Parliaments And certainely that Parliaments should provide by Oath for the security of Princes joyning with Parliaments against Papists and other Delinquents is but reason and justice but that the same provision should also intend Princes joyning with Papists and other Delinquents against Parliaments or their Heires and Successors in courses of that nature can no way stand with either Fortis plaine that such case neither did could nor ought to fall under the intention of the Legislators and therefore must fall beyond and beside the meaning of these Oathes So that when Princes prove untrue and unfaithfull to their places 't is of right that wee may and of duty that wee must be true and faithfull to the Common-wealth though established without them yea and bless God that we have an establishment notwithstanding any thing really intended however pretended in these Oathes to the contrary Secondly It is to bee considered that where the Letter bindes to a thing that is dubious and cannot stand with reason and justice not it but the equity of a Law is to be regarded In omni dubio praesumendum est pro aquitale legis And the reason is because the Letter is variable but the equity is immutable and eternall Now it 's impossible that two pretending to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or publike authority commanding things contrary should both command things just at once in the same place and therefore the equity of the Law in which both the precedent and present engagements agree requires us in order of the Salus of that Society whereof we are Members to be true and faithfull to the obtaining 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or publike authority commanding things lawfull and just because in the peace thereof our selves shall have Peace And the truth of this will further appeare if we consider that the obligation in the Oathes scrupled so farre as it concernes the persons must be taken onely Conjunction with the Crowne and Dignity i. e. the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or publike authority because the formalis ratio under which they are capable either of requiring or receiving the performance is qua invested with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or publike authority for the persons that act the Authority give nothing to but take all from it and therefore without it are not the formall object to whom the obligation ought to be performed Whereupon it followes that in case the King his Heires and Successors shall divide and separate their persons from the Crown and Dignity and prostitute them to the patronage of the most opposite indignities they put themselves into an incapacity of receiving the obligation in the Oathes in question Which division separation The Parliaments of both Nations have long since declared to have beene the case of the Father and the Kirke of Scotland have lately declared to be the case of the Sonne And indeed upon this account it was that when the person
of the King removed with Papists and Delinquents to Oxford the conscientious of the Nation thought it their duty notwithstanding any obligations in the Oaths now scrupled and then pretended by the other side to the contrary to abide with the Crown dignity at Westm judging it more agreeable to their Obligation in the Oaths mentioned thus to keepe it in the intention and equity by seemingly breaking it if it must needes be called so in some part of the expression and letter then otherwise really to breake it upon a bare pretence of keeping it Although now such is the power of passion or interest or both some of the same persons could almost perswade themselves that the Crowne and Dignity which remain'd at Westminster while the person of the late King kept Garrison at Oxford hath of late I know not by what winde taken saile for the I le of Jersey which if in any thing it differ from Oxford it is in this That as it hath not any more of the thing so it hath much lesse if any thing at all of the appearance of the Crowne and Dignity For really if men were free to use their owne reason they might easily discerne that as to the Crowne and Dignity in a right acceptation neither is any thing present THERE nor any thing absent HERE but an empty name Neither certainely can any satisfactory reason be given why we may not with as little contrariety to the present Oathes Master Pym's speech at a conference promise to be true and faithfull to the Common-wealth as now establisht without a King as formerly engage to and with the Parliament exercising the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or publike Authority wholly without him Votes against Hamiltons Army yea and in some things without the Lords And which comes up fully to the present case avowing the doing the like in all cases if they should finde it requisite for the good and safety of the Nation And if it shall be objected that however they never changed the Government but left a doore open for the King to enter in at 'T is answered in the first place That makes the matter worse rather then better for to acknowledge a part of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or publike Authority in the King and to make addresses to him accordingly and yet to exercise the whole wholly without him however it could not the cause duly considered render such Engagements any thing the less lawfull yet it could not at the first appeareance but render them so much the more doubtfull and the adverse party constantly endeavoured to make advantage of it accordingly Secondly As they left a door open so they prepared suficient locks for that door and not without cause neither to shut him up fast enough when entred so as he had as much share in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or publike authority without doores as he was like to have had within But to speake the truth in plaine English or rather Scotish hath not the Kirke of Scotland lately told their proclaimed King that unlesse he intend to be forever shut out he must make his enterance into that Kingdome by the doore of the Covenant and an universall compliance with the religious Party there Which when it shall be cordially performed with a Demonstration of the sincerity thereof cleare and convincing then there may be some shew perhaps of a ground to scruple the point in hand but till then it may well become all peaceably godly men not to scruple to promise to be true and faithfull to the present Government untill they see a better for at present there appeares none other and if that returne which is by some desired it is like to prove worse if there can be a worse then none The result of all that hath beene said is That the râ—-Oathes of Allegiance and Supremacy so farre as they are binding which is according to the legislators intention and their owne equity are not contrary to the present Engagement but as in the one respect not contra but praeter so in the other neither but rather full for it which may satisfie as to the point of contrariety The second part of the quaere was concerning the Obligation of the premis'd Oathes And 't is whether bindging or not binding so farre as it crosses the present Engagement In which Particular to arrive at the truth we must set out at the consideration of such cases as have power to null the Obligation of an Oath Not to speake of any but what are pertinent and unquestionable When the performance becomes either First unlawfull or Secondly Impossible In these two cases the obligation is rendred null For as to binde to what ought not to bee done makes sinne a duty so to binde to what cannot be done makes duty a sinne because t is a duty that the creature aswell willingly as of necessity containe himselfe within those lists wherewith in actions of this nature the providence of God ordering things contingent to us by a power and wisedome infinitely above us contrary to our expectations is pleased to circumscribe it The unlawfulnesse may arise two waies either in respect of the persons first to to whom or secondly by whom the Obligation is to be performed First to whom As put case a Ship designed to publique service putting forth to Sea the whole company other Officers and Marriners sweare to be true and faithfull to the Captaine and to defend his person Place and Authority Afterwards the Captaine with others of the company forsake their own Vessel and shipping themselves with the common Enemy the Captaine require the rest of the company with their Ship to attend his person and submit to his authority by vertue of the Obligation of the former Oath Meane while the other Officers joyning together in the Government of the Ship require the rest of the Marriners to enter into an engagement to be true and faithfull to the publique service under their Government Can it be doubted that the obligation of the first Oath in this case became null And need it be scrupled whether it be lawfull to enter into the second And is not the reason evident because if the former Oath should oblige in the letter against the intention and equity a necessity would be laid upon them by pretended fidelity to their late Captaine to be really false to their Countrey Now a Ship being as it were a little Common-Wealth and a Common-wealth no other but a great Ship the application will need no explication especially the case to which the allusion looks being sufficienty knowne and decided both by God and Man Secondly The performance may be unlawfull and consequently the obligation null in respect of those by whom it is to be performed And that in two cases when way must be made to the performance by them either first through the Commission of a greater evill then the non-performance Or secondly through the omission of a
Common-Wealth wherein if any where it is now involv'd though without a King or House of Lords Why I say they would not thus far contribute their parts to the publike Peace at least notwithstanding any scruple that may justly be grounded upon this or any of the Oaths preceding in this discourse is difficult if not impossible to discern upon a sober disingag'd survey What concernes the Rights and Priviledges of Parliament hath been spoken to in the Protestation The endeavour of the foregoing discourse hitherto hath beene by a thorow disqusition manag'd as in a matter of Conscience with the greatest stricktnes and impartiality to examine the true state of former Engagements whether contrary to and obliging against the present And the result upon the whole matter seemes to afford a three-fold conclusion First That as to the substantiall part their true intention and equity there is no contrariety there is an absolute harmony between both both according to equity joyning in this intention by a promissory caution to oblige the engaged not to distruâ—â— by any unlawfull practices but by all lawfull waies against such disturbances to endeavour to preserve the obtaining 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or publike authority because t is ever the PRESENT Authority that gives life to those lawes of the Nation which by the publike administration of justice propagate peace and by peace the prosperity of the publike the proper and ultimate end in to which all Governors and Government ought to be resolv'd Secondly That as to the Circumstantiall part the persons sometime vested with some part of the Authority No Obligation doth or can lye against the present Engagement because neither are they now vested with that Authority the possession and exercise whereof is the sole thing that must both render them the formall object and furnish them with a capacity of performing those reciprocall acts of publike justice and protection which are the fundamentall reason of all such relative Obligations on which alone they do and without which they cannot stand neither secondly ought they to be so invested because engaged in waies inconsistent and destructive And thirdly That therefore no contrariety or obligation of former Engagements hinders but that lawfully wee may subscribe the present And so answer is given to the first generall question and way made for the second viz. Whether of duty wee must subscribe the present Engagement already prov'd lawfull when call'd thereunto by the present Authority For orders sake that we may proceed with the more clearness we shal cast the answer into two positions First That the authority in question is de facto an Authority 2ly that an Authority de facto is to be obey'd ex debito in things lawfull and consequently in the matter of the present Engagement Were it not that daily experience tels us that men forsake their reason to follow their affection it could not with any reason be imagin'd that any man should be so without all reason in the present controversie as not to grant that the present Authority is de facto an Authority For to deny that is to contradict not onely our own but the sence and experience of the whole Nation who in all matters of commutative and distributive 〈◊〉 derive all the benefit of the laws of the Land only by mediation of such publike ministers of State as derive the Commissions by which they act from them 〈◊〉 only from them and their authority And the truth is to deny the existence de facto of a publike Authority in a Nation is the worst kinde of that which men call Levelling For if there be no Authority there can be no Law for the Lawes of the Land out of the hand of Authority signifie no more then the Lawes of Solon or Lycurgus in a Library or Study and if there be no Law neither first can there be any propriety because t is onely the Law in the hand of Authority that determines propriety unless every man may be his own judge and then he will quickly make his owne law so farre as his power can reach neither secondly if there be no Law is there any trangression and so the Judges and Jury c. that condemne men for Capitall offences are all concluded under the guilt of murder which is enough to shew the wicked absurdity of this wretched Doctrine I shall therefore leave such erroneous judgements to be rectified by the pious and I hope peaceable ministers the Authors of the Proposals who ingenuously acknowledge a necessity of the existence of a Government de facto in a Nation Now a Government without Authority is such an Idoll that as St. Paul speakes we may say it is nothing And therefore I cannot but wonder at those godly and learned Ministers that when they had gone so farre as to acknowledg the necessity of an authority in a Nation and an obedience in all things lawfull unto that authority that I say they could not proceed one step further upon the same ground to acknowledge the lawfulness and duty of promising to be true and faithfull to the authority in Being which as it is agreeable to present so it cannot be contrary to former publike obligations seeing nothing can binde to that which is not in Being unless they would have those that labour not in but rather against the proper worke of magistracy to have the wages of faithfulnes for being unfaithfull those that are truly faithful the reward of unfaithfulnes which I am sure they would not For that were as if the dumb and scandalous Clergiâ— justly sequestred by Parliament should stil have the double honour of their parishes and places because of a former title in Law and those godly ministers that are placed in their stead and conscienciously labour in the word and doctrine should be rewarded with double dishonour 'T is therefore a truth both in reason and religion that will never want ground sufficient to cleare it that they that possesse the places and peforme the duty de facto must de jure and ex debito receive the dignity annext to the publike authority And so we are come to the second position viz. That Authority de facto must be obey'd ex debito The foundation of this Position hath already been laid and in a great measure clear'd in the precedent Discourse For the consequences are co incident and what lawfully may of duty must be performed when we are cal'd to the performance by publique Authority And therefore how properly soever the Demurrer was pleas'd to terme it such it was no absurdity in the learned Pen that wrote The lawfulnesse of obeying the present Government joyntly to infer those conclusions that were inseperably complicated in the premisses that were the cause of those conclusions And here as most due this Testimony must in justice be given to the worthy Author of that Tract That had his mature abilities and peaceable piety met with the same spirit of wisdome from above in the Readers as breathes in all his works not onely this controversie might have been ended upon the advantagious termes of truth and peace but the Balme of love might by this time have clos'd up and cur'd in a great measure the never enough to be lamented breathes among the truly godly of this Nation and render'd them an united and an happy People From those few gleanings therefore here the Reader may be pleas'd to have recourse to his fuller harvest and if himself be as free to receive as the piously learned Author is furnisht to give satisfaction in the present position there is no doubt but he may abundantly finde wherein to acquiesse upon the clearest grounds of Scripture and reason witnest to by the suffrage of the most approv'd Divines both Antient and Moderne and the practice of the godly accordingly But what need we as to the practice of the godly in the present point either seek far abroad or farther at home then the late dayes of Queen Mary For which of the godly in her time after her actuall possession of the Crown scrupl'd obedience to her in civil things although she were the Issue of an incestuous Marriage condemn'd by expresse Text of Scripture and the suffrage of the most eminent Divines of that age purposely consulted upon it Wherefore to shut up this position and with it the present discourse though practises may be questioned with the unquestionable Authority of the Apostle Ro. 13. If every foule must be subject then certainly every power must be subjected to else some soules must not be subject because some powers are not of right yea but though they have not a right to make themselves yet God hath a right to make them powers and we must be subject nor because of the subordinate and doubtfull rights of men but the Supreme and undoubted Right of God and so the premisses are as large as the conclusion which otherwise would be too narrow for it Again Every soul must be subject yea but every soul cannot skill of the Titles of Governors True but no soul so ignorant but can apprehend Gods Title at least when the Apostle shall have told him that there is NO Power but of God and the Powers that BE are ordained of God And 2. No soule so in the dark but can on the one side see who hath a power to give him praise for well doing and to punish him for doing ill and so bears not the sword in vain and on the other who either bears no sword or in vain anâ—â—o no purpose and lastly who are continually attending on the work of Government and who are discontinuers So that in conclusion the Apostle gives a rule of subjection clear and obvious and suited to the capacity of the meanest Christian whereas if to examine the rights of Governors be the rule most Christians would want the means fully to inform themselves and they that could have the best in such cases to be had might sooner finde just grounds to scruple all then to be satisfied in any FINIS
greater good then the performance For first if no Obligation can binde to that which is evill much less of two evills can it binde to the greater And therefore when God hath given a Nation the substantials of Government Righteousness and Peace to throw them into bloud and confusion for that which is but a circumstantial or scarce so much the bare Title of a pretender is that which the world by sad experience can witness to be the continued practice of tyranicall Princes but never can be proved to be the duty of true Christians upon pretence of any obligation whatsoever Neither can it be deny'd that in such a case were the cause of the pretender never so just yet it were not to be prosecuted by a cruelty so unjust but rather in reason and Religion if either could be expected from such a strong obligation would lye upon him to desist from his claime but not the least show of any obligation upon that people by meanes so inconsistent with humanity to be assisting not so much to his cause in a condition so desperate as to their owne miserable and unavoidable ruine But then put case the pretenders cause be unjust in it selfe how desperately wicked will it be rendered by the accession of that guilt which will eternally cleave unto it by so horrid a prosecution Were the non-performance of such an Obligation to such a pretender in regard of the justnesse of his cause evill as was said before yet it ought to be chosen before an evill so beyond all controversie greater But when not the non-performance but the performance is the evill as t is in an unjust cause then 't is to endeavour to set the Crowne upon the head of wickedness and by a violence no lesse bloudy then unjust to attempt to place unjustice in the throne of righteousness Concerning the cause of the present Pretender continuing in those waies wherein he is so deeply and desperately engag'd there needs no more but this if it be as certainely 't is the same now that was at first it either then was unjustly or now may be as justly as formerly oppos'd But secondly An Obligation may be rendered Null because unlawfull when the performance cannot be but by omission of a greater good that is Of a duty more immediately necessary T is of immediate necessity that there be a Government a duty immediately necessary that they that live under it be true and faithfull to it otherwise neither Governours nor Government can bee secured against fraud and force in the discharge of their duty but that this Government must be continued because once begun in the name of such a Family though entering and possessing the place with approved justice is no way necessary no nor when providence hath otherwise determined it lawfull for the Kingdomes of the Earth are the Lords and he gives them to whomsoever he pleases neither can any Obligation binde against his determination which appeares to us onely by externall providences For secret things belong to God but to us things revealed And whereby can providence reveale the minde of God â—ore clearely then by devesting the former and investing the present Governours with the plenary possession of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that publique Authority which is the foundation and formall object of all publike Obligations of this nature which we are there and there onely to performe where the Almighty who is the Lord Paramount shall bee pleased to fix it Wherefore to neglect a present duty by an over-ruling providence fastned upon us upon pretence of ormer obligations to the contrary when notwithstanding God hath raz'd the foundations of those Obligations what can it be but to rebell against the Ordinances out onely of men but of God himselfe against the universall good with the universall confusion if not ruine of a Nation against our Obligation to that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that publike Authority under whose shadow we sit downe in peace and may if our owne frowardness hinder not enjoy all the Ordinances of Righteousnesse both divine and humane and in a word against that gratitude and obedience which we owe to divine dispensations To conclude if the bare Title of a Pretender though just cannot oblige against an immediate and necessary duty to present authority much lesse where the cause is doubtfull or apparently unjust Seeing that were to pull down that ruine upon our owne heads by our owne breach of duty from which a divine hand hath in mercy rescu'd us without leaving our selves the excuse of so much at a good intention Which whether it be the present case let the impartiall judge The second thing which nulls the Obligation of an Oath is the Impossibility of performance Nemo tenetur ad impossibilia To which beside what hath been said as to the unlawfulness for id tantum possumus quod jure possumus Vpon which ground the limitation in the Oathes scrupl'd to uttermost power was inserted We may then lawfully conclude that God hath shut men up under an impossibility when he hath not onely deprived them of all naturall meanes and power but also destroy'd the foundotion upon which the Obligation was built and substituted another in its stead And this also is more evident in the present case then to need a demonstration which yet will be more fully evinc't when we come to speake of the present Authority And so we have done with the Oathes of Allegiance and Supremacy wherein we havee beene the more large because all that is scrupl'd in the other Ingagements save what concernes the Priviledges of Parliament is built upon the same foundation The Protest considered The next Scandall at which Conscience stickes and untill it be removed cannot finde its way cleare to enter into the present Ingagement is taken from the Protestation and Covenant And first for the Protestation It promises the preservation and defence of five particulars The Doctrine of the Church of England The Kings Person Honour and Estate The Power and Priviledges of Parliament The Rights and Liberties of the Subject and lastly The Union and Peace of the three Kingdoms But with this limitation To the power of the party protesting and as farre as lawfully he may The first the last and the second Branch so farre as it concernes the Person of the King are not here at all concern'd What concernes the Kings Honour and Estate if it be to be understood of the Heires of his Person hath already been considered in the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy Neither may we by the expresse Limits of the present Protestation lawfully defend them in wayes long since and still condemned for unlawfull or not lawfully be true and faithfull to the Common-wealth without them when their owne posture will not admit us to be true and faithfull in a right sense to them with it But if it be as in reason it may be understood of the Publique Authority resulting from and exercised by the
Lawes of the Nation 't is involv'd in the Common-wealth and so this Branch in effect speakes the same Language with the Ingagement And for the thied and fourth First in a generall consideration if the substance of things not circumstance of persons be as they must be principally minded why the Power and Priviledges of Parliament should not be capable of the firmest preservation and fullest improvement without a King or House of Lords especially proving opposite cannot easily sinke into the head of any impartiall man that shall without prejudice consult the free vote of his owne reason together with the constant experience of former times For 't is reason to believe That the Lords Temporall in this personall consideration are no more essentiall to the Power of Parliaments then the Lords Spirituall nor the King then either And what can be more plaine if we consider that in the Coronation Oath the Office of the King and the Lords his Creatures have for the most part the same is neither to enact nor repeale Lawes save onely by giving pro forma for he is bound by Oath to do it his consent to both both which things thus standing necessarily must and possibly may be done without them with more expedition and advantage and lesse delay and difficulty For 't is well knowne though by ill experience that both King and Lords partly by assuming to themselves in the House of Peeres an Arbitrary Jurisdiction over the Persons and Estates of the free People of this Nation and partly by the perverse Engine of a Negative Voyce have exercised a power of their owne to enervate at their pleasure the power of Parliaments both obstructing the progresse of the best Lawes and measuring out the Rights and Liberties of the People by the Line of their owne Wils and Interests It remaines that to a reall and substantiall observation of these two Branches especially when the circumstantiall is not in our power no better way appeares then cordially to enter into the present Engagement For from what hath last been said thus much doubtlesse may with sufficient evidence of truth be affirmed That the Power of Parliaments abstractly considered and the Rights and Liberties of the People may be preserved and defended by being true and faithfull to the Common-wealth without at least AS WELL as with a King or House of Lords and if the present Juncture of affaires will not admit it to be done with them it not onely may but must be done without them else it were to throw away the substance because the circumstance cannot be preserved But secondly the onely question therefore being concerning the Priviledges as vesting some part of the exercise of the Power in the King and House of Lords for there is nothing in the present Ingagement but what makes rather for then against the Preservation and Defence of other Priviledges And first for that part which concernes the King it referres to what hath formerly been considered in the preceding Discourse and shall be further in the succeeding when wee come to the Covenant as being more expresse in that particular The true state of the question therefore will onely be Whether having protested to preserve the Priviledges of Parliament and by consequence inclusively the House of Lords to our power and so far as lawfully we may whether I say we may without breach of Protestation promise to be true and faithfull to the Common-wealth without them Now to come to a cleare resolution in the question first let it be observed that the present Protestation supposes the House of Lords actually in BEING and accordingly the promise is to preserve and defend it Neither is it possible to performe such a promise to that which IS NOT. And this is generally observable concerning the Engagements scrupl'd that they all promise a preservation and defence of things as in BEING not as surceasing to BE. Wherefore to conclude either the House of Lords is not now actually in BEING and then it must be a strong obligation indeed that shall binde to preserve and defend that which is not Or if it have yet a being why doth it not appeare why is it not operative for Non apparere non operari sunt nec esse To us what appeares not acts not IS NOT. Now to be true and faithfull to that which is not and not to be true and faithfull to that which is but by being untrue and unfaithfull to that which is to be true and faithfull to that which is not is such a riddle of absurdities as I know no solution fitter to be given it then this That the onely way to be true and faithfull in preserving that which is not is not to do any thing in its preservation and so there may be a freedome left to be true and faithfull to that which is But secondly put case the House of Lords were in a capacity of receiving it must further be showne that the obliged also are in a capacity of giving their assistance in order to their preservation and defence Now where is that power Naturall or Morall that warrant from Authority Divine or Humane by which they may be arm'd both with might and right sufficient for such a worke If there be any why is it not us'd if there be none why is the Obligation of this and other Engagements urg'd which binde the obliged but to their power and so far as lawfully they may And lastly if they be free in this respect from others why not free to the present Engagement Thirdly supposing there were both might and right sufficient it would still remaine a question Whether we might or rather it would be out of question that we might not enter into blood to contend against the substance the Authority and peace of the Nation for a circumstance the exercise of some part of that Authority by some peculiary persons in such a peculiar manner a circumstance I say so much out of our power as t is not a little doubtfull whether it will ever be within or if so any way worth our recovery at so deare a rate Beside in such a wretched if not wicked pursuit of a circumstance we runne the present losse of the substance the Government and peace under which Providence hath plac't us and with so gracious a hand that we feele not any want of the Circumstance lost but rather enjoy the benefit of our losse a freedome from the superfluous and unnecessary burdens of an Arbitrary Jurisdiction and the obstructions of a Negative Voyce Lastly if there may be a Delinquency deserving a dissolution what might be thought of theirs who have in the face of the Nation refus'd to dis-owne and declare against an Army of Forraigners in the bowells thereof dis-own'd and declar'd against not onely by the Kirke of Scotland and all the well-affected there but also by the Commons in Parliament here and own'd them by Votes c. made publike to the view of the whole