there I have used The answer shews the objectors mistake and whence it proceeds concerning the National Custom and compare them with what you offer to be considered here although I see my self not guilty of the mistake wherewith you charge me but can discern the grounds of your mistaking the drift and sense of my words to have been somwhat of the Printers fault somewhat of your own inadvertency of my meaning yet my words seem to myself somewhat more full then they needed to have been for the end for which I uttered them For my end was only to shew that the received Custome and liberty whereby the Commons are wont to propose the making of laws and the Lords and King are desired to give their assent thereunto did arise at first and was since continued upon the just and natural foundation of all laws in a free Nation which is the reason of the Body thereof in Parliament which I say hath the sole right to propose and chuse the laws by which the Nation is to be ruled This drift of mine you do not observe and the fault of the Printer hath helped your mistake for in the last Impression which I conjecture you have made use of the particle where is put in stead of whence which was in the first intimating the dependance of the custome of the Commons of this Nation upon the law of nature mentioned immediatly before Now because I intended to point at as much of this right and liberty of nature as I did find extant in the practise of our Parliament and withall had a mind briefly to intimate the most material differences of Rights which were in each of the members of Parliament with reference to the whole Body according to the fore-named law of nature therefore I perceive my expressions did run out under the generall terme of a National Custome aswel upon that which by right might be practised or rather by the nature of this constitution of government is proper to be practised as upon that which de facto was in use amongst us I am not ignorant that the laws have had their rise sometimes from the one How the Laws do rise from the commons and how from the King and Lords defferently sometimes from the other house but when I said that it was as I supposed a perpetual custome in this Nation for the Commons at all times to aske and propose the making of laws I had an eye to the Coronation-oath wherein the King is obliged to swear that he shal maintain the laws quas vulgus elegerit which doth suppose to my understanding no less then what I express viz. that the right of asking and proposing of laws to be made doth originally reside in the people with a tacite obligation in the King to consent thereunto As antient then as the Coronation-oath is so long I suppose the Commons do lay claime to this right of chusing laws for themselves and although all this be granted yet it doth not follow that the King and Lords might not also propose any thing at all for the making of laws unto the Commons For to assert this right to belong originally and primarily to these doth not wholly exclude the other from it nor do my expressions import much more then a direct assertion of the right of the Commons which is in practise which being raised and derived from the law of nature might be inferred to be de jure primarily practised by them and truly though you seeme to deny it yet I have been told very credibly and circumstantially that the Commons since the sitting of this Parliament have more then once upon special immergencys declared at Conferences to the Lords that this was their right as they were the representatives of the Nation and Trustees for common safety It is also granted that the Lords or King have by a received custome freely given or refused their assent to Bills offered as they have seen cause this sheweth that they sate not in Parliament as meere servants unconcerned in the maine but as joynt-Councellors for the main in the things wherein their service was to be made use of towards the State a man may be in his Principal relation a servant to another and yet in such a degree of honour as not to be obliged to do any thing by meere command without his owne free consent and so I conceive Kings and Lords to be in a free Nation they may for themselves if they think not fit to act surcease but they cannot pretend to a negative voice so as to make it unlawful for those that have a right to order their own affairs to act without them they are then to be counted Servi Honorarii non Mancipia legum and because they may be considered justly as members of the State who have a considerable State to venture in it therefore they cannot be in equity deprived of a consultative vote in the making of laws except by some faults they make themselves incapable thereof although the power of chusing making them doth not primarily belong unto them but to the Commons alone and to these a right and prerogative to see them kept and executed for herewith the Representees intrust them That which you observe concerning the oath of allegiance that it was made in our age is no ways inconsistent with my assertion that by the consent of all ages the oath of allegiance ought to be understood as I explain it In what sense the Oath of alleagance hath been in all ages for if you observe the strain of my discourse you will see that I speake of the meaning of the oath as it is in the law of nature and Nations that is as in all ages such Oaths have been used for all promises of Fealty and of free subjection unto Kings and liege Lords in all people and Nations governed rationally by laws are in my apprehension of the same kind with our oath of allegiance and therefore this particular oath made in our age upon a special emergency ought to be understood no otherwise then that same oath hath been always taken at all other times The Comment which you say I make upon the third article of the Covenant is your mistake of my construction of the Covenant Concerning the sence of the third article of the Covenant whether the promise to preserve the King be conditional yea or no. and not my mistake of the meaning thereof for I change not the In into If as you say I do for look upon my words again and you shall see that I aleadge the expression as it is in the text of the Covenant but yet I say that the In of the Covenant doth contain a limitation of the defence and preservation promised to the King and his Authority for if we promise to defend him and his Authority onely in the defence and preservation of Religion and Liberties then we are neither bound unto him absolutely nor
TWO TREATISES Concerning the matter of the ENGAGEMENT The first of an unknown Author excepting against Mr. Dureus Considerations for the taking of the ENGAGEMENT to shew the unsatisfactoriness thereof The second of Mr. Dureus maintaining the satisfactoriness of his Considerations against the unknown Authors exceptions LONDON Printed by J. Clowes for Richard Wodenothe at the Star under St. Peters Church in Cornhil 1650. The first Treatise whereof the Title was Mr. Dureus his friend unsatisfied or an Answer to a Paper published in print by Mr. John Dureus entituled Considerations concerning the present Engagement whether it may be lawfully entred into yea or no affectionately presented to the serious consideration both of Mr. Dureus and all others that desire to give and receive satisfaction concerning the truth SIR YOur Letter of November 27. sent to your friend for satisfaction of his Conscience scrupling the taking of the Engagement is come into these parts and as may be conjectured into all parts of the Kingdom so that it seems your second thoughts were to make every Reader so far your friend as to help him in case of like irresolution You observe in your select friend to whom you make your special address that he hath been alwayes affected to the Common cause of Liberty against the designs of tyranny upon which your Reader will soon observe that such have their hesitancys in this business and it is observed not by a few that almost all such have their scruples and almost onely such Others on what Principles I shall forbear to speak readily enough for the most part enter upon it which confession of yours seconded with the observation of others doth much amuse your reader that you should pass so heavy a censure on all that remaining unsatisfied as yet suspend having your own attestation that they cordially pursue that which in your thoughts is the end of this and all other publick Engagements namely the intrinsecal good of the Common-wealth To which also they are ready to subscribe not with the hand onely but with the heart likewise if they were once perswaded that Covenants and publick promises bind not at all to accidental forms as you stile them when yet they are made by publick authority that did impose them the very Letter or matter of such Covenants or Engagements Somewhat I shall make bold to speak to your Considerations to let you see how far in the thoughts of many they fall short of carrying your Question in the affirmative in which I shall endeavour to keep me to the principal heads that tediousness may not be your trouble Your first work is to reconcile this Engagement to the Oath of Allegiance and the National Covenant attempting to make it good that they are not opposite and in reference hereunto you lay down as a State maxime that the obligation of King and Subjects are mutual and must needs stand and fall together according as the condition by which they are begotten is kept or broken which is nothing else but the Law according to which he and his Subjects agree that he shall be their King and they his Subjects When this is yielded yet herein you fall short that you do not produce that Law to which he stands obliged that doth declare this or that act of his to be a full forfeiture of trust and ipso facto inflict that penalty of the loss of all his regalities and disobligation of his Subjects If such a law were but produced and a transgression proved it would perhaps serve to quiet many minds Mr. Cook if I mistake not answering the objection why no Law was made in such case against Kings instead of producing a Law onely gives in the answer of Solon why in his Laws he omitted the punishment of Parricides freely confessing that as in the one so in the other a Law was wanting Those against whom the late war hath frequently been avowed to be made have also Laws with large penalties in case of transgression made against them viz. all such as are found Counsellors in evil or as subordinate Officers are Agents in it which page 13. you seem to grant to be good security and what hath been still said for the immunity of Kings in this Nation who act nothing as Kings in their own persons but by subordinate Agents You though an Alienigena cannot be ignorant but you go on and tell us wherein the King hath been unsaithful to his trust even to the absolving of his people pso facto from their Allegiance it hath been you say as you suppose a perpetual custome in this Nation for the Commons at all times to ask and propose the making of the Lawes and for the Lords and King to give consent thereunto and after a few words of Explication you make your Application If the King then should set himself wilfully to be above this reason of the Nation which is the onely Original of the Law and refuse obstinately the Lawes which they shall choose to be setled he puts himself ipso facto out of the capacity of being a King any more unto them and if this can be made out to have been the way wherein the late King set himself and that it was the design of the House of Lords to uphold and inable him to follow that way it is evident that so far as he did by that means actually unking himself so far also they that assisted him in that design did unlord themselvs in the state thereof In which sentence of yours all readers when they compare with it what you lay down for a rule pag. 10. may easily wonder at your great forgetfulness Here you judge definitively in the highest way of the rights which supreme powers have over us and give in your verdict above all that I know hath ever been charged upon them and there you say for my own part I have taken this to be a rule whereby all private men such as I am as Christians ought to walk unblameablely under the Superiour powers of this world namely that it doth not belong to us to judge definitively of the rights which the Supreme powers in this world pretend to have to their places farther you say It is no part of our Christian profession to become Judges of the great ones of this world in respect of their rights and pretentions to power for we are to behave our selves as spiritual men in this world by the rule of our profession and as strangers and pilgrims therein Which passages how you will be able to reconcile I cannot reach And your mistake of the Customes of this Nation which so punctually you undertake to lay down equals your forgetfulness of your self so that here indeed at least you appear a stranger the Lawes are well known to have had still their first rise indifferently from-Lords and Commons sometimes from the one sometimes from the other the business of money onely excepted which alwayes with us begins with the Commons And
I suppose however it fares with the Lords Kings have not often been found guilty in refusal of their assent to Bills of Subsidies Taxes Pole-money Tonnage poundage c. And that it hath been a perpetual Custome for Kings and Lords to assent to all that the Cōmons have proposed is boldly affirmed endeavouring to perswade your reader that not only de jure it ought to be so which sure at some conference or other the Commons for prevention of so many disputes and reasonings would have charged upon the Lords but that de facto it hath been so when all that know any thing of the Custome of this Nation very well know the contrary that the Lords have given their assent or dissent to Bills sent from the Commons according as they have judged it most expedient and often sent them back with amendments according as in their sense they have judged them most meet to pass as Lawes and that Kings instead of yielding assent to Bills sent from Lords and Commons have often times onely returned a Le Roy avisera which sometimes as I have heard from singular Patriots hath turned to the great happiness of the Nation And as you pretend to have cleared the meaning of the Oath of Allegiance which was made in our own age by the consent as you say of all ages so you go about a further explanation of it by the third Article of the Covenant which is not opposite to the Oath of Allegiance and this obligeth you say to the preservation of the Kings Person and Anthority conditionally and with a limitation onely namely in the preservation and defence of the true Religion and Libertyes of the Kingdom Which Comment of yours upon that Article of the Covenant turning In into If to make a condition of it and changing the whole current of the words from our selves to the Kings so that they should be meant of the Kings preservation of Liberty and Religion and not our own when all before and after mentioned is our work and not his is such so forced and strained that it will abide the censure of no indifferent and unbiassed reader and is fully enough contradicted in those words which immediatly follow which you prudently conceale That the world may bear witness with our Consciences of our loyalty and that we have no thoughts or intentions to diminish his Majesties just power and greatness It was as is well known frequently charged upon the Parliament that what ever their intendments were for Religion and the publick Liberties yet they had an evil eye on his Majesty not brooking his power and greatness which was as frequently disavowed as a scandal not sufferable and in the Covenant for this very end this solemn appeal was inserted in which we have first an acknowledgment that his Majesty stood vested with just power and greatness and so no such forfeiture made as before you mention And secondly a serious protestation made that we have no intention to diminish it but as we resolve to preserve Religion and Liberty so we oblige our selves to loyalty to the Kings person and Authority and from all thoughts or intentions to diminish his power and greatness which is the true and clear meaning of it Upon mention of the Lawes and Liberties of the Kingdom you say The King either refractorily casting them off or seeming to yield unto them in such a way that no trust could be given him that he would keep what he yielded unto the Parliament did actually lay him aside and voted that no more addresses should be made unto him Where you seem unresolved whether it were guilt in his Majesty or jealousie in the Houses that occasioned those Votes Whether the King did actually deserve them or whether there was onely jealousie that he would render himself worthy of them The suspected Wife Numb 5. might not be cast off till her guilt was proved though some are pleased to put Kings and Wives both in one condition to be cast off meerly ad placitum the one by the husband the other by the people which as to Kings you seem not to judge unreasonable Then followes in your Letter from which time forward he was no more an object of your Oath of Allegiance but to be looked upon as a private man Yes sure when the Parliament had againe voted addresses to him ejus est tollere cujus est ponere If the Parliament have a legistative they have also legistranslative or repealing power if Votes can set free then Votes can reoblige you go on and say to an indifferent eye it namely the Engagement may be thought so far from being opposite to the true sence of either that it may be rather a confirmation of the ground for which both the Oath of Allegiance and third Article of the National Covenant was then binding for confirmation of which you say this or that outward form of Government is wholly accidental no wayes essential to any Nation in the world and therefore is alterable in respect of forms as is most expedient for their exigent necessities but to be governed by Lawes and to have the use of the true Religion and of the National freedom is absolutely necessary and essential to the being of a Common-wealth passing by that State Paradox that to have the use of the true Religion and of the National freedom is absolutely necessary and essential to the being of a Common-wealth so there neither is nor ever was any Common-wealth out of Cristendome nor many in it a few only having that happiness This takes wholly for granted that all our Oaths have respected barely the esse of the Nation or that which you say was called the Kingdom when all that reade them must confess that they had immediat respect to the bene esse in their present constitution and external administration we swear not barely to the remote end which is the intrinsecal good as you speak of the Nation but to the meanes which in the judgement of those which you sometimes call the reason of the Nation had a direct tendency to it namely the continuance of Monarchy in the present line any change attempted by men necessarily in humane reason tending to the Nations danger if not ruin and destruction Consult I pray you casuists when the oath in the express letter looks at the means which appears to lead to an end whether it be enough for the party sworn to intend alone the end in contradiction to the means which was the matter of the Oath If I come to a Garrison and be there questioned whether I come from the enemies quarters yea or no May I deny upon Oath that I came from thence when indeed I did satisfying my self with this that I will not betray the Garrison where I am the question whence I came being onely accidental the safety of the Garrison is the thing the Oath onely intended and to this in such an Oath I answer Inquire whether this be not perjury
agitur quibus tot suppetunt remedia it shews that no cure is wanting though the disease may seem desperate for if the supposition which I make were wholly yielded unto as I make it there would be no full opposition between the Covenant and other oaths found otherwise then in the mistaken apprehensions of some that scare themselves at the Engagement without a just cause my labour therefore is not lost if things misunderstood may be rectified as surely they may and I hope by this time in some degree are You admit that that which is extinct made void can no more oblige with this limitation provided that those who are obliged have no hand in extinguishing that which doth oblige them Corcerning the matter of an Oath how it may be extinguished or not extinguished to worke out their own disobligation this limitation I do admit and your instance in Davids case to Jonathan for preserving his seed I allow Yet if God had appointed Mephibosheth to dye and David to have given the sentence in the way of justice do you thinke that David would have been guilty of the breach of oath made to Jonathan for the preserving of his seed it is true we say the King dyes not that is the supream executioner of Laws dyes not but the King in his person was Civiliter mortuus as to his office when he was Voted close prisoner in the Isle of Wight and if there was just cause for it in the Judgement of the Supreame power of the Nation their oath for his preservation being limitted to a condition they will be able to answer before a higher Judge then you or I for what they have done The case which I suppose is concerning a private man who is no Judge in publique affaires who had no hand in sentencing him and therefore although in the preface of the Covenant mention is made of the King and his Posterity yet by his death the matter of the oath relating to him is extinct and by the cause of his death the Law hath involved his posterity That which you say here concerning Parliament-Priviledges being always the same and unalterable is onely said and not proved in like mauner when you tell me that we have now no Parliament actually existing you begge the Question and overthrow the fundamental position of a full House to be in the number of forty Trustees which I believe may be six times told in the List of those that now present themselves to that Assembly Your comparison of a Phisitian who cannot preserve except he recover strength doth suppose many things which are not granted therefore I shall not think them worthy of any larger answer then to tell you that the Covenant never meant that private men of whom I speak should be Judges of Parliament-priviledges or Phisitians to the publick diseases of the State Now whether my friend hath any just cause to scruple further neither you nor I are competent Judges but the impartial Reader the third man to whom and to your own second thoughts I shall leave this matter Upon the second part of my discourse to my friend you make some observations wherein you rather touch matters as it were in transcursu exceptiously then pitch upon a settled exception You tell me first that in stead of cleering the title of the present Powers as just and lawful and acquitting it from usurpation I make it unlawful to inquire and determine concerning it To this I say what the duty of Subjects is to their superiors till you make it appear that it is lawful for every private man to judge definitively of the Titles Rights and Actions of the Powers that are over him so as to oblige his Conscience to abstain from all lawful actings in his Calling under them till he be satisfied in all his scruples concerning them I must still for mine own part abstain from presuming to be their Judge in such matters and diswade others from that practise and perswade them to do their own affaires quietly and pray to God for their superiour Powers Then you blame me for holding forth the Rule by which I walk as if I did intend to make my self in all things my friends president or supposed him to be ready to follow me in all things I see nothing can be so well meant and done but it may be ill taken when men seek to make exceptions and not to edifie I thought the best way of edification was to hold forth the rules by which God doth teach us to walk and because I would have no man to follow me further then he seeth a Rule therefore I am interpreted to have an ambition to get followers truly I shall follow you gladly if you will shew me your Rule to be answerable to the word of God and why shew you not a fault in the Rule it self if it is lyable to exceptions but if you can except nothing against it why are you not so ingenous as to beare witness to the Truth but when we hunt after contradictions this is the Genius which leads us we look not to the thing but to experiences and in their wrong and worst side afterward you say that I have been found a transgressor of mine own Rule I see you allude to that which you said in your second exception but when you shall have answered that which I have said there to rectifie your mistakes then you will give me cause to think that you have a mind not onely to tell me that I have transressed my Rule but also to redress either me or my Rule if either be faulty for which I shall thank you when you intend it as you ought to do Concerning the Character of AntiChrist you deny nothing of that which I say but you desire me to take it into my serious consideration to whom that Character doth belong whether to those that seek out carefully to what power it is they owe justly subjection that they may submit themselves thereunto or to him who doth peremptorily determine of the forfeiture of Rights in those that before were posessed of an undoubted title Concerning the spirit that exalts itself above Magistrates where it appeares most and disobliging Subjects from their Obedience To this I say that I have considered seriously the matter and find that the answer is easie if the Case be stated as you offer it upon a mistake in the second part but let the Case be truly stated and then consider you also where the Character of a Spirit exalting it self above Magistrates doth most appear whether in him that submits himself to the higher Powers which God hath actualy set over him and without disputing their title or making himself a Judge of their actions doth all things just and lawful in his place under them as under the Ordinance of God because he doth believe that all Supream powers that are actually existent in the world are ordained of God and ought to be
Designe of this Discourse And if a course of amicable conferences had been more freely taken up heretofore and regularly followed upon this subject amongst godly Brethren as it ought to have been in the Law of Peace and Truth I make no doubt but some of these breaches might have been prevented and perhaps some of the old wasts and ruinous heaps might also have been repaired but because these thoughts of healing and of building up have not been laid to heart therefore our unsettlements have not onely continued but we have therein been led on unto sad courses of new divisions and unchristian animosities as for my self I can call the searcher of all hearts to witness that I have none other aim but to discharge a good conscience in this business and for the Gospels sake to seek out a Gospel-Remedy unto our publick evils for hereunto my thoughts have been many years ago lead forth and seeing my affections do still continue to prosecute this design not with humane contrivements but by the Grace of God in true simplicity I may therefore hope that God may be pleased in something happily to make me instrumental to his glory and my unpartial sollicitations for the wayes of Unity and Peace may become effectual to the comfort of his children however I shall not cease to concur in true humility with prayers and supplications unto the Father of Lights and the fountain of all good gifts that in end all who are upright in heart may according to his Counsel be united in the spirit of Christ and thereby notwithstanding some diversities of apprehensions about humane affairs be fitted more and more in spiritual concernments for his service and their mutual edification beseeching him withall that none of our weaknesses and sinful distances of spirit amongst our selves may bring any reproach upon the holy profession of the Gospel and of our Ministery or open the mouthes of our adversaries to take advantages against us while they watch for our haltings It is a sad matter that the Engagement intended for a ground of mutual safety and an assurance of harmlessness and indempnity amongst those that truly intend the intrinsecal good of the Common wealth should be so far mis-understood as to prove rather an object of strife and division then of an agreement The answer to the Preface and I am sorry that any of my expressions wherein I meant not to censure any body who is conscionable week or well-meaning should be taken in another sense then I did offer them but whether I have been in the fault by uttering them unadvisedly or others who through prejudices have mistaken me I hope upon a further disquiry of these matters it will in due time sufficiently appear nor shall I ever God willing be found averse from rectifying a fault if I can discern it when it is laid open to me I shall then come to the observations which you offer upon my considerations of the Engagement and that we may with more brevity clearenesss and readiness have recourse to the heads of matters whereof notice is to be taken I suppose our best course will be to mark the same with numericall Figures in the margen of our Papers which shall shew the things which answer each other and direct us to the places to which we speak 1. The first thing you take notice of is that yeilding an obligation to be settled between a King and his Subjects by a Law according to which he is to be their King and they his Subjects yet you say I produce no such Law in this case The plea that the King cannot be counted a transgressor of the law and if either the Law cannot be produced upon the transgression of which he doth ipso facto forfeit his Regalities or if his transgression of that Law cannot bee proved that then in this case there is no ground to quiet mens minds concerning that which is befallen him Now that a Law in this case cannot be produced you assert upon Mr. Cooke authority who gives the reason why no such Law was made to be the same for which Solon made none to punish Parrioides and that he cannot be counted a transgressor of the Laws you assert upon this ground because Kings in this Nation act nothing as Kings in their own persons but only by subordinate Agents whence you conclude that neither such a Law being extant nor although it were extant he being in a capacity of being a transgress or against it the thing which I alleage for dissabling the obligation of his Subjects from him can be of no force To this I shall give this answer That in my discourse I did not suppose any particular Positive and expresse Law extant between the King and his People specifying the tenure of their mutual obligation The answer doth shew what the law is to which a King is bound how far it should bind or not bind the Subject to him but I suppose only this much that there is a natural tacite and implicite law extant known and presupposed by all men who make any contracts one with another which is this that no contract doth otherwise bind but according to the condition upon which it is made If then a King is a King only upon this condition that he shall intend to Rule legally and not by will and force and if he breake this condition and actually attempt to rule not legally but by will and force then he hath ipso facto forfeited his Regality nor was it needfull that any penalty should be expresly denounced against any such transgression no more then in Solons Common-wealth against Parrieides not because such a fault if committed was not punishable but because all men by nature know what punishment it may deserve So then the want of a positive law in this matter doth not make that which I say at all invalid for although it be granted that there is no particular law declaring this or that act of his to be a full forfeiture of trust yet this is a known law to all that consider him to be under an oath of Ruling legally that in case he doth set himself to Rule lawlessy he hath broken his oath and fully forfeited his trust I say then that although in my discourse I named no law yet my meaning was to produce the law of nature when I said that the Oaths were reciprocall What absolves Subjects from alleagance to Kings standing falling together for this I take to be the law of nature in this case that if a King doth break the oath of his legality towards his Subjects his Subjects are absolved from the oath of their allegiance towards him Concerning that which you say that Kings as Kings act nothing in their own persons What laws Kings are exempted from not counted transgressors of in their owne persons and upon what conditions that exemption is granted them but only by their subordinat agents who alone are
punishable when the law is transgressed I know that this is the law in Cases of particular concernement wherein some speciall positive laws are transgressed but of the generall concernement whereby the whole ground of all legal governement is taken away that law cannot be understood Besides I conceive that the positive law which you mention doth suppose that the King is oliged to give up his subordinate Agents the transgessors of the laws unto the course of Justice and not to take all their faults upon himself so as to protect them with the shield of his indemnity or with the force of his word against the execution of vindicative Justice for if he doth this then he puts himself as to his own person out of the case of indemnity wherein the law puts it nor can that law be counted valid for him against his own will and against the Equity of the law of nature which in this ease doth make him guilty for if a King as a King by the intent of the law doth act nothing in his owne person but by his agents and yet he will not be counted to have acted by his agents but to have done all their faults in his own person then he declares ipso facto that he will not have the intent of the law valid as to himself but that he will stand in his agents roome and be look't upon as in their person and under their guilt and consequently not as a King but as a transgressor non quod volenti non fit injuria est regula juris Therefore I conceive thus By 3. wayes the prerogatives of exemption from being a transgressor may be lost by Kings That a King may make void as to himself and loose the prerogative of the law made in favour to his person three ways 1. If he set himself directly to disanul the general ground of all laws For this cannot be imputed to any subordinat agents as their guilt for they are lookt upon and made punishable only as transgressors in particular matters 2. If he doth in opposition to the intent of the law made for punishing transgressors and for exempting his own person from the guilt of particular transgressions take up on himself all the guilt of particular faults to protect iniquity and illegality then he doth effectually make void the prerogative which the law doth give him 3. If he doth by force take upon him to hinder the execution of the sentence of the supream Judicature for the protecting of transgressors against the law for to do this is the highest act of illegal government and in effect the putting down of all laws In all which Cases if you can make it appear to me rationally that by your positive law the King is to be meant no transgressor I shall confess a mistake but till then give me leave to think that I am no stranger to Reason when I am bold to say that no positive law of any Nation in the world can disanul the law of Nature which in such-like cases doth present a King even as a King to be in his own person a transgressor to the law-making power of the Nation which is to be governed legally and not arbitrarily The second thing which you take notice of is a seeming inconsistency between two passages of my discourse In the one you think I Judge definitly in the highest way of the Rights which Supream powers have over us and in the other which is pag. 10. I declare that it doth not belong to me or to any privat man to Judge definitively of the rights which the Supreâ—me powers in this world pretend to have to their places To reconcile this seeming inconsistency I shall desire you to reflect upon two things The answer doth shew the grounds of reconcileing it viz. The direct intent and proper subject of each part of my discourse whereunto the things seemingly inconsistent do relate which things in both places being very much different and bringing a different respect upon the passages supposed to be opposite when you shall perceive the same I hope your mistake will be rectified For in the first place my purpose is to declare what the fundamental constitution of the Government of this State is as I conceive it agreeable to the Universal law of nature by which all free Common-wealths are settled within themselves But in the second place viz. pag. 10. my purpose is to declare how my friend ought to behave himself for the quieting of his scrupulous Conscience in the doubts which he had concerning the particular present Powers and the lawfulnes of their coming to their places The proper subject of my discourse in the first place is concerning the Legislative power of all Nations as they are Common-wealths and how in this Nation that power hath been settled of old and the proper subject whereof I speak in the second place is concerning the particular ways by which the present powers are come and have a right to their places which are things of a very different nature Concerning the first if you look upon the Universal law of nature I suppose you wil grant that no man ought to be ignorant of it The application of the grounds to shew the reconcilement of the passages if you look upon the constitution of this State as that law is observed therein I hope you will alow me as one in matriculat into the Common-wealth and concerned as well as others in the common welfare thereof the judgement of discretion to consider and declare what I observe therein which at this time I think is my duty to mention but concerneing the second I give advice to my friend how he may quiet his spirit about the matters which concern him not and whereat he seemes to be troubled and decline to make my selfe a definitive Judge of the particular rights and proceedings of those that God hath set over us to Rule the Common-wealth So then in the formeâ— I observe what the law is under which we live and in the latter I refrain from the judicature of particular matters whereunto I have no calling to be a Iudge A mistake concerning the Commons right to make laws objected and what inconsistency is between these purposes and between the discourses which to this effect I make upon these subjects I shall refer now to your second thoughts to collect wherein I hope your imaginary difficultie to reconcile these passages will easily vanish Concerning that which I say of the Custome of this Nation that the Commons at all times have used to aske and propose the making of Laws that the Lords King were wont to give their consent thereunto you say I do as far in this mistake as I did forget my self in the other To this I say It is well if I am not further mistaken For I shall not stick to declare ingeniously the truth of my present thoughts that when I now reflect upon the expressions which
but also unto his word to walk by a Rule which I shall not contradict but heartily affirm with you and be ready to shew that by the word as a Rule we private men are bound to obey in things good and lawful the supreme powers immediatly and actually over us under God and not such as are not over us whom in opposition unto them we may be inclined to chuse As for the Engagement it doth clearly oblige us to do our duty to the Common-wealth collectively and representatively without a King but to my understanding the expression is not so against Kingly-power in it self considered but that the supreme power of the Nation may if they see cause and the publick safety in their judgements for they are only the competent Judges thereof doth require it set up a King again to morrow I do not think it in the power of any supreme power if they will be faithful to their trust to bind their own hands in such a way as not to do and undo for this would be to oblige themselves to that which is against the nature of their trust nor is it imaginable that the Covenant or any other obligation of Oath can be so high as to bind us so to a King or his Heire that we should not be able lawfully to promise truth and faithfulness to the Common-wealth without them when they are not in place The example of a Child to his Father beggs the Question and then the Lawes of men bind only to that which the letter directly imports in respect of outward actions mentioned in them and takes no notice of secret inward affections The Argument taken from Gods way of providence after a thing is done to acquiesce in it by doing our duty in all other things which the same providence doth offer can be no occasion to sin or any snare to do evil nor do I press it any further in this case but to acquiesce at things past which God hath altered and to do a duty at things present which God hath setled and if this Divinity will not hold in reference to private men I pray shew us some better Rule and we shall hearken to you in it Concerning the place of Isaiah Chap. 24. vers 21. where it is foretold that the Kings of the Earth shall be punished and afterward visited I shall admit of your caveat for I make onely a probable conjecture of that which God hath done or intendeth to do amongst us and not a peremptory definition of that which shall fall out Concerning the observation of Prophesies what the caveat is your admonition also concerning the doing of our duty I willingly receive and grant that Prophesies touching that which God will do are no rules for our actions but the Precepts touching his will which we should do must guide us That which you discourse of the fulfilling of the Prophesies concerning Christ to be put to death by wicked hands is a Truth Nay if men be wicked and have no respect to God in that which they do although they be sent forth with a special and express command of his own upon their works yet they do not his prescribed will as their duty but onely a material work wherein their aim may be undutifull Jehu is a clear example of this That which you bid me take into my serious consideration concerning the Engagement I hope God will inable me to do I can say it before him that I am not conscious to my self of want of Charity and tenderness to those that are scrupled nor do I think that this Engagement can be so clear to men preingaged in other strong bonds of duty which they cannot seedissolved and prepossessed against the way of the change perhaps more then comes to their share to judge of it and of the persons which have brought it about I say I think not that this Engagement can be so clear unto them The grounds of Moderation towards dissenters about the Engagement as that they should suddenly without any debate in their Spirits be carried to allow of it therefore I have alwayes been Sollicitou fo rs a moderation of proceedings and for amiable conferences to beget a good understanding of doubtfull matters whereinto by the necessities of the times we are fallen I confess that evidence doth not alwayes go along with Truth for to make a thing evident it must be offered ad modum recipientis and although men be such in whom both parts and piety are seen yet sometimes they are so shut up with prejudices wherein corrupons work that they act far below themselves and I dare not say that in the proposal of matters to cure them of prejudicate thoughts there is alwayes that humility love Prudency and imprejudicants used to them which is able to cure their disease without any further distemper and inflammation to their sores somtimes it may be truly said medice cura teipsum the Apostles memento Gal. 6.1 to keep us in a meek temper lest thou also be tempted is remarkable therefore God forbid that any should be pressed to act against judgement the dictates of their Conscience only by Club-law who seek rationally to consider things belonging to duty in the fear of God Concerning the resistance of powers that which you offer is worth the consideration and to help you to a decision of that which seemeth doubtful I pray consider in the Authours which are approved upon that Subject whether any doth allow that private men without all publick respect Concerning resistance of Powers may make such a resistance and about things wholly good and lawful in themselves as for the other question what a just power with right unquestionable may challenge is one thing and what a private Subject under an usurped power may do in opposition to the power which is actually over him is another thing therefore I shall desire you also to consider that private mens opinions concerning forfeitures of rights and usurpations without title are not warrantable grounds to act towards the unsettlement of the publick in opposition to powers that are in plenary possession of all places of Government As for your request in the conclusion that those who see not with my eyes and cannot warrant all that I approve having what to say if called unto it may obtaine from me a more favourable censure then to be judged unworthy of a being in the Common-wealth where by right of birth-right they have their freedome I shall profess that it never came in my thoughts so to censure any Concerning mutual forbearance and the equity thereof although I cannot but assert this to be a fundamental truth without which no Common-wealth can stand That Protectio trahit allegianciam and that whosoever is not desirous to performe every good work to the Society wherein he doth live doth not deserve to have a being therein although he were a hundred times borne in it Birth-right can give no man a just title to be an enemy to the Society wherein he hath a being now he is an enemy to every Society who is not desirous to performe every good work towards it But God forbid that any who hath what to say when called to it should not be heard in the Society where he liveth and is borne It hath been my earnest work to intreate men to say in a Christian way that which they had to say and I have used all the industry I could to bring them without partiality to it that by the things wherein we agree we might come to a further light in that wherein we agree not but I have reaped nothing almost but jealousies reproaches and slanders for my pains and have been worse rejected here even by men otherwise Godly then I have been in Forrain parts amongst the stiffest Lutherans Yet I hope that shall never make me weary in well doing or vary from the Rule whereby as I am taught to judge none before the time till the secrets of hearts and hidden designs of self-interest be opened So I hope the Lord will inable me never to shut the Bowels of pitty compassion or to restrain the affection of prayer and supplication against any whom I shall perceive to be in any dangerous error and ignorance and the like favour I shall also desire you to afford unto me when you look upon me in my frailtys and if we would be but truly carefull thus to beare one anothers burdens rather then to complain and murmur against each other or to misrepresent each other to the publick we should find more comfort in our way then now we do I shall close with you in your last request The Lord give us a right understanding in all things and grace to follow the things which we understand without partiality which is the upright indeauour of your Servant in Christ Joh. Dury From my Study this 24. May 1650. Reader there is lately come out these several Books of Mr. Duries 1. A Case of Conscience concerning Ministers medling with State-matters in and out of their Sermons 2. Considerations concerning the present Engagement 3. Just Reproposal to humble proposals 4. His vindication of himself 5. Objections against the Engagement answered FINIS