far from assailing or making war against them that they should not so much as defend themselves by a forcible resisting of them though they were assailed by them as Mauritius and his Legion were who being Six thousand six hundred well armed and very valiant men suffered themselves to be all killed upon the place without drawing a sword or lifting up a hand in their own defence against any of them that were sent by their Emperour to be the Executioners of his most unjust and cruel commands for it was for no other crime but because they were Christians and would not sacrifice to Heathen Idols as the rest of the Army did And for the aforesaid reason of St. Paul's did our Translatours render both the aforesaid words of St. Paul by our English word to resist not onely because to resist in a military notion is the primary and proper sense and signification both of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the words in the Text but because they were as our Church is of St. Paul's judgment namely That it is unlawfull for Subjects to take up defensive as well as offensive Arms against their Sovereign of which Judgment because Mr. Baxter and those of his party are not therefore the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must not be properly translated by the word resisting CHAP. XV. Subjects resisting their Sovereign irrational as inconsistent with all Government wherein of necessity a Supreme Power and that unquestionable Monarchy the onely Government of God's making Some false Assertions and self-contradictions of Mr. Baxter 's taken notice of BUt to leave this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or bickering about a word though I hope it was a Digression not altogether useless and impertinent by resisting we mean a forcible resistance or taking up of Arms by Subjects against their Sovereign whether offensive or defensive upon any pretence whatsoever which I affirm to be unlawfull not onely because it is impious and irreligious but because it is irrational and impolitick and imprudent also That it is impious and irreligious hath been proved already first because it is not onely not allowed but contradicted and forbidden by God's word and secondly because it was not onely not practised but disclaimed and declared against by the Primitive and best Christians I am now to prove it to be irrational as well as impious and impolitick and imprudent as well as irreligious And first I say 't is irrational because it is inconsistent with the necessary natural and essential constitution of all Government in all National Societies of any kind whatsoever and consequently destructive to the very being it self of the body Politick For in all National Societies I mean such as are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or independent upon any other Societies there is and of necessity always must be some where or other an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is a Supreme Power or a Supremacy of Power whereunto all other powers in the same Society are Subordinate as being derived from it and subservient and accountable to it and overruled and punishable by it the supereminent and Supreme Power it self and whosoever is intrusted and invested with it being always and in all cases 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unquestionable and consequently unpunishable because to question to judge and to punish are all of them Acts of Authority and Jurisdiction which cannot be exercised but by a superiour on his inferiour but Supremo non datur superior The Supreme hath no superiour above him in the same Body Politick and where the Supremacy is there can be no liableness to coercion Now this ratiocination or dictate of Reason is grounded upon a dictate of Nature it self namely that in the Subordination of things and persons unto one another theâ—e cannot be Progressus in infinitum A progression to infinity And therefore that which Grotius saith to this purpose is evidently and necessarily true namely that in Imperiis quia non datur progressus in infinitum omniuò aut in aliqua persona aut Coetu consistendum est quorum peccata queniam superiorem se Judicem non habent ultori Deo sunt relinquenda That is In Governments because there cannot be an infinite or endless progress we must of necessity set a stop in some one person or company of men whose faults or miscarriages because they have no Judge above them are to be left to God the Avenger O utinam vir ille magnus c. I wish that great man had said so always and without exception for any one Exception of which he hath divers will make the whole Rule it self to be useless and insignificant as we shall see hereafter In the mean time that there is such an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Sovereign Power in every National independent Government or Body Politick Mr. Baxter doth not deny and that it may be not onely in one as in Monarchy but in more than one as in an Aristocracy or a Democracy I will not gainsay though I must needs observe by the way that Ab initio non fuit sic From the beginning it was not so And that there is but one of these three forms or kinds of Government of God's making and that was Monarchy For as God made the first Man after his own Image or after the Image or likeness of himself so he made the first Government of mankind here on earth that of Nations I mean as well as that of Families and particularly that of his own People the Jews after the Image or likeness of his own Government in Heaven which was and is and ever will be Monarchical neither do we find in Scripture any Precept for obedience to be given or for prayers to be made for any Sovereigns or Supreme Governours but for Kings onely The other two sorts of Government of which the last viz. Democracy is incomparably the worst are but Mens inventions and shall have an end as all other Inventions of men shall have also but Monarchy as it was from everlasting so it shall be to everlasting But to let this pass whether it be a Monarchy or an Aristocracy or a Democracy the Sovereign or Those that have the Sovereign Power are saith Mr. Baxter above all the Humane Laws of the Commonwealth that is saith he they have Power to make Laws and to repeal them to correct add to them and dispense with them and pardon the breach of them to particular persons and the Sovereign as he is Sovereign is not bound to keep them or to suffer by them And the reason of this saith he is evident from the nature of Sovereignty mark that because he that is the Sovereign is the highest and therefore hath no higher to obey Euge Mr. Baxter Well said so far Loyal Mr. Baxter And farther yet namely in the next Aphorism to this That a Sovereigns is not free from the obligation of the Laws of
And therefore when our Law saith the King can do no wrong the meaning is not as I conceive that the King cannot do that or command that to be done which is really a wrong or injury to any or perhaps to many or all of his Subjects as David did when he numbred the People for which sin 70. Thousand of them were swept away by the Plague in three days But the meaning of that Maxime in our Law I say as I humbly conceive is that if the King should do or cause to be done never so great a wrong yet he is not legally accountable or questionable or punishable for it by any power on Earth and much less by any of his own Subjects Whereunto another Maxime of our Law seems to be a Witness which tells us that the Crown takes away all defects or that he who is King is not chargeable with or answerable for whatsoever he hath done amiss And hereunto the Law of God bears witness also For in this sence it was that King David confessing those two great sins of Adultery and Murder unto God saith Against Thee Only have I sinned not as if he thought he had not sinned very highly and heinously too against Bathsheba and Vriah by defiling the one and murdering the other but because he was not accountable to or punishable by any but God for it Any other Man of the Nation that had committed either of those Crimes must by God's own Judicial Law have been put to death for it without mercy How came it to pass then that David who was notoriously guilty of both those capital Crimes was never called to account for either or both of them The reason is plain because there was none that had Authority to call him to an account for it not any other King for all Kings properly so called are equal as to the right of non-subordination to one another and Par in parem non habet Imperium a Peer or equal hath no right of Authority over his equal or Peer and much less Inferior in Superiorem an Inferiour over his Superiour for such are Subjects of all Qualities and in all Capacities in relation to their Soveraigns But did David then escape unpunished No for God who is only their Superiour and therefore the only Judge of Kings did question and arraign and judge and condemn and punish him for it though not by shedding his blood for the blood that he had shed yet by shedding the blood of his darling Son Absolom which was more grievous than the shedding of his own blood would have been to him as appears by his so often and so passionately wishing he had dyed for him Be wise therefore O ye Kings and be learned O ye Judges Ye that are Supreme Judges here on Earth and think not because you cannot be punished by Men therefore you shall not be punished at all if you deserve to be so for Reges in ipsos Imperium est Jovis the Almighty God's rule and authority is over Kings themselves could a Heathen man say The exemption of Kings from being punished by Men doth make them the more obnoxious to be punished by God either here or hereafter and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is a fearful and terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God But of the punishment which Kings are to expect from God I have spoken before as likewise why Kings who are Monarchs or Kings indeed cannot be question'd or called to account for any thing they have done or may be supposed to have done amiss because they have no Superiour That which I am now doing is to prove our King to be a Monarch because he hath no Superiour nor is ever a whit the less a Monarch because according to the legal Establishment or constitution of our Kingdom our Kings cannot make Laws for their Subjects without the consent of their Representatives that is without their Subjects own consents in Parliament For I demand how comes it to pass that they cannot Is it not because they did at first out of their meer grace and favour to their Subjects give away the Power they had formerly of doing otherwise William the Conqueror from whom our Kings ever since derive their Right and Title to the Crown could and did make Laws for the People without asking or having their antecedent consent to them It is true the Conqueror himself when he was crowned King took an Oath to govern justly and afterwards he took an Oath to observe the Antient Laws of the Realm established by his Noble Predecessors the Kings of England and especially those of Edward the Confessor as Daniel tells us but it is true too as the same Historian tells us He brought in the Customes of Normandy so that the main stream of our Common Law with the practice thereof saith the same Author flowed out of Normandy notwithstanding all Objections that can be made to the contrary And it was the Son of this Conqueror Henry the First who because saith the same Author he would not wrest any thing by an Imperial Power from the Subjects took a course to obtain their free consents to serve his occasions in their General Assemblies of the three Estates of the Land which he first convoked at Salisbury in the Fifteenth Year of his Reign which had from his time the name of Parliaments according to the manner of Normandy And in all probability as this was the beginning of our Kings not raising of Money so was it likewise of their not making of Laws but with the consent of the Representatives of their People in Parliament But whether it began then or sooner or later I am sure it must be the Kings granting of it that made it to be what it is I mean the legal way of proceeding in order to the making of Laws by our Kings for the Government of their People A most excellent way indeed but such a one as whosoever may have been the deviser or advisers of it it could never have been established as it is but by the King 's voluntary and arbitrary consent to it I say his arbitrary as well as his voluntary consent to it because it was in his power whosoever the King was that granted it first not to have granted it if he would CHAP. IX Mr. B. 's whimsey of an antecedent Compact between the King and People Their consent to the making of Laws when ever brought in a thing of Grant not of Contract Their double Capacity as Mr. B. fansies and states it FOR to think there was any Government here in England before that of Kings or that the People when they were under no Government at all did or could unanimously consent to be governed by one whom they should choose to be their King upon such or such conditions and with such or such limitations reserving to themselves such or such
Principle common to them all and what can that be but the Law of Nature and what is the Law of Nature but the Law of God himself written in mens hearts And therefore it was according to this Law before there was any positive Law of God or Man in the case that Jacob in blessing of his Children before his death did acknowledge Reuben's right of Primogeniture by saying that his was the excellency of dignity and the excellency of power because he was his first-born if he had not forfeited it by defiling his Father's Bed and consequently by committing Incest as well as Adultery crimes punishable by death even in those days as appears by Judah's condemning his Daughter-in-Law Thamar to be burnt supposing her to have been an Adulteress And it was for a crime punishable by death also that Simeon and Levi the two next eldest Sons of Jacob lost the priviledge of their Birth-right also namely for being guilty of the horrible murder of the Inhabitants of the whole City of Shechem And thus the dignity of Excellency and the dignity of Power came to be the Inheritance of Judah Jacob's fourth Son because the three Elder Brothers had forfeited their Right thereunto by being guilty of such Crimes as were punishable by death which guilt of theirs being given by their Father Jacob as a reason why or cause for which they were disinherited from thence we may infer first that naturally or according to the Law of Nature the Eldest and consequently the next in bloud hath a right to inherit before those that are younger or those that are farther off And 2dly That they are not to be excluded from that right of theirs but for some very great crime or unless God who disposeth of all things as he pleaseth do prefer the younger before the elder as he did Jacob before Esau Ephraim before Manasses and David the youngest before all his elder Brethren though Isaac and Joseph and Samuel himself seem to wonder why he did so it being contrary to the dictates of Nature and the general practice of all Mankind and contrary to the general Positive Law of God himself also concerning the descent of Inheritances from Father to Son and if he have no Son to his Daughters and if he have no Daughters to his nearest Kinsman of his Family as is set down at large Numb 27. from Verse the 8th to the 12th compared with Deuteronomy the 21. v. 16. where it is said that if a Man have a younger Son by a Wife that he loves better than he loved her by whom he had his eldest Son he shall not make the Son of his beloved Wife the first-born that is his Heir before the Son of the Wife whom he hated who is indeed the first-born or indeed his eldest and therefore indeed and in right his Heir which right it seems by the Text his Father could not deprive him of or take from him unless he were so rebellious and incorrigible as that he was to be stoned by the People and put to death for it as may be gathered from the Verses immediately following in the aforesaid Chapter So that it seems it was not by the Positive Law of God in the power of the Father to deprive his eldest Son of his Birth right for any thing less than would deprive him of his Life neither was a younger Son to be preferr'd before the eldest as to the Prerogatives of Birth-right because he was a better Man or a better Son because the Prerogative of Birth-right was not founded in Grace but in Nature and therefore though Cain was graceless and impious and Abel a righteous and religious Person yet God tells Cain that he was to rule over Abel which he could have no right or title to but because he was his elder Brother and so was profane Esau to rule over Jacob upon that Account only if he had not sold him his Birth-right and with it his Right and Title to Lordship over him And as this was the way of succeeding in the Government of Families so was it in the Government of Kingdoms also generally amongst the Gentiles as they were led by the light and instinct of Nature only and particularly amongst the Jews by the Positive Law of God as appears by the Catalogue and Genealogy of the Kings of Juda where the eldest of the Sons did always succeed his Father in the Kingdom without interruption unless God himself who is King of Kings was pleased to interpose as he did in the succession of David to Saul and of Solomon to David which were both of them Acts of God's Prerogative and not according to the ordinary course of Law amongst the Jews as appears by Solomon's answer to his Mother Batshebah when she spake to him to let his Brother Adonijah have Abishag the Shunamite to Wife Ask for him said he the Kingdom also for he is mine elder Brother which is a plain confession of Solomon himself that according to the ordinary course of Law then in force Adonijah should have succeeded David in the Kingdom had not David who was a Prophet as well as a King known God's mind to the contrary And indeed God had made known his mind unto David concerning Solomon by Nathan the Prophet when assoon as he was born he called his name Jedidiah that is beloved of the Lord thereby making David to understand that he was design'd to succeed him in the Throne Whereunto may be added that perhaps Adonijah was confederate with Absolom whose Brother he was by the same Mother in his rebellion against David and consequently had forfeited what was due to him by his Birth-right being guilty of what he deserved to be put to death for though by reason of his Fathers fondness of him he was not put to death for it But whether this or God's Intimation of his pleasure to David by Nathan the Prophet were the reason that Solomon the younger Brother was preferred before Adonijah the eldest to succeed David in the Kingdom it is evident by Solomon's aforesaid answer to his Mother and by the constant course of succession in that Kingdom that there as well as in all other Nations the eldest Son or nearest in bloud was legally to succeed in Thrones as well as in Families and do so still and are of right to do so in all Hereditary Kingdoms from which right grounded upon the Law of Nature attested by the general practice of all Mankind in all places and in all ages and ratified by God's positive Law to his own People I see not how any man can be excluded without some kind of Violation of the Law of Nature or without some kind of unbecoming Reflection upon the Positive Law of God it self as if God had not made as good and as wise a Law to obviate all inconveniences for his own People as any People could make for themselves CHAP. VI. Such Exclusion
but yet more spitefully and more mischievously when in the close of his Animadversions upon the Dean of St. Paul's Sermon he speaks of somebody that removed somebody from a great Man's service who might have kept him from Apostatizing if he had been suffered to continue with him meaning my supposed removing Mr. Jones the Authour of Elymas the Sorcerer from being one of the Duke of York's Chaplains These are the things that Mr. Baxter doth either directly and expresly or implicitely and obliquely charge me withall And perhaps there be many more in other of his voluminous Writings which I have not seen nor heard of yet and all of them as true perhaps as any of those I have here named that is not true at all as I hope I shall make it appear to any indifferent and impartial Reader that will take the pains to compare his several Allegations with my several Answers to them CHAP. II. The Bishop's Answer in general to his charge of Many Mistakes in a Letter of the Bishop's long since printed together with a pretended Answer of Mr. B 's to it and the Reason of reprinting that Letter of the Bishop's FIrst then whereas Mr. Baxter chargeth me with having made many Mistakes in a Letter I writ and printed many years ago to justifie my silencing of him when I was Bishop of Worcester it is to be observed 1. That this is a charge in general terms onely without specifying any one of those many mistakes in particular And 2 dly that he names no body no not so much as any one of his own Party that now doth or ever did for 20 years together lay any such thing to my Charge besides himself so that whether there be many or any or if any mistakes they being mistakes in matter of Fact as he saith they are there is no Constat no other evidence but Mr. Baxter's bare Affirmation onely whereunto my bare Negative ought in Law Equity and Reason to be esteemed a sufficient Answer Unless though according to the Apostolical Canon an accusation against a Presbyter ought not to be received by a Bishop for so was Timothy without two or three witnesses yet an accusation of a Bishop by a Presbyter without any witnesses at all ought to be believed and that in matter of Fact too which cannot be otherwise proved but by Witnesses or unless as S. Hierom saith of himself and St. Austin that Quamvis Episcopus sit major Presbytero tamen Augustinus est minor Hieronymo Though a Bishop be greater than a Presbyter yet Austin is less than Hierom So Mr. Baxter will say as I doubt not but he thinks that though the authority of a Bishop be greater than a Presbyter's yet such a Presbyter as Mr. Baxter ought to be credited before such a Bishop as Bishop Morley Be it so but yet neither Bishop nor Presbyter nor any body else is to be believed in his own Case or upon his accusing of a third person upon his own word or upon his own affirmation onely especially when the accusation is general without any instance thereof in particular As if when one man speaking of another saith he is a Liar a Thief or a Perjured person he were to be believed and the man he speaks of were to be thought to be such a one as he saith he is without so much as naming and much less proving any one particular either Lie or Theft or Perjury that he is guilty of What is this but to make a Pope of a Presbyter for the Pope claims no more than that his Ipse dixit his bare saying of a thing should be proof enough to oblige men to believe what he affirms to be true no nor so much neither as to matter of fact though some of the Pope's shameless Sycophants have of late offered to maintain that he is as Infallible in matter of Fact as he is in matter of Faith and I verily believe him to be so And I believe likewise that many of the Nonconformists have the same opinion of their Teachers which the most Bigott-Papists have of their Pope as to their Veracity at least if not to their Infallibility also So I mean as undoubtingly to believe whatsoever they teach them in matters of Faith or tell them in matters of Fact But whether it be because they are taught to believe so or because their having such mens persons in admiration makes them believe so I will not I cannot determine I hope it is the latter rather than the former though I am afraid some of their Teachers are well enough pleased they should so esteem and believe of them Howsoever or whatsoever may be the cause of it We are sure enough by undeniable experience that it is so And truly Mr. Baxter doth very much presume upon his own very great or upon my very little Credit in the World if he thinks that whatsoever he is pleased to say of me without any proof or instance of it will for his own bare saying of it onely be believed by any but those of his own party and by those of his own party I mean not all the Nonconformists but the Baxterian Nonconformists onely if there be any such besides himself But Mr. Baxter may perhaps say in his own behalf that although in his aforesaid Preface to his Book of Concord he gives no particular instance of any of the many mistakes he chargeth me with yet in his Answer to that Letter of mine wherein he says those many mistakes are in general there were not Instances onely but also Proofs of all and every one of those many mistakes in particular Well But Where is that Answer of his to that Letter of mine Why Mr. Baxter after he had writ it laid it aside for so Mr. Baxter himself which ought to be taken for proof enough saith But Why did he lay it aside Sure he did not mean to lay it aside when he writ it It was therefore for some very extraordinary reason if he did so For never any man had a greater 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 natural tenderness and affection for all the Issues of his own brain than Mr. Baxter seems to have Which Issues of his are so numerous as if he had begun to write assoon as he could speak and to print assoon as he could write and they do so croud to come into the world that one seems to take hold of the heels of another as Jacob did of Esau's strugling which should get out first and from this striving while they were yet in the womb of his brain comes their so often crossing and contradicting of one another after he is delivered of them This fondness of his towards his own conceptions and the delight he takes in the multiplying and publishing of them makes me think that either there was never any such Answer at all made by him or if indeed there were any such Answer there
Neither indeed doth Grotius propose them to infer any such conclusion but rather to establish the contrary as appears plainly by the words immediately preceding which are these Diximus summum Imperium tenentibus resisti jure non posse nunc quoedam sunt quoe Lectorem monere debemus nè putet in hanc legem delinquere eos qui reverà non delinquunt that is We have said saith he that is we have positively affirmed or concluded that those that have the Supreme Power may not lawfully be resisted but now we are to give the Reader a Caveat that he may not think those to be transgressours of this Law who indeed are not or that to be a transgression of this Law which indeed is not And then he proposeth all the aforesaid Instances as seeming to be but not being indeed inconsistent with the Law as he calls it of not resisting the Supreme Power wheresoever it is placed or whosoever they be that are invested with it that Law of not resisting the Supreme Power being the very foundation upon which all Humane Societies of all kinds are built and superstructed and the Palladium The pledge of security whereby they are preserved in their several forms or constitutions so that from or against this Law there lies no exception nor any dispensation with it by any humane Authority upon any pretence either of Civil or Religious Interest or upon any either pretended or real Grievance of the Subject by their Sovereign in any kind or degree whatsoever CHAP. XVII Several other Reasons to prove the Vnlawfulness of resisting in any Case whatsoever The Holy League in France and our late Rebellion brought in by way of Parallel ANd the Reasons for this besides what hath been already produced out of Scripture are First Because the object of humane Prudence in the constitution of humane Societies and Kingdoms or Commonwealths is not to prevent all such Grievances as possibly may be no nor all such as considering the pravity and perversness of humane nature ordinarily will be and of necessity must be even in the best constituted and best managed State or humane Society whatsoever For as St. Paul saith Oportet esse Hoereses There must be Heresies in the Church not as if it were not better there were none but because as long as men are men that is such cross-grain'd creatures and of such different Morals and Intellectuals from one another as they are there cannot chuse but be some Heresies in the Church so and for the very same reason oportet esse gravamina there must be that is there cannot chuse but be Grievances in the Civil State or Common-wealth also And therefore the object of humane prudence seeing it cannot prevent or provide against all evils that may or will be in all States it is as much as may be to prevent or provide against those that are the greatest rather than the lesser and those that are likely to happen often rather than those that are not likely to happen at all or very seldome and those that are inconsistent with the being rather than those that are inconsistent with the well-being onely of a State or Body Politick For as in the body natural so in the body Politick no remedy is to be prescribed or applyed that is worse than the disease And therefore Secondly Any gravamina nay all the gravamina or grievances that Subjects can suffer under their Sovereign are to be endured rather than they are to rebell or to rise up in Arms against him because that will be the cause of more and greater evils than any of these are or can be against which it can be made use of for a remedy For no Tyranny can be so bad as Anarchy and any Government how Tyrannical soever is better than none And therefore it was the saying of one of the wisest Statesmen that ever was in the World Iniquissimam pacem justissimo bello antefero I prefer said he the most injurious Peace that is such a peace wherein men are obnoxious to the greatest injuries before the most just War he means the most just Civil War or such a Civil War as may seem to have the justest or most justifiable causes for it because indeed any Civil War upon what grounds or pretences soever it be undertaken puts the whole body of the Commonwealth into a much worse condition than it can be under any Government or any Governours whatsoever For whilst there is a Government though neverso unjust or injurious there is some authority and execution of Laws for the protection of the innocent if not of the Subjects against the Sovereign yet of the Subjects against one another but Silent leges inter arma When rebellion is up there is no safety for any man against any man not for Fathers against their Children nor for Brethren against Brethren Non hospes ab hospite tutus One friend is not safe from another To conclude Rebellion is the ingagement of the whole body of the Commonwealth against it self and will if it be not suppressed make it at length Felo de se A murtherer of it self and to end either in the desolation or dissolution of it self So that whereas all other evils are but prejudicial to the well-being This I mean Rebellion or a rebellious Civil War is always in its tendency though not always perhaps in the event destructive to the very Being of all States and Humane Societies whatsoever and consequently to the peace and welfare of Subjects as well as Sovereigns that is to all and every one of mankind And therefore this being the greatest of all Evils it is never to be made use of to prevent or redress any that are less and consequently never to be made use of at all because all other evils incident to a Body Politick are less than this and that not onely taken singly but jointly also And yet Thirdly there is one Reason more why in humane prudence and according to the dictates of right reason the Rebellion of Subjects against their Sovereign ought not to be allowed no not though possibly it might so happen that humanely speaking there could be no other way or means to preserve the very Being of the Body Politick as for example in one of the aforesaid Instances or Cases which is put by Grotius but put by him as hardly credible supposing there should be such a King as would profess so implacable a hatred to his Subjects that he would if he could destroy them all and that he will endeavour to doe so The question is whether because possibly there may be such a Case there ought not to be some exception from the aforesaid general Rule of the unlawfulness of Subjects taking up of Arms to resist their Sovereign in any case whatsoever I answer No and that not onely because St. Paul in his prohibition to resist the Supreme Power hath made no such exception though one of the Supreme Powers whom he
Pronunciarunt si quis attentaverit ita se firmare ut Rex resistere non potuerit Rebellionis tenetur c. They pronounced or declared that if any man should attempt to make himself so strong that the King should not be able to resist him he is guilty of Rebellion Item that the Law interpreteth that in every Rebellion there is a conspiracy against the Life and Crown of the King for a Rebell will never suffer the King to live or reign who may afterwards punish or revenge such his Treason or Rebellion Which Interpretation of the Law of England they confirmed First By the Imperial or Civil Law whereby to do any thing against the safety of the Prince is reputed to be Treason Secondly By the force of Reason because it cannot be but that he which hath once given Law to his King should never permit the King to recover his former authority or to live left at any time after he should revenge it Thirdly and lastly They confirmed it likewise by Examples drawn from our English Chronicles of Edward the II. and Richard the II. both which being once by force of Arms gotten by their Subjects into their Power were not long after Deposed and made away also I have repeated at large what was then said to be the Law of England by the authorised and sworn Expositors of the Laws I mean the Judges And from what was said by them then in that particular Case I observe First That Arms taken up or Forces raised by Subjects of what condition or upon what pretence soever without the Sovereigns leave or commission are in construction of Law taken up and raised against the Sovereign Secondly That such Forces so raised against whomsoever or to what end soever they are pretended to be employed are in construction of Law intended not only to take away the Kings Power but his Life also And Thirdly Because the Law presumes that those that have taken away his Power will not let him live for fear he may recover his Power and revenge himself of those that took it away from him I cannot chuse but think that the Presbyterian Party though they did not at first intend to take away the Kings life yet after they had taken away his Power and made him their Prisoner and used him so barbarously as they did whilst he was their Prisoner I cannot chuse but think I say that had not the Independents taken him out of their hands they would have taken away his life at last also though not by a formal publick judiciary Tryal as the Independents did but some way or other they would have done it For who can believe they would have suffered him to live or at least to live as a King whom They could not chuse but think they had provoked beyond a capacity of being Pardoned by him if ever he should be in a condition to be revenged of them And why should We think they would have stuck at making him away in the dark or in a Prison whom before they had so often indeavoured to kill in the open Field For it is to be supposed saith Mr. Baxter that those that fight would kill those they fight against and therefore it is to be supposed likewise say I that those that commissioned their Armies to fight against their King as the Presbyterian Parliament did the Earl of Essex did commission them likewise to kill the King if they could For I never heard that the King was excepted from being fought against and consequently from being kill'd in any of their Commissions or that so much as any private Instruction or Intimation was given to my Lord of Essex or to any of his Officers much less to all of them to spare the King such a one I mean as David gave to Joab and the Officers of his Army for the sparing of Absolom So that there was no more care taken by the Parliament for sparing of the King's life than for sparing the life of any of those whom their Armies were commissioned to sight against and kill and consequently they were commissioned to kill the King as well as any of the rest They were to fight withal And if so then not only those that commission'd those that fought against the King but those that stirred them up and encouraged them to fight against the King did stir them up and encourage them to kill the King also and if so how can the Presbyterian Clergy of those times especially the London and Parliament Preachers be excused from being intentionally guilty of the late King's death before he was actually murthered by the Independents But of all the rest how will Mr. Baxter excuse himself who tells us it is to be supposed that those that fight would kill those they fight against and consequently that those that encourage them to fight do encourage them to kill those whom they fight against and withal confesseth that he encouraged thousands to do that which the Law calls fighting against the King how will he I say excuse himself from being consequentially at least if not intentionally guilty of the late Kings Death How then can he with any ingenuity or sincerity say that he was never guilty of hurt to the Person or destruction of the Power of the King And yet he doth say so and that so confidently that he professeth likewise that if either this or that viz that if either he was guilty of hurt to the Person or destruction of the Power of the King can be proved against him he will never gain-say them that call him a most perfidious Rebell and tell him he is guilty of a far greater sin than Murther Whoredom Drunkenness and such like In the mean time he doth confess and is convinced it seems that a Rebel is a worse man and a greater sinner than a Drunkard or a Whoremonger or a Murtherer if he be indeed a Rebel though perhaps he doth not think so which is a severer sentence than I durst have pronounced upon many of those that were indeed Rebels but did not think themselves to be so but were misled by their spiritual guides who made them believe that to fight against the King was to fight for the King and that all the while they were doing God and the King good service which the greater diminution it was of their sin that were so deceived the greater aggravation it was of their guilt that did so deceive them And yet those that were the least sinners of these Rebels were according to Mr. Baxter's account greater sinners than Drunkards Whoremongers and Murtherers so that if he could as truly as he doth boldly and frequently charge most of the Episcopal Party with Drunkenness and Vncleanness and Profaneness yet seeing he cannot charge them with Rebellion against their Sovereign they will still be less evil how bad soever they are than the best of those of his
Objection might be this That although the Parliament or the two Houses of Parliament cannot make any Laws without the Kings consent yet the King may make Laws without their consent in some cases namely when the publick safety is concerned that such a Law or such Laws should be made though one or both of the Houses will not consent to it In such a Case I say not according to mine own but Mr. Baxter's opinion such a Law or such Laws may be made by the King without nay against the consent of both Houses and à paritate rationis for the same cause and by the like reason Mony may be raised if without raising of Mony a Naval Force for example as may be sufficient for the preservation of the Kingdom from imminent dangers by a foreign Invasion cannot be had and then according to Mr. Baxter's Hypothesis what can be said against raising of Ship-money by the late King he being the Judge of the greatness and imminency of the danger and that it could not stay for a Parliamentary Supply there being no Parliament then sitting and the greatest Extraparliamentary Judicatory of the Nation having been advis'd with by the King and given him their opinions that he might legally do what he did certainly these things considered if Mr. Baxter's Aphorism be true the King 's raising or indeavouring to raise Ship-Mony without consent of Parliament was not so hainous a violation of the legal constitution which he was obliged or had obliged himself to govern by especially after it was by his consent condemned in Parliament as to be made as it is by Mr. Baxter one of the principal causes of his siding with the Parliament in Rebellion against the King For if the King were maximè dignus istâ contumeliâ indignus illequi faceret tamen if he did never so much deserve this affront yet it did not become Mr. Baxter to give it him not only because by the highest Judicature then in being it was declared to be legal but because according to Mr. Baxter's own judgment declared in this Aphorism the King might have done it supposing it necessary for the Preservation of the publick though it had not been legal But this shall not be my Answer to the aforesaid Objection I remember what I have said before upon another Occasion viz. that A mischief is better than an Inconvenience which I think is a maxime of our Law and the meaning of it is as I conceive that it is better to run the hazard of a very great Evil which possibly may but is very unlikely will befall us than for the avoiding or preventing of it to make use of such a Remedy as frequently may be and probably will be made use of when there is no such Occasion for it or need of it And so that which was used as a Remedy for the present may prove a Malady for the future in the Consequence of it And therefore for answer to the aforesaid objection I will not say that the King can make Laws to oblige the whole Nation without the consent of both Houses of Parliament though never so much for the publick good or never so necessary for the preservation of the whole Kingdom but this I will say that though such Laws cannot be made without their consent yet it is not they nor their consenting to them that makes them to be Laws For then either the Bills would be Laws assoon as they were passed by both Houses or the being passed by the two Houses must oblige the King to pass them also but neither of these is true according to the legal and fundamental constitution of our Government as appears not only by the constant Practice to the contrary but by the frequent and importunate Addresses made unto the late King by the two Houses of the rebellious Parliament to make their Ordinances to be Laws by his consent to them which certainly being so high as they were then they would never have done if they had thought that either their Ordinances were Laws or had the Obligatory power of Laws before the King gave it to them or that he might not if he would refuse to give it So that it being not only the Kings consent but his free arbitrary and voluntary consent that gives being to all Laws the Legislative Power properly so called must needs be in the King and in the King only The Legislative Power I say properly so called I mean the very making of that to be Law which is Law abstracting from whatsoever it is that goes before or that follows after it is made for certainly neither of them can be essential to the making of it and yet both of them may be very requisite for the making of the Laws to be such as may the more willingly be obeyed by the People Now by what goes before the making of Laws here with us I mean the considering debating and agreeing of both Houses what shall be proposed to the King by them to be by him made to be Laws and by what follows after the King by his Le Roy le veult hath made them Laws I mean the solemn Preface or Preamble to them whereby it is declared that there was a concurrence of the Lords and Commons to the making or enacting of them because the subject matter of them was prepared and agreed on by the Lords and Commons and then and not till then proposed to the King by them to be made Laws by him So that the subject matter of our Laws is and always must be from the two Houses or at least from their agreement and consenting to it And in this respect it is that they may be said to concur to the making of our Laws though they do not make them For it is as I said before not the Matter ex quâ res est out of which a thing is made which is prepared and proposed by the Houses but the Form per quam res est by which a thing is what it is which is wholly from the King that makes what the Houses propose to him to be made a Law to be a Law which although he may do or refuse to do as he pleaseth yet because he can make nothing to be Law but what by the Agreement of both Houses is propos'd to him to be made a Law by him and consequently though our Laws are not nor cannot be made by them yet they are not nor cannot be made without them neither therefore I say they do concur to the making of them though they do not make them They concur to the making of them because the Legislative matter or the matter whereof Laws are made and must be made is from them but they do not make them because the form whereby they are made to be what they are is not at all from them but solely and wholly from the King and consequently he is the sole efficient or
deny them to be of right due unto them as appears by the late Kings answer to the Petition of Right but due unto them not by capitulations and contracts with them before they were Subjects but either by Donations or by Concessions of our Kings to them when they were and as they were their Subjects Neither is it denied but that the People now have and of right ought to have Representatives in Parliament of their own choosing But that this was not nor could not be always so and that it was by the Kings meer Grace and favour when it first began to be so appears by what I have already observed concerning the first Parliament properly so called here in England instituted by Henry the first and as Daniel one of the most judicious of our English Historians tells us after the manner of Normandy But that ever since it hath bin so I deny not neither namely that the People have had have and ought to have such Representatives in Parliament of their own choosing but to represent them not as they were no body knows when as Freemen before they had Kings or were under any Government at all but as they are now and have been ever since and were long before there were Parliaments I mean as Subjects and consequently such as Mr. Baxter confesseth have no other lawful way of redressing their Grievances if they have any though never so great or so many but their Representatives complaining and petitioning the King for the relief of them and that either by desiring him to put the Laws in execution already made in favour of them as they did in the late Kings time by the Petition of Right or to Enact if need be new Laws for explanation and confirmation of the old ones or to punish those by whom the Legal Rights and Priviledges of the People have been Violated All this I grant the Peoples Representatives in Parliament may and if there be cause for it ought to do and that not as they are the Peoples Representatives only but their Trustees also nay and more than this namely not to promote or give their consent to the making of any such Laws as may be prejudicial to the publick though they may seem to gratify or may seem to be serviceable to the People nor to hinder the passing of such Acts as are really for the Peoples good though perhaps to the Major that is the most unwise and least judicious part of the People themselves they may seem to be otherwise And therefore their Representatives and Trustees as they are to consent or dissent so are they to judge for them what is or what is not to be consented to by them in behalf of them They are not always the best Husbands for the People that are most sparing of their Purses especially when the refusing to part with some may hazard the loss of all Neither is every thing that is got from the King a gain to the Subjects for the King's power may be too little to protect as well as too great to oppress them and according to the present conjuncture the former is much more to be feared than the latter And therefore the best service that can be done for the People by their Representatives in Parliament is to keep the Balance even betwixt the Prerogatives of the Soveraign and the Priviledges of the Subject by not indeavouring to intrench upon the one or to enhance the other but always and above all things to remember that as they are themselves Subjects so they are Representatives of Subjects and Trustees for Subjects as they are Subjects and therefore are not to treat the King as if they were Coordinate or Copartners with him in the Soveraignty but as it becomes Subjects and the Representatives of Subjects and such as have the honour of being there in that capacity and have the liberty of promoting or hindring the Laws that are to be made for those they represent from the meer Grace and Favour and Goodness of the King and his Predecessors and therefore the King is not by them nor by those they represent to be esteemed to be less a King or less their King or less their Soveraign than he was before no more than a Father is less a Father or hath less the Authority of a Father the kinder and more indulgent he is unto his Children or a Husband hath less of the Authority of a Husband the kinder or more indulgent he is to his Wife And therefore it is well and prudently observed by Grotius first Non desinere summum esse imperium etiamsi is qui imperaturus est promittat aliqua subditis aut Deo etiam talia quae ad Imperii rationem pertineant Soveraignty or Soveraign power doth not cease to be Soveraignty or Soveraign power though the Soveraign do restrain himself either by promise to his Subjects or by Oath to God even in such things as are essential to the Government And therefore Secondly he observes likewise that Multùm falluntur qui existimant cùm Reges Acta quaedam sua nolunt rata esse nisi à senatu aut alio coetu aliquo probentur partitionem fieri potestatis They are very much deceived saith he that think that because there be some Acts that Kings will not have to be ratifyed unless they are approved or consented to by a Senate or some such assembly that therefore there is a partition of the Soveraignty Mark that Mr. Baxter and tell me whether any thing can be more apparently contradictory to your Main Principle of the Soveraignty's being divided betwixt our Kings and their Parliaments and to the main and only reason you give for it namely that our Kings do not or if you will cannot make Laws for the People without their Parliaments or without the Peoples Representatives in Parliament consent to them For the only reason why they cannot is because they have obliged themselves by promise to their People and by Oath to God at their Coronation that they will not For ab initio non fuit sic from the beginning of our English Monarchy it was not so as I have at large shewed and as I have proved likewise that this and all other Priviledges of the People had their beginning from the bounty and goodness of our Kings to their People when they were their Subjects and not from any bargain or contract of the People before they were Subjects with any of their Kings as Mr. Baxter fondly as well as falsly imagins without any proof or offer of proof out of any of our Historians or Records for it Whereas the truth is that all our Kings except the Brittish of whom we know nothing of certainty I mean all our Kings of the Saxon Danish and Norman Races coming in by Conquest were not only Monarchs but Despotical Monarchs that is such as governed arbitrarily without any Laws at all but that
of their own will and pleasure or by such Laws as they made with or by the advice of such as they thought fit to advise with which were never any of the common People or any Representatives for them until after the Norman Conquest And then indeed the Despotical began to be a Political Monarchy by Henry the first 's constituting of such a Parliament as we now have and by his Successors granting and confirming the Great Charter and by all of their obliging themselves successively to continue to the People the Priviledges granted unto them by that Charter and to govern by such Laws as have been made by their Predecessors or shall be made by themselves with the consent of the Peoples Representatives in Parliament By these Grants I say and concessions and condescensions of our former Kings and by the confirmation of them by their Successors c. the Monarchy which was at first Despotical is become Political being changed from an absolute and arbitrary to a regulated and Legal Government yet so as it is still a Monarchy that is it is still the Government of one over all and one who is accountable to none under God which are the only essentials requisite to the constituting of Monarchy the Governing Arbitrarily or Legally with or without Laws being but Accidentals to it only CHAP. II. The English Government a Monarchy however managed The excellency of our Constitution set forth NO more is the subordinate Managery of it in such a manner as may seem to have something of Aristocracy or Democracy mingled with it which saith Grotius was the cause of Polybius his Error Qui ad mixtum genus reipub refert Romanam rempub quae illo tempore si non actiones ipsas sed jus agendi respicimus merè fuit popularis Who will have the Roman Common-wealth to have been a mixt form of Government when it was meerly popular or Democratical because he looked at the managery of it only and not at the Authority whereby it was managed not considering that both the Authority of the Senate quam ad Optimatum regimen refert which Polybius refers to an Aristocratical and that of the Consuls also which he refers to a Regal or Kingly kind of Government subdita erat Populo were at that time equally subject unto the People and consequently notwithstanding this shew of mixture in the managery of that Government the Government it self was not a mixt Government in relation to the Soveraignty of it or to the fountain of Power in it which gives not only the formal denomination but the Essential specification to all Political Governments whatsoever Grotius therefore what he saith of the error of Polybius in judging the Roman to have been a mixed Commonwealth when it was not will have it be understood of all those Writers of Politicks who upon the same grounds are mistaken as Polybius was For idem de aliorum Politica scribentium sententiis saith Grotius dictum volo qui magis externam speciem quotidianam administrationem quà m jus ipsum summi Imperii spect are congruens ducunt suo instituto What I said of Polybius saith he I would have to be understood of other Writers of Politicks who think the looking at the outward and ordinary administration of Affairs rather than at the right it self of the Supreme Power to be more agreeable and conducing to their end in writing that is to the derogating from the Supreme Power of Monarchy either by imbasing it with the mixture of some less noble species of Government with it or to weaken and enfeeble it by dividing of it For what other can be the meaning of these words of Grotius than this either as they are in the Text or in relation to the context And if this be his meaning what could he have said more pertinently to prove the Government here in England to be a mere Monarchy and consequently the Soveraignty to be wholly in one person not withstanding any thing Mr. Baxter hath said or any man else can say to the contrary And that it is not now as it was at first an absolute arbitrary and Despotical but a regulated legal and Political Monarchy we owe to the meer grace and favour of our Kings and I wish that as it was gratia gratis data a grace freely given on their parts so it may be gratia gratos faciens a grace that may make us grateful on our parts also And certainly it would be so if the Subjects of England did but know or would but consider in how much more happy a condition they are or may be if they will and would be if it were not for their seditious Preachers than any other Subjects in the World are or ever were I had almost said or indeed can be under what Government soever if they be not situated as we are Because no Government upon the Continent can be safe from being suddenly invaded and over-run by its confining Neighbours if he or they that have the Supreme Power be not enabled to raise such Forces and Mony to pay them without staying for the advice or consent of his or their Subjects as may be sufficient to defend them from their Enemies and which being raised may be made use of for the oppressing of their Subjects Whereas we being Islanders intrenched and surrounded by the Ocean and consequently not being in danger of being suddenly surprized and over-run by any from abroad our Kings have obliged themselves to raise no Mony without which no formidable Forces can be raised and maintained by any Taxes or Impositions upon their Subjects without their own consent in Parliament thereby securing both the liberty of their Persons and Property of their Goods unto them and that they shall never be put to any charge but for the necessary defence of themselves and for their own safety and welfare as well as for the Honour of the King and their Country This together with many other Priviledges which the Subjects of this Kingdom have above all other Subjects in the World that I know or ever heard of made me presume when I was One of the four first that was appointed to preach to the House of Commons of the Long Parliament in the late King's time to tell them and to endeavour to prove unto them that the Constitutions both of Church and State as they were here by Law established abstracting from the ill managery which might be in either through the faults or frailties of some particular men were both of them the best in their kind that were in the Christian World that of the State for the reasons before specified and that of the Church because it was the only Church now extant that professed and maintain'd both the Apostolick Doctrine and Apostolical Government All other Christian Churches in the World East West North and South failing either in the one or in the other or both of them and
felt of late whilst the Presbytery exercised in Scotland and in England laid claim to the same power For indeed Popery and Presbytery though they look divers ways with their Heads yet they are tied together like Samson's Foxes by their Tayles carrying the same Firebrands of combustion wheresoever they come I mean the same Principles of Sedition and Rebellion against Soveraign Princes and Estates if they will not be ruled by them And therefore as our Kings Predecessors to redeem themselves and their People from the slavery of the Papacy did wisely and couragiously drive out Popery so it is not to be doubted but his Majesty that now is to prevent the same or a worse bondage to the Consistory will with the same wisdom and courage keep out the Presbytery as being indeed where it governs in chief as it would do wheresoever it is a bondage by so much worse and more ignominious than Popery by how much worse it is to be subject to many Tyrants than to one and by how much less it is ignominious for a King to be a Vassal to a foreign Prince than to all or any of his own Subjects But thanks be to God we have no reason to fear that either our King or Parliament will ever think of introducing either Popery or Presbytery to be predominant here amongst us having had so sensible an experience formerly of the one and lately of the other especially being already possessed as we are of such an Ecclesiastical Government as was instituted by Christ and his Apostles universally received and approved by the Primitive Christians and by Law established amongst our selves a Government pretending to no power at all above the King nor to no power under the King neither but from him and by him and for him a Government enjoyning active obedience to all lawful commands of lawful Authority and passive obedience when we cannot obey actively forbidding and condemning all taking up of Arms offensive or defensive by Subjects of any quality or in any capacity against their Soveraign whatsoever he be either in regard of his Intellectuals or his Morals or his Religion in any case upon any pretence or upon any provocation whatsoever Finally such a Government as hath no relation to any foreign Prince or State to protect or assist it from abroad nor any foundation in the Body of the Common People to rise up for it or with it at home but having all its dependence under God upon the Crown and all its security in and by the Law and consequently if at any time it happens to transgress against either as some times by the faults or frailties of particular men I will not deny but it may yet even then or in that case it will easily be corrected and reduced into order and that by the ordinary course of Justice without charging the Subject or endangering the Peace of the Kingdom by levying a War to suppress it and without fear of an Invasion from abroad or an Insurrection at home in defence of it which cannot in the same case be probably affirmed of either of the former Having therefore such an excellent constitution of Government both Civil and Ecclesiastical as we have and both of them by Law established that which we have to do in the first place is to be thankful to God for it who hath not dealth so with any other Nation and then not only to live quietly and peaceably and contentedly under it for the present but to do what we can in our several places and stations for the upholding and perpetuating of it that our Posterity may have cause to bless God for it and for us also And to that end in the first place to mark those as the Apostle advises us that make divisions amongst us by libelling the Government either of the Church or State either in their Pamphlets or in their Pulpits and to mark them so as to set a Mark upon them as men not to be followed but avoided by us though they pretend never so much care of us or kindness to us For such as these they were who as the Apostle tells us in the aforesaid place did then as these do now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple And the way not to be deceived by them is not to hearken to them by resorting to their illegal Conventicles and forsaking our own Legal Assemblies and Congregations as the manner of some is Hebr. 10. 25. And what manner of Men those are that do so another Apostle tells us They are murmurers complainers walking after their own Lusts and their mouth speaketh great swelling words having mens Persons in admiration because of advantage Whereunto to compleat the Character of them he adds These he they that separate themselves sensual not having the Spirit which is as much as if he had said though there be none that do more or do so much pretend to purity or having the Spirit as the Separatists do the only cause of their separation being as some of them say the sensuality and want of the Spirit in those from whom they separate yet indeed the cause of their separation is because themselves are sensual and have not the Spirit or because they know not what spirit they are of for as there be many kinds of Spirits so there be many kinds of sensuality also for Pride and Envy and Malice and Slander and especially speaking evil of Dignities and covetousness and every other inordinate or immoderate Affection are sensualities as well as carnal Lust and Drunkenness and so is Separation it self also For when one saith I am of Paul and another I am of Apollos are you not carnal saith the Apostle And are not say I all that are carnal sensual So that it is not Mens saying or thinking they have the Spirit will prove they have the Spirit nor their calling themselves the Godly Party will make them to be the Godly party but their very being of a Party proveth them to be Schismaticks and their being Schismaticks proveth them to be ungodly I am sure every one of the Parties appropriating the Spirit unto it self and being so divided as they are both in Doctrine and Worship amongst themselves is a demonstration that they are not inspired or guided by one and the same Spirit or that they have not the Spirit of Vnity nor consequently the Spirit of Sanctity nor of Holiness neither how boldly or boastingly soever they may pretend to it But Mundus vult decipi the World hath a mind to be deceived for as long as there are Broachers of lies there will be Believers of lies for as the Father of lies tempts some to be the Teachers so he tempts others to be the Believers of them And therefore unless the Spirit of falshood and division and sedition be by the Spirit of truth of unity and of concord cast
against the Law of the Land also and were there or could there be such a Law it would be unjust in the present case and of dangerous consequence BUT if it be said that several Nations according to several Climates they live in may be of several Inclinations and dispositions and therefore that a Law which may be very proper and useful for one sort of People may not be so convenient for another and consequently that the Judicial Law which God gave to the Jews though it were best for them it may not be best for us or for any other Nation nay because it was best for them it cannot be best for all other Nations or for any other Nation that are naturally of a contrary or of another kind of temper or constitution than they were so that the Judicial Law of the Jews obligeth none but those for whom it was made and to whom it was given God having left it free to those that have the Legislative power in every Nation to make such Laws as they think most proper and most effectual for the well governing themselves so that they command nothing that is forbidden nor forbid nothing that is commanded by the Moral Law of God Be it so and be it supposed likewise though not granted that there is nothing in the Natural or Moral Law of God against disinheriting of the right Heir of an Hereditary Kingdom let us see whether there be any Law of the Land or any legal way according to the constitution of this Kingdom of ours that can warrant the doing of it unless the Heir of the Crown be guilty of some such crime as by Law is a forfeiture of his Life as well as his Birth-right which one Case excepted wherein the present Heir of the Crown is not so much as pretended to be at all concerned I demand first whether there be any Law now in being for excluding the right Heir of this Hereditary Kingdom upon the pretence that is alledged but not proved against him for if there be no such Law there can be no such transgression because every 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be as St. John tells us an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every transgression must be a transgression of some Law or other and where there is no Law there is no Transgression saith St. Paul If it be said that though he cannot be excluded by any Law already made yet a Law may be made by Act of Parliament which may exclude him I demand again whether according to the fundamental and essential constitutions of Parliament there can be any Act of Parliament or any Law made by Act of Parliament without the Lords and the Kings consent to it as well as that of the House of Commons if not as yet there is not so more than probably there will never be any such Act pass or Law made the King and Lords having already declared their dissent from it But 3dly supposing the King and Lords should agree with the House of Commons to make a Law for the excluding of the next Heir of the Crown upon such an accompt as never any Heir of the Crown was excluded before nor by Law to be excluded and consequently for which he could not foresee that he deserved or was to be excluded I demand by what reason justice or equity that Law can be prejudicial to him or to any right of his all Laws being to look forwards and not backwards that is to enjoyn or prohibit something for the future upon such or such Penalties for the disobeying of them but not for the punishing of any thing that was done before there was any such Law for the prohibiting of it so that supposing but not granting that by such a Law the Heir of the Crown might justly be excluded from the succession for the future yet he that is Heir at present and was so before any such Law was made cannot as I humbly conceive upon such a pretence be excluded without violence done unto the Law as well as injury done unto himself If it be said that Salus Populi est suprema lex the safety of the People is the supreme Law and that the safety of the Kingdom doth require that as such a Law should be presently made so it should be presently executed also I answer that the Supreme Law is That no evil should be done that good may come thereof and besides that the safety and peace of the Kingdom would in all probability be much more indangered by the putting or attempting to put such a Law in Execution then it is yet or I hope ever will be for want of such a Law the present execution whereof would for fear of but a supposed uncertain future evil which many things we do see and many more we do not see may hinder put us into a real a certain and a present as evil a condition as any we seem to be afraid of and desirous to prevent I mean a present Civil War and perhaps a Foreign War too And then Dic mihi quis furor est ne moriare mori Tell me what madness is it to kill ones self for fear of being killed I say what a madness is it to run into a present greater evil to prevent a less that is to come and probably may not come at all CHAP. VII Supposing such a Law it would not be effectual for the keeping out of Popery and Arbitrary Government TO conclude supposing such a Law should be justly made and justly executed upon the preset Heir of the Crown and supposing too that Inconvenience from abroad and at home should not follow upon it for the present How would this secure us from the bringing in of Popery for the future unless the Act or Law should be made to extend to the excluding all future Heirs of the Crown as well as the present that might be suspected to be Papists though not legally proved to be so Would it not be easie for any future Heir of the Crown to defeat the efficacy of it and to avoid the Execution of it upon himself by concealing his being of that religion till he was King And then it is a known Maxime of our Law that the Crown takes away all defects in him I suppose it means that is the rightful Heir to it and against whom after he is King as no force can be used without a Rebellion so no Law can be made without Vsurpution the one being the taking of his Sword and the other the taking of his Scepter out of his hands so that if such a Law be made to extend to the exclusion of all future Heirs of the Crown as well as the present it would not be effectual for the keeping out of Popery and much less for the keeping out of Arbitrary Government or for the securing of the Protestant Religion unless we shall say that nothing but Popery can bring in Arbitrary Government which is
King cannot by his Fiat give it its factum esse till it be agreed on by the two Houses and because the two Houses by their agreeing on it do give it its fieri posse or make it ready and fit to be made a Law therefore it may truly though not properly be said to be made jointly by the King Lords and Commons because though it be not made by the Lords and Commons but by the King only yet it cannot be made without them neither that is without their doing something antecedently without their doing whereof the King cannot make Laws And this was that and all that which the late King meant when he said that the Laws of this Kingdom were made jointly by the King Lords and Commons that is according to the old Parliamentary stile by the King with the consent of the Lords and Commons or if you will by the King but not without the consent of the Lords and Commons But I hope Mr. Baxter who would be thought the Master of propriety and distinctness of speaking will not affirm that a thing can properly be said to be done by him or them without whose consent it cannot be done For I think it is one of the main matters wherein he differs or dissents from our Church that a Priest or Minister of the Word and Sacraments cannot be ordain'd without consent of the People will he therefore deny that it is the Bishop with his Presbyters that ordains him or will he say that he is jointly ordained by the Bishop and the People Certainly none but they that lay hands upon him have any thing to do in the Act of Ordination So that it doth not follow that because a Law cannot be made without the precedent consent of both Houses of Parliament that therefore they have any thing to do properly speaking in the making of it Again supposing Mr. Baxter is of the opinion of the Protestant Churches abroad that there can be no marriage without consent of Parents and supposing that opinion to be true yet I suppose neither Mr. Baxter nor any of the Ministers of those Churches will say that it is the consent of Parents that makes the Marriage though it cannot be a Marriage without it Many other Instances of the like nature might be given but this is enough to prove the thing we have in hand namely that though in some sence it may be said that our Laws are made by the King and Parliament or by the King Lords and Commons because they cannot be made by the King without the consent of the Lords and Commons yet properly speaking it is the King alone who by his LE ROY LE VEVLT makes them to be Laws in which Law-making Act of his neither of the Houses do joyn or are joyned with him and therefore the Laws so made cannot properly be said to be made by the King and them joyntly And yet because they cannot be made by the King without their antecedent consent to them and proposing of them they may truly be said to concur To the making though not In the making of them And this and no more but this was undoubtedly the late Kings meaning when he said the Laws were made here in England by the King Lords and Commons or upon their proposing such and such Bills being first agreed upon by them to be made Laws by him CHAP. XIV The making of Laws in the Roman State applied to Vs Mr. B. 's division of the Soveraignty rectified The King 's Negative voice asserted and the Enemies of Monarchy detected THus when the Soveraignty was in the People of Rome the Senate did concur to the making of Laws for the Common-wealth but did not make them they concur'd to the making of them by consulting and debating what was fit to be made a Law by the People as having no power to make it a Law themselves the making of Laws being an Act of Soveraignty and the Soveraignty being then not in the Senate but in the People and therefore the Senate did not so much as pretend to the making of Laws but only to the proposing of Laws to be made by a higher power namely that of the People as appears by the formal and solemn stile relating to the making of Laws in those times which was this Senatus rog at Populus jubet the Senate requesteth or proposeth namely such or such a thing to be made a Law but the People commands or enjoyns it that is the People maketh what was proposed by the Senate for a Law to be a Law And as this was the stile in relation to making of Laws in a Democracy when and where the Soveraignty was in the People so à paritate rationis upon the like reason and account in a Monarchy where the Soveraignty is in One the stile ought to be Populus rog at Rex jubet the People requests and the King grants And so indeed it was as I observed before according to the ancient stile used in our Parliaments here in England in divers Acts and Statutes wherein the King is said to give or grant sometimes at the special request and sometimes at the humble Petition of the Commons Neither doth the Alteration of the Stile at the Request to with the consent argue an alteration in the species of the Government for the King is still the sole Lawmaker or Lawgiver as much as he was before and consequently as much a Monarch though less Despotical and more Political in the managery and execution of his Kingly Power having by his Predecessors and his own voluntary and gracious condescension obliged himself not to exercise his Legislative power or to make any Laws without the consent of those that are to be governed by them which though it do not make him cease to be a Monarch or to have the Soveraignty or supreme power wholly and solely in himself yet it makes him cease to be an absolute arbitrary and despotical and to become a legal regulated and Political Monarch or a King that is to govern his People by Laws Laws indeed of his own making but not without their consent to them I mean without their consent by their Representatives in Parliament together with the consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal which all of them jointly are the Representatives of the three Estates or of that whole Body Politick whereof the King is the Head And as it is he that governs the whole Body so it is he that makes the Laws to govern the whole Body which because they are not made by the King without the consent of the three Estates representing that Body therefore Mr. Baxter thinks they are made by the three Estates as well as by the King and therefore that the Soveraignty is divided betwixt the King and them and consequently that this is no Monarchy but a mix'd Government which is the same mistake that Grotius as I said before
his Successours but not to exclude some that are at home namely the Parliament from having a part of it So that in respect I mean in respect of the extent of the King's Supremacy over all Persons in all capacities Mr. Baxter might find more in Mr. Hooker than he could approve of viz. the King's Supremacy over all Persons in his Kingdom and consequently his being the onely Supreme Governour being utterly inconsistent with the division of the Sovereignty betwixt the King and Parliament which is Mr. Baxter's fundamental Principle upon which he grounds his defence of the late Rebellion and lays a foundation of the like Rebellions from Generation to Generation for the future Again as Mr. Baxter might find more in Mr. Hooker than he could approve for the extent of the King's Supremacy in regard of the Persons over whom so might he likewise in regard of the Things whereunto it is extended concerning which in the general Mr. Hooker saith Our Kings when they are to take possession of the Crown have it pointed out before their Eyes even by the very solemnities and rites of their Inaugurations to what affairs their supreme Power and Authority reacheth crowned saith he we see they are inthroniz'd and anointed The Crown is a sign of their military Dominion the Throne of sedentary or judicial the Oil of religious or sacred power So that according to Mr. Hooker the jus gladii the Power of the Sword or the right of making War as likewise of making Laws both Civil and Ecclesiastical belongs to the King's Supremacy And to both those ends as he tells us afterwards it is one of our King's Prerogatives to call and dissolve all solemn Assemblies about our publick affairs either in Church or State so that there can be no such voluntary Associations of Churches as Mr. Baxter would have nor no such Associations of the People without the King's leave as others would have no nor no making of Laws neither either in Parliament for the State or in Convocation for the Church when they are called and met together but by the King and that not onely because no Law of any kind can be made without the Royal Assent by reason of the King 's Negative without which saith Mr. Hooker the King were King but in name onely but because it is the Royal Assent that makes it to be a Law For though as the same Mr. Hooker observes Wisedom is requisite for the devising and discussing of Laws he means the Wisedom of the Lords and Commons in Parliament for the devising and discussing of Laws for the State and the Wisedom of the Representatives of the Clergy in the Convocation for the devising and discussing of Laws for the Church yet it is not that Wisedom saith he that makes them to be Laws but that which establisheth them and maketh them to be Laws is Power even the Power of Dominion the chiefty whereof saith he amongst us resteth in the Person of the King Whereunto he adds Is there any Law of Christ's which forbiddeth Kings and Rulers of the Earth to have such sovereign and supreme Power in making of Laws either Civil or Ecclesiastical Which question being virtually a negative Proposition implies that there is no Law of God to prohibit any King to doe what our King doeth that is as he positively and clearly affirms to make Laws for his own Subjects by that supreme Power that resteth in his own Person and consequently is not divided betwixt him and the Parliament no not in the making of Laws which is the onely instance given by Mr. Baxter to prove the Sovereignty or supreme Power in this Kingdom not to be in the King alone or in the King onely which as I said before is the Foundation on which he superstructs the building of his Babel or the Justification of the late Confusion and Rebellion And therefore he had reason to say he found more in Hooker than he did approve because to approve all he found in Hooker touching the supreme Power either of all Kings in general or of our own Kings in particular had been to condemn himself who is much more for the restraining and resisting of Kings by their Subjects than Mr. Hooker who as I said before hath not a word of resisting nor of restraining them neither any otherwise than as they have restrained themselves by Laws of their own making So that Mr. Hooker may still retain that honourable title which learned Men have given him of judicious Hooker whatsoever voluminous Mr. Baxter hath said upon this or any other occasion to take it away from him CHAP. III. Bishop Bilson though in an errour yet saith not so much for the resisting of Kings as Mr. B. doth The Case stated of Subjects rebelling upon the account of Religion and of other Princes assisting them AS for Bishop BILSON whom Mr. Baxter saith I advised him to reade I confess I cannot say He hath nothing for the resisting of Kings by their Subjects in any of his Books but this I can say that he hath nothing to that purpose in that Book of his which I advised Mr. Baxter to reade no nor in any of his Books hath he so much for resisting of Kings as Mr. Baxter himself in his Book of the Holy Commonwealth And therefore I wonder he should say he found more in BILSON for the resisting and restraining of Kings than he could approve Bishop Bilson was one of my Predecessours in the Bishoprick of Winchester and much more before me in Learning than he was in Time but Bernardus non vidit omnia and the learnedst and best of Men are but Men and therefore may err and good men very good men may be the apter to fall into some kind of errours both speculatively and practically by indulging too much even to their good affections And therefore I believe it was his Zeal for the true Religion and his compassion to those that were persecuted for it that made this Learned and Good Man say so much as he doth which is more than I wish he had in excuse of taking up of Arms by the French Dutch and Scotch Protestants in defence of themselves and their Religion against their several respective Princes And I think we ought to believe that it was for the same reason and not for reason of State onely that Queen Elizabeth did at the same time assist with Men Money and Arms all the aforesaid Subjects against their aforesaid Sovereigns But yet for all that I do not think that either the Queen did well in doing what she did or that the Bishop did well in writing what he writ in defence of them because I do not think they themselves I mean the subjects of those Princes did well in making that resistance which they did contrary to the Precepts of the Gospel and to the Practice of the Primitive Christians And I remember that upon this consideration during
acquitted ANd first it was very just and very equitable also in relation to what was passed I mean if they had been enjoyned silence for the future by way of punishment onely for the mischief they had done by Preaching formerly which was such as I cannot think of without horrour nor they should not think of without a thankfull acknowledging it for a very great Mercy and Favour from God and the King that they had onely the Liberty and opportunity of doing more mischief taken away from them when their Lives might most justly have been taken away for the mischief they had done before For it is upon this account that Mr. Br. himself justifies Solomon's deposing Abiathar the High-Priest who was the next person in dignity to the King himself amongst the Jews because he might have taken away his Life saith Mr. Baxter as well as the Priesthood for his siding with Adonijah in his Rebellion And might not our King upon the same account have taken away Mr. Baxter's own Life and the Lives of all the rest of the Non-conforming Ministers as Mr. Baxter calls them namely for siding with the Rebellious Parliament and not onely for siding with it themselves but for stirring up all the People to side with it also against his Father and himself And ought they not then to acknowledge the taking away of but their Livings which they had never any legal right to and their liberty to preach which they had so horribly abused ought they not I say to acknowledge it to have been at least a just if not a very favourable punishment for their former offences and equitable too as well as just and favourable it being but the doing that unto them justly and legally which they had most unjustly and illegally done before to all the Conformable Clergy by thrusting them out and intruding themselves into their places Again as the depriving and silencing of the Nonconformists considered as a punishment for what they had done before was not onely just and equitable but favourable also So considered as a Caution against what they might doe for the future it was not onely prudent and expedient but as things then stood absolutely necessary for the securing of the publick Peace both in Church and State and consequently the safety and welfare both of Prince and People For We had reason to believe it was neither a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it was neither a remorse for what they had done nor a change of Mind either in their judgments or affections in order to what they would doe that made any of the Nonconformist Parties give way to the King 's coming home as he did but onely their disability to hinder it partly by reason of the irreconcileable differences among themselves and partly because the Army was no longer in their Power but especially because the over ruling Wisedom of the divine Providence would have it to be so And therefore as we were not to thank them for that blessed change that was made so much against their Wills both in the Church and State so were we not to trust them neither with having any thing to doe either in the one or in the other especially in the Church without giving some assurance beforehand that they would not preach and act as they had done formerly And the Assurance which by the King and his great Council was thought fit to be given by them was first a renouncing of the Covenant and secondly to declare their Assent and Consent to whatsoever by the Act of Vniformity is required of them either of which if they refused to doe they did as good as tell us in plain terms what we were to expect from them namely that they thought themselves bound by their Covenant to pursue the ends of it whensoever there should be an opportunity for it and in the mean time by their praying and preaching to disaffect the People as much as they could to that way of publick Worship which they themselves refused to comply with and submit to And can any man think it was safe for us or consistent with the publick Peace either in Church or State to suffer such men to continue in their stations or to be permitted to harangue the People as they were wont to do They themselves when they were in Power though it was by Vsurpation onely thought it not onely lawfull and prudent but necessary also for the upholding of their illegal and usurped Authority to deprive and silence all our Clergy that would not take their Covenant and submit to their Directory And is it not as lawfull and prudent and necessary too for Us in order to the securing of the legal both Civil and Ecclesiastical Government to deprive and silence those that will not renounce that Covenant whereby they are obliged to ruine both or that will not join with us in the publick Worship of God as it is prescribed in the Book of Common-Prayer Certainly if it were prudent and necessary for Them in their Circumstances then to doe the one it must needs be as prudent and necessary for Vs in our circumstances now to doe the other even themselves being Judges to say nothing of the unlawfulness of what they did unto Us as being unjust in itself and having nothing to warrant it but an usurped Power and the lawfulness of what we do unto them as being just in it self and being authorized and commanded to be done by that Power which We are legally obliged to obey I know Mr. Baxter and others of the Dissenting Party use often to alledge and mainly to insist upon what the King promised them at BREDA and made them hope should be done for them when he came home But they know or ought to know that those promises whatsoever they were as they were meant by the King so they were to be understood by them to be obliging so far forth onely as they should be approved and consented to by his great Council the Two Houses of Parliament without whose Advice Approbation and Consent they knew the King could repeal no old Law that was in force against them nor make any new Law in favour of them Either of which the two Houses were so far from advising him to doe that the House of Commons gave him unanswerable reasons lately reprinted why nothing of that kind could be done without hazarding a relapse both of Church and State into as bad or perhaps a worse condition than that which it was newly come out of For the preventing whereof it was the House of Commons the Representatives of the People and not the Convocation the Representatives of the Church that upon mature deliberation devised and drew up that Bill which being assented to by the Lords they presented to the King to be made a Law as it was by the King's Fiat to oblige and be imposed upon all that are or pretend to
be of the Clergy before they be permitted to preach unto the People or to have the Education of Youth here in this Kingdom and this is the Law called the Act of Vniformity After the making of which Law by the Advice and with the Consent of both Houses of Parliament it is to no purpose to alledge or insist upon any former Promise made by the King and made by him but conditionally onely that is if he were or should be so advised by his Parliament and not otherwise And indeed for them or any Agents of theirs to desire any thing of the King before he came home as to the repealing of any old Law or the making of any new Law without or against such Advice or Consent of Parliament or any otherwise than conditionally if the Parliament would consent to it was a high breach of the highest Privilege of both Houses of Parliament in those that did desire it then or do now complain it was not done when they knew it could not be done by the King alone and saw the Parliament would not consent to it and therefore I say still to insist upon any such promise made by the King must needs be a very great Affront to both Houses of Parliament unless they be of Mr. Baxter's opinion who as I have before observed notwithstanding his magnifying the Power of Parliaments by dividing the Sovereignty betwixt the King and them affirms that in some cases the King may make a Law not onely without but against the consent of the People if it be for their good because it is to be supposed saith he they would have consented unto it if they had known it to be so which how far it may intrench on the Power of Parliaments I leave it to them to consider I am sure I dare not be so bold with them CHAP. VII The Act of Vniformity why made Some other probable Reasons for Nonconformity and not Conscience altogether as Mr. Baxter saith it is BUt to return to what we have in hand the King having by advice and with the consent of both Houses of Parliament first passed an Act of Oblivion to quiet mens Minds for what was passed to prevent our falling again into as bad or perhaps a worse condition for the future if ill principled and ill affected Preachers were permitted to blow the trumpet of Sedition and Rebellion as they had done formerly His Majesty did by the Advice and with the Consent of the said both Houses of Parliament enact the aforesaid Act of Vniformity thereby providing that none should be admitted or permitted to preach to the People or to teach their Children that would not subscribe and conform to what was required to be subscribed and conformed unto by that Act. Which was no more than they have already consented to by their Representatives in Parliament and consequently to the Penalties for refusing to conform to it also which was neither loss of Life nor Limb nor Liberty nor any part of their Goods but onely their forbearing to preach untill they were better informed and could bring themselves to comply both in Judgment and Practice with what their Duty and Obedience to the Law required of them as some of the learnedst and generally thought to be as conscientious as any of them namely Bp. Reynolds and Dr. Connant did as perhaps many other learned and conscientious men did also But they were not one of an hundred will Mr. Baxter say in comparison of those that did not nor could not conform True I confess as to those that did not but whether all that did not could not is a thing with Mr. Baxter's good leave may be doubted whatsoever he hath said to the contrary as when he saith that to think any that do not conform would not conform if they could with a good Conscience is to think them all to be Fools or mad Men for preferring Poverty before Plenty Want before Wealth Contempt before Honour and Respect and Imprisonment before Liberty which no man in his Wits either would or ought to do if he might chuse whether he would so or no without sin And therefore Mr. Baxter thinks we must needs grant it is nothing but fear of sinning against God that makes the Nonconformists not that they will not but that they dare not conform to what the Laws of the Land as well as of the Church require of them As if all the Nonconforming Ministers that were put out of the Livings they were in or that by reason of their Inconformity are uncapable of any Preferment in the Church are therefore all of them men of Conscience and that whatsoever they ought to doe and will not or will doe and ought not it is for Conscience or for Conscience sake onely or for fear of sinning against God if they did what they doe not or did not what they doe that is if either they did conform when they are commanded or did not preach when they are forbidden But is there or can there be no other cause of their not doing what they should doe and their doing what they should not doe but Conscience onely May it not be peevishness in some and perverseness in others May it not be Pride and Ambition in the Leaders and Ignorance and Obstinacy in those that are led by them I remember that when Bishop Brownrig who is one of the few Bishops that Mr. Baxter vouchsafes to speak well of and I went together to the Treaty with the late King at the Isle of Wight he being one of the Three Divines named by the Parliament and I one of the Three named by the King though very unworthy I confess to be so when that learned Bishop I say and I went together in his Coach towards the Isle of Wight I remember not now upon what occasion it was but I remember very well that I ask'd his Lordship whether he knew Mr. Calamy and he answered me he did and had known him from his first coming to Cambridge Pray my Lord said I was he always a Nonconformist No said he far from it in his practice as well as in his judgment even untill the beginning of these times How came he then said I to be so suddenly and so strangely changed from what he was Why said the Bishop he saw the Tide was turning and having a good opinion of his own parts he thought if he was one of the foremost in coming in he might be one of the foremost if not the foremost of all the Leaders of the whole Party as you see said he he is adding that the hope to be head of a Faction was a powerfull Temptation And why might not the same Temptation prevail with many others that thought as well of themselves as Mr. Calamy did and consequently might have the same hopes that he had But why then may it be said did not the same men when the Tide turned again at
the King 's coming home turn with it especially such of them as were invited by the offer of considerable Preferments if by conforming they would make themselves capable of them I answer that some of them did so and that those that did not might be kept from doing it for fear of losing the Reputation and Interest they had gotten in the Nonconforming Party which though it were down for the present yet it might they thought get up again as it had done formerly when it was lower than it was then In the mean time some of those few that had such Offers made them and finally refused them took time to deliberate whether they should refuse them or no thereby plainly shewing that they were not then fully resolved in point of Conscience that a man might not either be a Bishop or Dean of a Cathedral without sin though they had formerly condemned and covenanted against both Neither did their finally refusing of them prove the contrary for though they might and did think it lawfull to accept of those offers and consequently lawfull to conform to the Act of Vniformity in order to their being capable of them yet they might as I said before so value the Interest they had in their Party which as they knew they should lose by accepting so they knew they should improve by refusing those Offers that for that very reason onely they did finally refuse to accept of them but not till they had made their advantage of such offers having been made unto them namely the indearing of themselves by so much the more unto their Party by how much the more they might have had if they would have gone off from them which being made known to those that were their Disciples as it could not chuse but make them the more beloved and esteemed so it could not chuse but make them to be more liberally and largely supplied and maintained also that they might not be altogether losers by the refusals of such Offers Whether Mr. Calamy made any such advantage of his refusal of the Bishoprick of Litchfield and Coventry or no I know not but this I am sure of that at a meeting betwixt him and others of his Party with Bishop Henchman me and others of our Party at a Booksellers Shop in St. Paul's Church-yard Mr. Calamy sitting next to me did whisperingly ask me what the Bishoprick of Litchfield and Coventry was worth yearly I told him it was commonly valued at 1500 l. per annum whereunto he replied nothing but that he thought it had not been worth so much Why he asked me this question and whether he made use of my answer in order to the improving the Interest he had before in his own Party either in point of Credit or Profit let others guess but that he asked me such a question and that I gave him such an answer I averr verbo Sacerdotis Hereunto I might add that many would have conformed that did not especially many of those that were beneficed in the Country if they had not been made believe by the Grandees of their Party in the City that there would be shortly a Toleration granted upon easier terms than those required by the Act of Vniformity and so much the rather and the sooner the more resolutely and the more generally they refused to comply with and submit to the Act of Vniformity Whether they that writ this and caused it to be dispersed among those that were possessed of Cures in the Country did believe it themselves or no or whether meaning to stand out themselves they made use of this pious fraud to increase the number of those that stood out with them they did by this means make many refuse to conform who were afterwards heartily sorry for it though most of them were ashamed to own they were so CHAP. VIII Mr. Baxter 's Plea for Nonconforming Ministers may alike serve for Popish Priests The peculiar excellency of the Churches Sermons viz. her Homilies set forth BUt supposing though not granting that all that did not conform and were put out of their employments in the Church upon that account did refuse to conform for Conscience sake onely doth it therefore follow that having preached as they had and done as they did and refusing to give caution that they would not preach so and doe so still they might not in Justice or ought not in prudence to be forbidden to preach either in publick or private any more untill they should give such caution for their good behaviour for the future as the Wisedom of the State as well as of the Church thought fit to require of them Sure they will not say that there are none that ought not to be forbidden to preach either in publick or in private in Churches or in Conventicles and yet I am sure they can name none that do not or may not pretend and as truly perhaps as any of those Mr. Baxter pleads for to an obligation of Conscience for their Nonconformity and for their preaching in Conventicles likewise as well as any of Mr. Baxter's 2000. Nay may not the Popish Priests themselves whom I think Mr. Baxter will not deny to be justly prohibited to exercise their Priestly Office here among us and to be justly punishable if they doe so may not those Popish Priests themselves I say justifie their saying of Mass and making of Proselytes by their preaching in Conventicles by the self same Reasons that are made use of by Mr. Baxter to justifie his own practice and the practice of those he pleads for in his Book called an Apology for the Nonconformist Ministry For first he cannot deny but that schismatical as well as Popish Dissenters or Nonconformists are forbidden by the same Authority to exercise their Ministry both publickly and privately so that the Popish Priests may truly say to the Dissenting Ministers Hic sumus ergo pares upon this occasion our case is much alike we are no more transgressours of the Laws than you are Secondly if doing what they doe out of Conscience or because they are obliged in Conscience to doe so be a sufficient Plea to justifie the Dissenting Ministers in transgressing of the Law why should it not justifie the Popish Priests for transgressing of it also For that they doe what they doe out of Conscience or because they think themselves bound in Conscience to doe so cannot be denied at least there can be no proof to the contrary and they think the World is bound to believe it of them rather than of the other because their Penalty for transgressing of the Law is much greater Thirdly besides this general Reason of being obliged in Conscience which the Popish Priests as well as the Dissenting Ministers may alledge for transgressing of the Law whereby both of them are forbidden to exercise their respective Functions there is none of those Four particular Reasons which Mr. Baxter insists on in the aforesaid Book of his
to justifie himself and those of his Nonconforming Brethren for preaching as they do though the Law have forbidden them to do so but the Popish Priests may pretend to also for their justification in the Execution of their Priestly Office in Conventicles of their own persuasion or for the gaining of Proselytes to their own Religion I. As first for example may not a Romish Priest say and say it truly as Mr. Baxter doth That he holds the sacred Office of the Ministry or Priesthood consisteth in an obligation to doe the work and an Authority to warrant him therein and that both these are essential to the Office as likewise That Kings and other Magistrates are not by Ordination to give this Office nor by Degradation to take it away But what then May not the King forbid a Popish Priest to exercise his Priestly Function here in England and punish him if he do though he cannot degrade him or make him to be no Priest And if this may be done to a Popish Priest without degrading him why may it not be done by the same Authority to a dissenting or Nonconforming Minister without degrading him also Yea and without taking away any thing that is essential to his Office For it is not the obligation to doe but to be qualified and willing to doe the work of a Minister that is essential to his Office neither doth his Ordination give him Authority to doe the work of a Minister any otherwise or any longer than he doeth it as it ought to be done So that this Argument drawn from the Obligation of a Minister to doe the work of a Minister after he is ordained if it prove any thing it proves either more or less than Mr. Baxter would have it namely that either Popish Priests may and ought to exercise their Priestly Office here in England though by Law they are forbidden or else that the Nonconforming Ministers may not nor ought not to exercise their Ministerial Office being forbidden to doe so by the same Authority and especially for the same Reasons also namely for being Disturbers of the publick Peace and holding such Principles as are destructive to Monarchy the one teaching the Division of the Sovereignty betwixt the King and another Foreign Prince that is betwixt the King and the Pope and the other teaching the Division of the Sovereignty betwixt the King and the Parliament that is betwixt the King and his Subjects II. Neither is Mr. Baxter's second Argument for the Nonconforming Ministers being obliged to exercise their Ministry though they are by Law forbidden to doe it so peculiar to them but that if it had any force in it any man that hath been ordained and thereby been consecrated and devoted to the Ministerial Function may lay claim to it and make use of it though he have done or may doe never so much hurt by the exercise of it because he will be guilty of Sacrilege saith Mr. Baxter if he do not and of the highest degree of Sacrilege that can be it being much more sacrilegious saith he to alienate consecrated Persons than consecrated Things from the Service of God And for proof thereof he tells us That our Canons enquire after all such as alienate themselves from the Ministry to which they were ordained and turn to other Callings adding We dislike not that Canon but we wish our observance of it might be thought but a pardonable fault As if this Canon which forbids men to quit their Ministerial Calling and to betake themselves to any other Lay Profession did oblige all those that are Ministers or have been ordained to be Ministers to continue in the exercise of their Ministerial Function though by lawfull Authority and for never so just cause they are forbidden to doe so because forsooth he will be guilty of Sacrilege if he do not so that he that is once ordained and thereby consecrated to serve God in the Ministry though he be never so heretical or schismatical or fanatical in point of Opinion or never so factious or seditious or rebellious or lewd or debauched in point of Practice he must not be forbidden to doe the work he was ordained to doe or if he be forbidden he must not forbear to doe it notwithstanding because it will be the highest degree of Sacrilege except Apostasie it self if he do So that this Argument proves nothing neither or as much for the worst as it doth for the best that ever were ordained III. The like may be said of Mr. Baxter's third Argument also which is a deduction from several Texts of Scripture obliging those that have taken upon them the Ministry of the Gospel to be diligent and faithfull and constant in the preaching of it All which places must be understood with this exception unless they be lawfully and by their lawfull Superiours forbidden to doe it Otherwise there will a Floodgate be opened for the bringing in all manner of Heresies and Schisms into the Church and of Faction and Sedition and Rebellion into the State as we have found by our own experience it hath done lately into our own Church and State and will doe so again if such Arguments as these can prevail with us to repeal our Laws and to grant a Licence or rather a licentiousness of Preaching to Men so principled and so affected as Mr. Baxter himself and those he pleads for have shewed themselves to be and will not yet give us any security that they will not preach and doe hereafter as they have done formerly IV. But his fourth main Reason as he calls it why those he pleads for must preach though they be forbidden is a main one indeed if it were a true one namely That they should sin against the Law of Nature it self nay even the great radical Law of Nature so far as to be guilty of the murthering of mens Souls if they did not preach though they be forbidden by what Authority or for what cause soever for so he must mean or else he saith nothing to the purpose and if he means so he condemns the King and Parliament for forbidding so many hundreds or thousands as Mr. Baxter saith are silenced because they will not conform and consequently for doing what they can to make so many hundreds and thousands to sin against the radical Law of Nature and to be guilty of murthering God knows how many Mens Souls But Kings and Parliaments Mr. Baxter may say are but Men and Men that may err in commanding what God hath forbidden and in forbidding what God hath commanded as they do saith he in this particular and are not therefore to be obeyed as the Apostles did not and professed they would not obey the High Priest and the Sanhedrim when they did forbid them to preach any more in the name of Christ the like saith he the Primitive and Orthodox Christians did though the Pagan and Arian Emperours forbad them to doe so
own being an Intruder into the Headship of a College I remember too when the Churches in divers great Towns which had a great number of Souls and but little maintenance belonging to them were wholly neglected and the neighbouring little Villages where the Cures were small but the Tithes were great were seized on by the Grandees of the Faction which was an evident proof that they valued the Fleece more than the Flock and that they would not then as Mr. Baxter saith they will now serve God for nought But would not the Papists doe so also Yes perhaps they would will Mr. Baxter say but it would be in order to the destroying and not the edifying of the Church and have we not reason to fear that their offering to preach gratis is with such a meaning and Intention also We are sure they have done so and we are not nor cannot be sure they will not doe so again as long as they continue at that distance as they do from us In the mean time the Popish Priests being so persuaded as they are namely that all Protestants are in a State of damnation have a more rational pretence for the necessity of their preaching to us than our silenced Ministers have or can have even upon this account that unless they doe what they can to make us Roman Catholicks they are guilty of our perishing everlastingly But I hope our silenced Ministers do not think us in such a state of Damnation as we cannot be delivered out of but by their preaching as the Popish Priests may and do think us to be But whatsoever either of them may think of the need we have of their preaching and consequently of their own obligation to preach though they be forbidden we that do believe they would doe more hurt than good by their preaching do believe likewise that we are obliged in Conscience to restrain them from preaching though there were a greater want of Preachers and preaching than there is among us For sure there was never more need of preaching and scarcity of Preachers than when the Gospel began first to be planted when the Harvest was so great and the Labourers so few that Christ bad them pray the Lord of the Harvest to send more labourers into his Harvest and yet even then Christ would not have all to be hearkned unto that took upon them to preach but bad his Disciples beware of them and of their Doctrine though they came in Sheep's cloathing that is though they made a shew of nothing but harmlesness and meekness and simplicity because they might be ravening Wolves for all that And not long after that when there was still need of a great many more labourers than there were to carry on the great work of the conversion of the Gentiles yet even then St. Paul commands Titus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to silence some of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of those that were Preachers and why because they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unruly such as would not be governed or be brought under any rule or order but did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 subvert whole houses And if such Preachers as did but subvert whole houses were to be silenced or not suffered to preach then when there was so much more need of Preachers and of preaching than there is now how much more reasonable and necessary is it for us to silence those whose Principles tend to the subverting of whole Kingdoms especially when we have more Preachers of our own than we can tell how to provide for Again as in the first plantation of the Church when there was incomparably most need of Preachers the Apostles would not suffer such as were ungovernable or unruly themselves especially if they taught others to be so also so in the beginning of the Reformation of our Church from Popish Idolatry Superstition and Corruption both in Doctrine and Practice though there was a very great want of able and orthodox Preachers not onely in Edward the sixth's time but in Queen Elizabeth's time also for divers years together yet none of the Popish Priests were suffered to continue in their stations but very many Cures were supplied with men of very mean abilities till they could be better provided for rather than hazard a relapse into Popery by employing any that were Popishly affected in the work of the Ministry And Mr. Baxter may remember when we of the Church of England as it was established by Law were deprived and silenced for no other reason but because we could not in Conscience conform to the illegal Government that was by an usurped power set up in the Church and State I know there were other pretences against some as disability immorality and scandal but the main reason why we were generally turn'd out of our Free-holds and forbidden to exercise our Ministerial function was our Non-conformity to the then present Government in the State and to the then present way of serving God in the Church though both of them were illegal and though there was then as much or more need of their being assisted by us than there is now of our being assisted by them CHAP. X. According to Mr. Baxter 's own opinion the Ministers he pleads for ought to be silenced The Act against Conventicles why made and what is meant by Seditious Conventicles and Preachers Mr. Baxter by his own confession an incourager of the late Rebellion BUt supposing the want of Preachers and of Preaching to be much greater than it is may there not be a just cause to keep some from preaching and that without Sacrilege or robbing of God though they have been consecrated to God by Ordination if afterwards they prove such as are much more likely to doe harm than good by their preaching And such are not onely those that are utterly unable to teach or are notoriously scandalous in their lives and conversations but such as are heretical or schismatical in their opinions such as are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unruly and ungovernable and apt to stir up strife and Sedition either in Church or State Certainly such men as these ought to be silenced and punished too if they will not forbear preaching what need soever they may pretend there is for it otherwise St. Paul would not have given so strict a charge for the silencing of such as he did to Titus And truly that there are some such as ought to be silenced notwithstanding their consecration to God Mr. Baxter himself cannot deny For whom else doth he mean by those he calls intolerabiles that is such as are not to be tolerated or suffered to Preach Doth he mean none but those who were never ordained or none but those that are heretical in their opinions or debaucht in their manners or insufficient for the discharge of their duties No he confesseth that in the general all or any whose preaching is likely to doe more hurt than good
to be judge in Church cases and of whom he is to tolerate and countenance and whom he is not to tolerate but to punish it is he I say who by and with the advice and consent of his great Council of Lords and Commons hath judged all such aforesaid Assemblies to be seditious Conventicles and consequently all the Preachers in them to be seditious Preachers and I hope Mr. B. will not deny because he hath granted it already that all seditious Preachers are to be restrained and if they are to be restrained and restrained by those that are the proper Judges whether they ought to be restrained or no certainly there can be no reason to excuse and much less to justify the preaching of those that are so restrained after they are restrained and during such their restraint and therefore all those reasons alledged by Mr. Baxter in the aforesaid Book of his called An Apology for the Nonconformist Ministers are to no purpose as to the proving of that which they are alledged to prove namely the obligation of those silenced Ministers to preach in Conventicles whom he pleads for though they be silenced and silenced by those whom he confesseth to have authority to silence them and whom he confesseth likewise to be the proper judges whether they are to be silenced or no and though that for which they are forbidden to preach in Conventicles is because such meetings and such preachings are seditious and dangerous as to the safety of the King's Person as well as of his Government which Mr. Baxter confesseth in a place before quoted to be one cause why men may be justly restrained from preaching and how they that are justly restrained from preaching can be obliged to preach Mr. Baxter is to prove when and how he can In the mean time all that I can imagine Master Baxter hath to say is that though they preach in Conventicles yet they do not preach Sedition or any thing that may disaffect their Hearers either to the King or to the Government But what if they that sit at the helm and whose office and duty it is to take care nè quid detrimenti Respublica capiat That the Commonwealth get no harm or come to no damage do believe and have reason to believe that you do and will preach that in private now which they know you have preached openly and often heretofore and have no reason to think but that you are the same men still that you have been always even since the very beginning of the Reformation that is such as have been always and ever will be undermining the established Government of the Church and State may they not I say that sit at the Helm in order to the securing of the publick peace of the Kingdom and safety of the King may they not in point of justice nay ought they not in point of prudence and conscience too upon the aforesaid consideration to forbid such meetings And if they may and ought to forbid them the very Meetings themselves after they are forbidden are seditious whatsoever they say or doe when they are met because by the Eye of the Law they are looked upon as meeting to doe that for the doing whereof the Law forbids them to meet And whereas one of Mr. Baxter's chief reasons why they were obliged in conscience to preach though they are forbidden it because they shall be guilty of the murthering of Souls if they do not the murthering of such Souls he means as might have been saved by their preaching and do perish for want of it one of the main reasons why the King by advice of his great Council hath forbidden them to preach is to prevent the murthering of Souls and Bodies too by their preaching I mean the Souls and Bodies of such as are by them and their preaching disaffected to the Government both in Church or State and made ready and resolute to undermine and overturn both whensoever there shall be an opportunity of so doing which they would never have thought of if it had not been for such Preachers and such preaching Mr. Baxter confesseth he incouraged many thousands to ingage in the late War which if it were a Rebellion as no doubt it was though perhaps he did not think it to be so was to engage them Bodies and Souls whether they kill'd or were kill'd in a damnable action And who can tell whether he and those that are principled as he is may not even now be encouraging many thousands more to doe as they did then when the like opportunity shall invite them to it the rather because Master Baxter himself hath told us that as yet be cannot see that he was mistaken in the main cause nor dared to repent of it nor forbear to doe the same if it were to doe again in the same state of things that is if there were or if there should be such a War betwixt the King and the two Houses of Parliament as there was then he would encourage as many thousands as he did then to engage against the King And hath not the King having such fair warning given him good reason to prevent the making of Parties by men that are thus minded and that not for his own sake onely nor onely for their sakes that may be endangered in their bodies and their goods for adhering to him but even for their sakes also who may by such Preachers and preaching be persuaded and encouraged to rebell against him and consequently not onely to a hazard of the loss of their lives but to a certainty of the loss of their Souls without repentance which is hardly to be hoped for those that dye in an Act of sin especially so great as that of Rebellion And therefore for this reason onely if there were no other those that are silenced ought not to preach for fear of murthering of Souls by their preaching which is all I have to say to this particular and which if it be not enough I hope one or other of those my reverend Brethren the Bishops to whom Mr. Baxter addresseth his Plea for the liberty of the Nonconformists to preach notwithstanding their being silenced by Act of Parliament will more fully and more at large examine and confute that Treatise of his for this reason at least if there were no other nè si nullus ex ipsorum numero contradicat omnes cum illo consentire videantur Lest if none of their number should gainsay him they may all be thought to comply and agree with him and so he and those he pleads for will perhaps boast they do if none of them say any thing to the contrary CHAP. XI Mr. B 's Reflexion upon the Bishop concerning Master Jone 's his being put out of the Duke's service taken to task and sent to Elymas the Sorcerer One thing true in it that the Protestant Religion may be preserved better without the Nonconformists than with them
add one more That he might be allowed whensoever he saw cause for it or had need of it to substitute one Proposition instead of another a false one instead of a true one or a true one instead of a false one and then to infer what he pleased from it for so as he hath done often in other places so he hath done once in this scrap of a Recantation also making me to say that there were some lawful Governors unlimited by God and thence inferring that I was a defier of Deity and Humanity when what I said was that of lawful Governors some were unlimited by men but of this I have said enough before and as I think I have said enough now touching the insufficiency of this recantation to prove that Mr. Baxter is really and seriously otherwise minded in point of judgment than he was when he published these Aphorisms which I have now Reprinted Neither can the contrary hereunto be concluded from any or all of those glorious or rather vain-glorious professions of Loyalty he makes in behalf of himself and of his own Party in the fourth Chapter of the second Part of his Non-Conformists Plea for Peace which can signifie nothing unless he and they do renounce those disloyal and seditious Principles which in his Book of the Holy Commonwealth he makes use of to justifie the War made by the two Houses of Parliament against the late King as first That this Kingdom of England is not a Monarchy and consequently that the Sovereignty is not wholly in the King Secondly That the Sovereignty is divided betwixt the King and the two Houses of Parliament Thirdly that the two Houses of Parliament may lawfully take Arms and make War with the King in defence of their own part of the Sovereignty and of the trust reposed in them by the People and that the People may and ought to assist them when they do so Fourthly That the People are represented in Parliament not only as Subjects for so he confesseth their Representatives are only to complain and supplicate for them but as Contractors before they were Subjects with him that was to be their King before he was King for the reservation of such or such rights franchises and priviledges to be for ever exempted from the Kings and his Successors jurisdiction for the preservation of which if they were invaded or indeavour'd to be taken away by the King or any of his Successors the Parliament not only as Representatives but Trustees also for the People might by force if they could not do it otherwise resist and restrain the King from so doing Finally there be many other cases specified by Mr. Baxter in that Book of the Holy Commonwealth wherein Kings may as he saith be lawfully resisted by their Subjects whence he concludes the War made by the Parliament against the late King to have been purum piumque Duellum a just and a lawful War and consequently such a War as may be made at any time hereafter upon the same Premisses or by vertue of the same Principles and therefore he tells us in plain terms not only that he did not but that he durst not repent of having been engaged in it himself nor for having engaged so many thousands as he confesseth he did in it not then perhaps but hath he not repented of it since Videtur quòd non because not having yet renounced any of those Principles or Premises from whence he infers the Conclusion he is still to be supposed to hold the conclusion he infers from them nay and that he will hold it still and do as he did then upon the like occasion for so he tells us himself in the place before quoted where he saith that as he durst not repent of what he had done in the aforesaid War so he could not forbear the doing of the same if it were to do again in the same state of things 'T is true indeed he tells us in the same place that if he were convinced he had sinned in what he had done he would as willingly make a publick Recantation as he would eat and drink when he is hungry or thirsty But neither he nor any of the Non-Conformists that ever I heard of hath as yet made any such a publick Recantation and therefore we may rationally and charitably enough too conclude that they are still of the same Judgment they were then and consequently that their Practice will be the same it was then when the like opportunity invites them to it which though I hope it will never be yet we are not sure but it may be and therefore ought not to be too confident and secure that no such thing will be For mine own part I must confess as I always have been so I am still of this opinion that ever since the Reformation there have been and are two Plots carrying on sometimes more openly and sometimes more secretly the one by those that call themselves the only true Catholicks the other by those that call themselves the only true Protestants and both of them against the Government as it is established by Law both in Church and State And as there always hath been so there ever will be Plotting by both these Parties until both of them be utterly disabled and suppressed for as for making Peace with either of them I take it by reason of the perverseness of the one and peevishness of the other and the pride of both to be a thing not to be hoped for I am sure the way proposed by Mr. Baxter in his Book called The true and only way of Concord of all Christian Churches will never do it which Book of his though as I said in my Preface I did not intend to answer as being abundantly and superabundantly confuted before it was written yet because in his Address of it to the Bishop of Ely and me he seems desirous to know what we think of it in reference to the end proposed by it I will tell him plainly and in a few words what is my opinion of it viz. that it is so far from being what he saith it is The true and only way of Concord in all Churches that I verily believe that if all the Churches in the World were actually in as perfect Peace and Concord both in themselves and with one another as ever they were or ever can be humanly speaking here in this World that which he calls the true and only way of Concord if it were or could be admitted would in a very short time introduce such and so many unavoidable and irreconcileable differences and dissentions both speculative and practical as well in matter of belief as in manner of worship that there would be no such thing to be seen as order or unity or peace in all the Churches of any one Province or Kingdom and much less in all the Churches of the Christian World This National Church of ours therefore being
Vid. a vindication of the Primitive Church in answer to Mr. B 's Church History A remark in general upon those who censure our Translation The danger and vanity of such bold censures Some examples of Mr. B 's thus doing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a city with him stands for a Market town Because he would have no Bishop of more than one congregation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not properly rendred he saith to resist To resist is more than not to obey Vid. Holy Common-wealth p. 37. p 377. So to resist God is more than not to obey him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to resist are both Military Terms Our Translatours of St. Paul 's judgment as Mr. B. is not What meant by Resisting Resistance impious and irreligious Irrational also as inconsistent with the being of a Body Politick The necessity of a Supreme power in all Bodies Politick That Supreme power unquestionable The reason of this grounded upon Nature Grotius his testimony Monarchy God's government Mr. B 's just and loyal opinion of the Sovereigns power Vid. Holy Com. p. 72. Spoiled by his following Aphorisms H. C. p. 73. H. C. p. 87. Aph. 79. H. C. p. 87. 88. H. C. p. 74. Vpon these suppositions Mr. B. justifies the late Rebellion And by consequence the King's murther The Independents as justifiable as the Presbyterians Those Assertions of Mr. B 's taken to task Resistance inconsistent with the well-being of Bodies Politick As being an occasion of Civil War the worst of evils No small matter in Mr. B 's opinion that will excuse resisting Grotius puts a case but contradicts himself and the Primitive Christians in his answer to it De jure belli pacis lib. 1. c. 4 p. 104. A passage of his before cited concerning the Primitive Christians compared with this He himself in effect disallows his own Answer De jure Belli ac pacis p. 112. Some instances of his wherein Resistance may seem lawfull examined Thâ—se Instances of his are of Kings and nâ— Kings The third Instance The fourth Instance Those Instances but seeming Exceptions The Law of non-resisting the foundation and preservative of humane society Other reasons for non-resistance Resistance unlawfull even in Grotius his Case An Instance from the Holy League in France The Catholick Religion the pretence there The like Instance from our late Rebellion in England The Protestant Religion the pretence here Other pretences made use of for the late Rebellion The doctrine of Non-resistance recommended The Bishops grounds to prove the late War unlawful Mr. B's contrary grounds to justifie it His confidence of these grounds H. C. p. 489 490. The first of them confidered H. C. 476. ad sinem istius pagine The Parliaments Declaration Ibid. Mr. B. personally ingaged in the War The Parliaments design in that Declaration * 2 Chron. 18. v. 30. Mr. B's own confession in the case H. C. p. 422. H. C. p. 471. By Parliament Mr. B. means the House of Commons The ground of Felton's Murthering the D. of Buckingham a Vote of the House of Commons The dangerous consequence of such Votes No man safe in such cases The Remonstrance of the House of Commons made use of for the destruction of the Kings Person Hol. C. p. 489 Parliaments not infallible nor impeccable by Mr. B's own confession Holy Com-w pag. 437 438. And in some cases to be deferred by the People Ibid. Holy Com-w pag. 439. Mr. B's inconsistence in the resolution of such cases The Law a sure Rule * In Prolegom de jure Belli Pacis The E. of Essex his case in Q. Elizabeths time The Judges Opinion in that case * Cambd. Eliz. ad Ann. 1601. A threefold confirmation of that their opinion Three Observations drawn from thence The Presbyterians would have done what the Independents did had they been let alone Holy Com. p. 422. The Kings Person excepted in none of their Commissions The Presbyterian Clergy taxed as to the late Kings Death Fid. Evangil Armatum Mr. B. particularly charged Hol. Com. p. 489 490. Notwithstanding his confidence Ibid. Rebellion as Mr. B. owns a greater sin than Murther Whordom Drunkenness c. Some were Rebels who did not think themselves so The Schismatical Clergy under a just reproof The King's Power destroyed in the late War The Presbyterian Party who destroyed his Power by Mr. B 's own confession Rebels Nor consequently can they be absolv'd from the guilt of the King's murther The late War then was made against the King And that though the Parliament declared it was not H. Com. p. 419. Mr. B. proved to believe so himself Another Topick of Mr. B 's that the late War was not Rebellion Because the King he saith is not sole Sovereign Mr. B 's bold offer Vid. Praef. to Holy C. prope finem What Mr. B 's meaning is in denying the King to be the highest Power in the time of our divisions The King's Power taken from him his Authority remained good The Act which the King past for the Parliaments sitting Gave them no more Power than they had before The worst Act that blessed King ever did Mr. B grounds his denyal of the Kings Sovereignty upon the constitution of the Government His definition of a Kingdom H. C. p. 85. The Lacedaemonian Kings only titular The Government there Aristocratical All Kings indeed unaccountable to the Reople Even Political Kings who are obliged to govern by Law And though Kings by Election only All such Kings accountable to God only The Question The Answer 1 Reason The People upon their choice part with all the Power they had Valerian 's Reply in the like case Vid. Zozom lib. 6. cap. 6. 2 Reason A King so chosen hath hic Kingly Power immediately from God and not from the People as Mr. B. grants Nothing in Scripture for People to controul their Kings The state of the Jewish Kings Our King according to Mr. B 's own Principles a sole Sovereign Holy Com. p. 61. Ibid. p. 62. The King hath no Superior to judg him nor Peers to try him Mr. B. starts a Controversie which form of Government the English is H. C. p. 87. This Controversie never heard of till the late times The Rebell-Parliament modest at first The secret design of some from the first to change the Government Mr. B. makes the Kingdom of England a mixt Common-wealth H. C. p. 87. My Lord Cook 's judgment in the Case In the Preface to his fourth Book of Reports His judgment to be preferr'd before foreign Lawyers and Divines Calvin the Patriarch of the Presbyterians What properly Calvinism Calvin condemns Resistance of Kings by private men but obliges some sort of Magistrates to it His wariness in expressing himself The three Estates have no such Power as he supposeth Perhaps a salvo for a Lye Calvin himself doubts whether there be any such Magistrates as he speaketh of No such Magistrates by God's Ordinance The inconvenience and mischief of
them Laws by giving them an obliging power The King alone our Lawmaker Dr. Sandersons judgment in the case His Commendation for an excellent Casuist 1 Ep. Tim. Cap. 4. v. 3. The design of Mr. B. 's Holy Common-wealth He intitles the Vsurpers to the whole Soveraignty By the King 's having lost his part Vid. H. C. Thes. 145. 363. Thes. 368. And this too against a Thesis of his own Thes. 374. Mr. B. 's Thesis further examined Who in Mr. B. 's account the best Governours in all the World See the Preface to the Holy Common-wealth Whom yet he owns to be Intruders and Vsurpers II. C. p. 86. Thesis 375. His strange shuffling and self-contradiction A short account of those Vsurpers Mr. B. 's flattery to Oliver His compliance with Richard Three Remarks upon it His Eulogy of the Vsurpers * Pref. to Holy Com. W. Mr. B. rebuked for his Extravagance and his best Governors challeng'd All that slaid and sate in Parliament not censured The Recapitulation of the Legislative power being only in the King An Objection Mr. B. 's opinion that a Soveraign though limited by compact may act for the Peoples safety against their consent And why not make Laws then for that end without their consent His reason for that opinion v. p. 119. Thes. 120. The Answer according to that Opinion Ship-Money justified upon Mr. B. 's grounds The Bishop's own answer Though Laws are not made without the Peoples consent in Parliament yet that consent doth not make them Laws Ordinances of themselves not Laws The King's Assent gives being to the Laws How the two Houses concur to the making of Laws The matter of the Laws from the Parliament the Form from the King Why the Laws said to be enacted by King Lords Commons The Modern stile of enacting Laws H. C. p. 46â— The Antient stile or form When the change began The Old stile resumed afterward Mr. B. 's Argument for the Legislative power in the Parliament from the Preface of our Laws unconclusive Holy Com. p. 462. All the Ancient and several Modern Instances against him Why Henry the VIII changed the Old stile His meaning in it could not be to part with any of his Soveraignty Nor was it so understood by either King or Parliament Most likely it was to please the People Why the Old stile resumed since An Objection Those words And by the Authority of the same when added and why The Answer By Parliament here meant not Lords Commons only without the King What meant by the Authority of the same The Parliament the King 's great Council and High Court. Their Authority from the King They act in that respect as other Courts do Why our Laws called the King's Laws Why called Acts of Parliament Advice or consent sometimes intitles to the Act. 1 Cor. 6. 2. Matth. 19. 28. Joh. 5. 22. The Saints judging the World applied to this case The difference in the Case The four Causes of our Laws viz. Efficient Matter Form and End of them explain'd What kind of Cause the Consent of the two Houses is The Legislative power and the Soveraignty in the King only Two Conclusions of Mr. B. 's upon his supposition of the Soveraignty divided The Eastern Monarchs not altogether Arbitrary What it is denominates a Monarchy No Judicatory above the King The Parliament no such Judicatory The King can do no wrong how meant Another Maxime to that purpose King David accountable to God alone and punished by him David 's Monition to Kings The Peoples priviledge of consenting to their Laws a favour at first of the Kings William the Conqueror made Laws without their consent Parliament first so called in Henry I. time An antecedent compact of the People with the King a political whimsie of Mr. B ' s. Mr. Hobbs and Mr. Baxter agree The extreme unlikelihood of the supposition Our Government at first arbitrary T is likely the Custom of not making Laws without the Peoples consent began under Henry I. with that other of not raising Mony without their consent However it was it was not by Compact but by Grant Mr. B. 's vain and false distinction of two capacities in the People as Free and as Subjects H. C. p. 459. H. C. p. 458. Some Rights he saith reserved by the People in their Contract and the Parliament their Trustees Government not alway founded upon Contract as Mr. B. saith it is A free People as well as a free Man may give up themselves to be govern'd without any reservation of Rights Several free People have done so Grotius de jure Belli ac pacis Particularly in our Government no such thing as Contract or Reservation off Rights The Peoples Rights not by bargain but by Grants of their Kings The People had no Representatives till Henry I. Vid. Daniel's Hist. Baker's Chron. Mr. B. 's supposition a meer fiction The Priviledges and Representatives the People now have are not by any antecedent Compact The Peoples being represented in a double capacity as Mr. B. fancies made an Argument by him to justifie the late Rebellion Holy Com. W. H. C. Thes. 361. The King's Coronation Oath doth not prove any such compact or Reserves c. as Mr. B. affirms This made out in three Considerations Mr. B. makes the King a King in name only He hath no authentick Record for such a Contract as he supposeth Holy Com. W. p. 377. H. C. p. 468. Nor for the Parliaments being the Peoples Trustees for their reserved Rights Were the Original constitution such as Mr. B. makes it the King would not be sole Soveraign nor Soveraign at all A brief account of the Government and its changes during the Vsurpation till the Kings Return A serious Expostulation with people for their uneasiness Numb c. 14. v. 4. No reason for it The pretended ground of it The ill effect of causless fears The Constitution of our Government The Subjects Rights and Priviledges Their representatives in Parliament The duty of those Representatives How to act as Trustees also An even Balance to be kept betwixt Prerogative and Priviledge The King compared to a Father and a Husband Two observations of Grotius De jure Belli Pacis cap. 3. p. 81. lb. p. 83. Applied to Mr. B's main principle How it came that Laws are not to be made without a Parliament When our Monarchy began to be Political Yet still a Monarchy A mistake in Polybius Grotius de jure Belli pacis lib. 1. cap. 3. Sect. 19. We are to judge of a Government not by the Managery but by the Soveraignty of it Ib. This Rule applied to the English Monarchy The happy condition of English Subjects An Account of a Sermon the Bishop preacht before the Long Parliament in commendation of the English constitution both in Church and State The reason why this Account given Church and State both subject to the Monarchy Popery and Presbytery both destructive to Monarchy Two Supremes in one Kingdom
them for the King 's coming home The security the government required of them Their own measure meted to them The King's Promise at Breda discharged As being conditional Their carriage an affront to the Parliament Mr. B 's boldness with Parliaments The reason of the Act of Vniformity The penalty of not conforming Some have conformed Why the rest did not whether for Conscience as Mr. B. saith Bp. Brownrig's account of Mr Calamy 's not conforming A probable reason why some refused offers of preferment To wit to indear themselves to their party Many stood out in hopes of a Toleration Supposing it is out of Conscience they do not conform yet they are justly silenced The Popish Priests have the same Plea as Mr. B 's Nonconforming Ministers And that upon Mr. B 's own Reasons Vid. Apology for the Nonconformist Ministry p. 14. ibid. p. 15. As from the Obligation of holy Orders From their being consecrated to God's service ibid. p. 20. From scriptural Authority From the guilt of murthering souls if they do not preach Pag. 45. Plea for Non-con's Ministry No such necessity of preaching now as in the primitive times The Homilies of the Church recommended for excellent Sermons The efficacy of those Homilies maintained An Argument drawn from their own repetitions of Sermons Mr. B 's murther of Souls a phantasm The assistance of Nonconformists offered gratis Apol. p. 16. Why not to be accepted The Popish Priests under a greater obligation of preaching Neither of them to be permitted According to Christ's own Caveat and S. Paul 's order to Titus The like practised at the beginning of the Reformation Themselves serv'd the Church of England-men so What Preachers to be silenced by Mr. B 's own sentence * Vid. True and onely way to concord part 3. Third part of True and onely way of conc p. 121. 122. The Ministers Mr. B. pleads for are such as he confesseth ought to be silenced The Magistrate the Judge in this case saith Mr. B. Vid. Third part of Book of Concord pag. 140. The Law is a declaration of his Judgment What kind of Preachers tolerated what not is there set down With the reasons of such restraint A descant upon those reasons The security which the Law requires from Preachers The ground of the Act against Conventicles What are seditious Conventicles Who seditious Preachers Mr. B 's Apology for them falls to ground The very Conventicles whatever people doe there are seditious One main reason of forbidding them to prevent the murthering of Souls * Holy Com. Wealth p. 486. This Mr. B. charged particularly with upon his own confession Ibidem The words of the Reflexion The Bishop not peculiarly concern'd in the former part of those words The latter part of them particularly aimed at the Bishop Mr. Jones a Chaplain to the Duke's Family not to his Person Mr. Jones the man intended by Mr. B. The Bishop no way concerned in his being put out of the Duke's service Some reasons that Mr. Jones is meant by Mr. B. for one that was driven away Vid. The Premonition to the true and onely way of Concord And that the Bishop of Winton is meant by the Prelate who drove him away The false account which Elymas the Sorcerer gives of Mr. Jones 's removal Mr. B. perhaps the Godfather of that Pamphlet Elymas a Comment upon Mr. B 's Text. The Protestant Religion to be preserved better without the Dissenters than with them The condition of the Church of England as to Dissenters Object 1. The Answer Object 2. The Answer Mr. B ' s. Recantation as to the Time very tardy His Sermon before the King The manner of his Recantation Not clearly worded Clog'd with Proviso's His vain-glorious professions of Loyalty Some of his disloyal Principles He justifies the late War Most likely that he is of the same judgment still Two Plots carrying on Mr. B 's true and only way of Concord
better order were taken for the Exclusion of unworthy persons from Electing or being Elected members of Parliament that so says he being out of danger of impious Parliaments chosen by an impious Majority of the People we should then build all the Fabrick of our Government on a Rock which else will have a foundation of Sand And then a multitude of errors would thus be corrected at once and more done for our happiness than a thousand of the new Fantastical devices will accomplish Euge well said again Mr. Baxter No man can more heartily say Amen than I can to this wish of yours that none were to choose or to be chosen Parliament-men but those that were worthy to choose and to be chosen nor no man can more fully concur with you in this Opinion than I do That such a Parliament so chosen would be more effectual for the Establishment of our Government upon a Rocky or impregnable foundation as likewise for the correcting of such errors and miscarriages as by reason of the ill management of the best Government are or possibly may be in it and consequently for the making of us more happy than any new Fantastically devised model of Government can do In all this I say I agree with Mr. Baxter But in the Notion of who are worthy or unworthy to choose or to be chosen I am afraid we shall differ very much for perhaps Mr. Baxter and those of his Party may think those that are Dissenters from the Government of the Church are the only worthy men to choose and to be chosen Members of the Parliament I am sure by that stir and stickling they have made in the late Elections for Knights and Burgesses in all Counties and Corporations it appears they think so Whereas I am of opinion that none but such as are conformable in point of Judgment and well inclin'd in point of Affection to the present Government both in Church and State as to the species or kind of either that is as the one is Monarchical and the other Episcopal is fit to choose or to be chosen a Parliament-man and consequently that none of those that are not well affected to the present Government are fit to choose or to be chosen though they pretend never so much to be the Godly party nay though they were indeed as good and Godly men as they say they are and would have others believe them to be For though as Moses wish'd that all the Lords people were Prophets and yet did not think them to be so so I wish that all good and Godly men were wise and prudent men also but I cannot believe they are so nor consequently that they are sufficiently qualified either to be Statesmen themselves or to discern who are fit to be Statesmen And unskilful though well meaning Workmen may be marring whilst they think they are mending and pluck down more in a day than wiser men can build up again in a year And therefore the Fabrick of our present Government being so good a one as that Mr. Baxter himself by prefering it before any new Fantastical mode or model that can be devised or obtruded upon us doth as good as confess there cannot be a better certainly the main care that is to be taken by the wisdom of the State is to prevent the alteration or change of it And consequently the main Qualification to be required in those that choose and are to be chosen to be States-men is their being obliged to maintain and uphold the present Government as it is by Law established I still mean as to the species or kind of it and then as wise and good men may find work enough without medling with removing or moving of Foundations to mend the faults that are and to prevent those that may be in the superstructure So those that are not so wise as they should be nor so good as they would seem to be and those are the men most likely to be medling will not be able to do any great harm so long as the foundations themselves are secured from being undermined or overthrown by them CHAP. X. The excluding some Persons from choosing or being chosen into Parliament no injury The Test reinforced upon this account that if the Successor consent to it it cannot but hold good IF it be objected that the making of such a Law would be the excluding of many of the Freemen and Free-holders of the People from one of the greatest of the priviledges of their Birthright namely the choosing and being chosen Members of Parliament I Answer that if the security of the Government and the Peace and Welfare of the Kingdom require it and the Majority of the Peoples representatives without which it cannot be done consent to it it is no more than in many other cases is done already Secondly I answer that in this very case All the Papists who if they be not a great number I wonder why we should be so much afraid of them all the Papists I say who are all of them Free-men and as Freemen have a right to choose and be chosen into the House of Commons and some of them by Birth to be Peers of the Realm yet are all of them excluded from both Houses and so are all Out-law'd and Excommunicated persons and such are or should be all the Sectaries that will not come unto our Churches Thirdly Did not both Houses of Parliament make it one of the conditions of Peace with the late King that none that had serv'd him against them should be capable of sitting in either of the Houses for Twenty one years to come And why might not the King with much more reason have demanded the exclusion of all those that had fought for the Parliament against Him from the same priviledge Or why may not those that will not oblige themselves by Oath to maintain the Government legally established by King Lords and Commons be much more reasonably and much more justly and equitably excluded from having any thing to do in the Government or in the making of our Laws than those that would not take the Oath of Abjuration and of being faithful to the Government as it was illegally set up without King and Lords were excluded not only from choosing or being chosen into Parliaments but from having any protection or benefit of the Laws by the upstart Free-state as they call'd themselves but were indeed no better than Rebels and Robbers It is not therefore to be doubted but that such a Law as is made in Scotland may by the same Authority respectively be made in England and in Ireland also Neither is it to be doubted but that such a Law if it were made would be the best security that can be given against the bringing in of Popery or Arbitrary Government especially if the rightful Successor will not oppose but promote the making of such a Law here as I do verily
believe and as all reasonable men have reason to believe he will because he did not only consent to but promote the making of that Law in Scotland And if he be willing not only to consent to but to promote the making of such a Law here why should we not believe that he intends and resolves to keep it and maintain it also whatsoever his own private perswasion in point of Religion may be for the present for God may and I hope will perswade Japheth to dwell in the Tents of Shem or continue to be for the future For if he did not intend and resolve it should be kept when it is made and consequently that Popery and Arbitrary Government should be kept out by it nothing could be more imprudent than to promote the making of such a Law whereby all that have or are to have interest in the making and repealing of Laws and in all places of trust and power Civil Military and Ecclesiastical in both Kingdoms are to be obliged by Oath never to consent to the alteration of the Government as it is now by Law established nor consequently to the bringing in either of Popery or Arbitrary Government which Oath when they have taken as they cannot be dispens'd with for the breaking it if they would so they would not if they could being such as are to be supposed to be enemies both to Popery and Arbitrary Government and therefore such as would do what legally they could for keeping out of both though they were not sworn and much more being sworn to do so And therefore it is not to be supposed that the Successor intends or means to attempt the bringing in of either of them if he be willing such a Law should be made as will make it exceedingly difficult if not utterly impossible for him to do it Let us try therefore whether He will not consent to the making of such a Law here as willingly as he has done in Scotland and let the consenting or not consenting to the making of such a Law here as there is there and the taking or refusing to take such an Oath as by that Law is prescribed to be taken by those that are to choose or to be chosen Members of Parliament for the future be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the mark of trial whereby to Judge who are friends and who are enemies to the present Government and who are most likely to desire and endeavour an alteration of it CHAP. XI Some of Mr. Baxter 's Principles grounds of Rebellion An unhappy Instance of difference about Priviledge betwixt the two Houses of Parliament AND thus I have done with what I thought my self especially concern'd to do namely the justifying of my Exceptions against those Political Theses in Mr. Baxter's Holy Commonwealth whereby he endeavours to justifie the Rebellion against the late King and to countenance and encourage any Rebellion upon the same grounds against this or any other of our Kings for the future For first if the Soveraignty was divided then betwixt the King and the two Houses of Parliament so it is now and so it will be always as long as the present constitution of our Government shall continue Secondly if where the Soveraignty is divided they that have any share in it may by force of Arms defend their part of it against whosoever attempts to take it from them Thirdly if the two Houses are to be believed and assisted by the People whensoever they shall declare that the King takes away or attempts to take away their part of the Soveraignty all which are Mr. Baxter's Political Aphorisms or Maxims of State doth it not follow that when and as often as there is a corrupt Majority in both Houses as Mr. Baxter grants there may be and we by woful experience have found there has been doth it not follow I say from these Principles of Mr. Baxter's that the People not only may but are obliged to rebel and take up Arms against the King whensoever a factious Majority in both Houses shall declare there is though really there is no such cause as they pretend there is to do so Nay if there be but such a factious ill principled or ill affected Majority in the House of Commons only For it is the House of Commons which Mr. Baxter means when he talks of the Peoples Representatives and Trustees whom they are to believe and whom they are to assist And they are says he the Representatives and Trustees of the People not only in the Condition of Subjects as the People are now but likewise in the Condition of Contracters as they were before they were Subjects and as such did by contract reserve to themselves such and such Priviledges and Exemptions from Regal Jurisdiction which the House of Commons as they are their Trustees in that Notion are bound to defend as they the People are bound to assist the House of Commons in defending of them And the representing the People by the House of Commons under this Notion together with their having a part of the Soveraignty as well as the House of Lords is by necessary consequence from Mr. Baxter's principles to justifie the Peoples making War not only against the King but against the King and House of Lords also if they shall not agree to whatsoever the House of Commons shall propose as an Original reserved right of their Representees as they were Contractors and before they were Subjects And of their Original reserved rights they may pretend to as many as they please for it is but their saying they are so and the People must believe them to be so because they are not their Representatives only but their Trustees also and therefore it is by their Eyes says Mr. Baxter that the People are to see and by their Ears that the People are to hear and by their Declarations that the People are to judge whether their Rights and Priviledges be invaded or no and whether they be such rights and priviledges as were granted by our Kings after they were Kings to their People as graces and favours to their Subjects or such as were contracted for with Him that was to be King before he was King by those that were to be his Subjects before they were his Subjects For it seems by Mr. Baxter's distinction that the People may take Arms against the King to defend or recover the one but not the other And therefore it were to be wished that we had an Authentical Catalogue of those we may fight for that we may not be Rebels before we are aware as likewise it were to be wished also that we had a Catalogue of the Priviledges of both Houses of Parliament that knowing them we might take the better heed of offending against any of them especially considering how great a crime it may be and how great a punishment it may deserve if either or both the Houses are partakers of the Soveraignty