but hence it will not follow that he was bound to do so nay thence it will follow that neither he nor any of his Predecessors were bound to do so for then they that were the boldest in their demands that ever met and sate in Parliament would have claimed it as of right and not Petition'd for it as they did at least if they had vouchsafed to have Petition'd for it they would have called their Petition a Petition of Right which they did not So that by very Petitioning the King to grant those things which they proposed as agreed on by both Houses they acknowledged that the King was not bound by any Law Custom or Precedent from his Predecessors to consent to what both Houses had agreed on and consequently that there was no such Co-ordination betwixt the King Lords and Commons by the fundamental Constitution of this Kingdom as by the aforesaid Aâ—â—hor was pretended to be And therefo 〈…〉 in his answer to the Petition of the 〈…〉 the 19 Propositions which they pretend humbly to desire but indeed peremptorily press him to grant tells them That to say he is obliged to pass all Laws that shall be offered unto him by both Houses howsoever his own Judgment and Conscience shall be unsatisfied wiih them is to broach a new Doctrine a point of Policy as proper for their present business as destructive to all rights of Parliaments adding that it was out of a strange shamelesness that they would forget for sure there being so many Lawyers among them some of them could not chuse but remember it a Clause in a Law still in force made in the second year of King Henry the V. wherein both Houses of Parliament acknowledg that it is of the Kings Regality to grant or deny such of their Petitions as pleaseth himself And if it were so and acknowledged by both Houses of Parliament to be so in Henry the V's time I would fain know in what Kings Reign or by what Kings consent that Act or the aforesaid Clause in that Act which was in force so lately comes to be repeal'd or whether any Law or Act of Parliament can be either made or repealed without the Kings consent CHAP. XIII An Ordinance of both Houses no Law and consequently no legal Authority for the late War against the King The Militia or the Power of the Sword acknowledged by the two Houses themselves to be in the King A Sermon of Arch-Bishop Ushers in the Isle of Wight Preached to the same Purpose NOT a Law perhaps may Mr. Baxter say properly so called but an Ordinance of both Houses may and that without the Kings consent to it nay notwithstanding the Kings declaring and protesting against it oblige all the People of England to do or not to do what the two Houses will have them as much as any Law consented to by the King ever did or can do nay and may repeal any Law made by the King by the advice and with the consent of both Houses any Law or Custom to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding But per quam Regulam by what Rule Mr. Baxter By what Law of God or man can this be done Why by an Ordinance of both Houses which is equivalent at least to an Act of Parliament properly so called and so it had need to be Mr. Baxter and more too to warrant the doing of such things such horrible mischiefs and Villanies as have been done against God by Sacriledg against the King by Rebellion and by Subjects against their fellow Subjects by plundering and imprisoning and murdering one another of which side soever they were for all will be put to the account of them that had no authority I mean no legal and just Authority to warrant them to do what they did And therefore Mr. Baxter you were best be very sure that the two Houses had Authority to make such a War as they did not only without Commission from the King but against the King and to engage you and by you to engage so many thousands as you say they did in it You were best I say be very sure of it for it is not your head or your neck only which you say you are willing to hazard upon that account but your soul it self and the Everlasting Woe or Welfare of it that lies at stake for it Be not deceiv'd God is not to be mocked It is not the Confederacy of the two Houses it is not the Covenanting of the two Nations that can justifie either their commanding or their being obeyed in any thing which God hath forbidden or not allowed them to command or to be obeyed in by some known Law of his own or of the Land neither of which I am sure can be produced by them Moreover it is not the redressing of Grievances had they been as many or more and as great or greater than the House of Commons in their virulent and malicious Remonstrance to the People represented them to be nor the Reformation of Religion though there had been much more need of it than there was no nor the truly intending as well as pretending never so good or never so necessary an End for the publick Good either spiritual or temporal of the whole Nation that can justifie the Means they made use of if they had not Authority to make use of them I mean in their taking of the Sword out of the Kings hands where the Law of God and of the Land had placed it and taking it into their own notwithstanding Gods and mans Law to the contrary For the proof of the first part of which Assertion of mine I appeal to Mr. Baxter himself for amongst his many false and impious and pernicious Aphorisms he hath this true one that it is not lawful for a Nation to fight for the preservation of their Religion or their worldly goods and liberties without just authority and licence Whereunto he adds by way of exposition and illustration of his meaning That it is but a delusory course of some in these times that write many Volumes to prove that Subjects may not bear Arms against their Princes for Religion as if those that were against them did think that Religion only as the end yea or Life or Liberty would justifie Rebellion or that the Efficient Authorizing Cause were not necessary as well as the Final Where bearing Arms against Princes is warrantable quoad fundamentum as to the ground of it this will warrant it quoad finem as to the end of it A good End must have a good Ground Again for proof of the latter part of my Assertion namely that the Sword or the Power of making War was by Law in the Kings hand and not in theirs I appeal to the Acknowledgment of the two Houses themselves who after they had setled the Militia before the War was actually begun yet knowing and being conscious to themselves that they had done it illegally
as when he saith unto them Come they must come so when he saith unto them Go they must go according to the legal and established Constitution of our Government Which being so I wonder how the two Houses can be said to be co-ordinate with the King or how the Soveraignty can be said to be divided betwixt the King and the two Houses when neither of them are Houses till he makes them to be so nor continue to be Houses any longer than he will have them to do so Indeed if the two Houses of Parliament were Bodies that were always in being as the Senate of Rome was and as the Senates of Venice and Genoa now are or such as might assemble and meet together when and as often as they pleased and continue together as long as they pleased as the States of Holland may and do now and as Grotius tells us they might and did even then when they had Kings such he means as were called Kings but were no more Kings indeed than those of Sparta were as Grotius himself tells us in the same place if I say our two Houses of Parliament were such a Senate as were always in being or might be so when they pleased and continue so as long as they pleased there might perhaps be some pretence for their having some part in the Soveraignty But when they have no being at all till the King gives it them by calling them together and are reducible to what they were before that is to no being again whensoever he pleaseth to dismiss them I cannot imagine in what sence the two Houses of Parliament can be said either to be Co-ordinate with the King or to have any share in the Soveraignty or Kingly power I am sure that according to the established constitution of our Government as they have not yet so it is and always will be in the Kings power to prevent their Usurpation of any such power as long I mean as he keeps the power of calling and dismissing that is of making and unmaking them in his own hands and confequently of acting any thing in their Parliamentary capacity to the prejudice of the Crown or of the People I say to the prejudice of the Crown or of the People because what is really prejudicial to the Crown is really prejudicial to the People also howsoever or by whomsoever the People may be and are often made to believe otherwise and are not to be convinced of their error but by their feeling only CHAP. III. The Legislative power solely in the King How far the Parliament concerned in making Laws Dr. Sanderson 's judgment of it Mr. B. ascribes the whole Soveraignty to the Vsurpers upon the Kings loss of his Part against a Thests of his own BUT although it be the King's Summons of them or calling of them together that makes them to be the two Houses and consequently that inables them to act as the two Houses or in their Parliamentary capacity and although they cease to be two Houses or to have any power to act in a Parliamentary capacity when the King pleaseth to dismiss them yet because Mr. Baxter may say that as long as they are two Houses or as long as the King permits them to sit together in their Parliamentary capacity they have a Legislative power or right of making Laws together with the King for the whole Kingdom and consequently are partakers of the Soveraignty with the King also the making of Laws for the whole Nation being undoubtedly one of the Essentials of the Soveraignty or supreme power We are therefore in the 3d. place to inquire what the two Houses do or legally can do as to the making of our Laws and whether that be enough to entitle them to be properly called Legislators or if I may so speak Collegislators with the King All that ever I heard that either of the two Houses severally or both of them joyntly could legally do in order to Law-making is but the framing and proposing or offering unto the King such Bills or materials as they think fit to be made Laws by the King if he think them fit to be made Laws also Here is the two Houses Non-ultra hitherto they may go but no further And sure it is not the proposing of any thing to be made a Law that is the making of a Law or that can prove the Proposers to be the Law-makers especially if he to whom they propose it may choose whether he will make it a Law or no as there was never any doubt made but he might before the rebellious Parliament in the late Kings time broached the contrary together with many other Anti-monarchical Paradoxes to justifie their own Anti-monarchical and rebellious Practices against the known Laws Customs and Constitutions of this Kingdom of which this was one of the most essential that as the Houses had a liberty to pass and propose Bills to the King so the King might as he saw cause or thought fit make or not make them to be or not to be Laws by giving or not giving his Royal assent unto them For it is the Kings Fiat or the stamp of Royal Authority upon them that makes those Bills to become Laws obliging all the Kings Subjects to the obedience of them or for non-obedience to the Penalties appointed by them So that the Bills are but the materia ex quâ the matter out of which Laws may be made but the forma per quam the formalis ratio or intrinsecal and specifical form by which what were before Bills become Laws is the obliging power which the King by his Fiat breaths into them as God doth the Soul into the Body to make it a living and a rational Creature And therefore Mr. Baxter who being so Metaphysical a man as he is as he must needs know that it is forma or causa formalis the form or formal cause per quam res est quod est which makes every thing to be what it is must needs know too and if he have any ingenuity confess likewise that from whence and whence only the Laws have their obliging power which is formalis ratio Legis that which makes Law to be Law from thence and thence only those Laws must have their being also and consequently if it be the King's Fiat only that gives those Bills that are by the two Houses presented to him an obliging power over the whole Nation thereby making them of Bills to become Laws the King and none but the King must needs be the sole efficient or maker of those Laws For as Forma est causa per quam res est quod est so Efficiens est causa à quâ res est quod est As the Form is the cause by which the thing is what it is so the Efficient is the cause from which the thing is what it is by introducing that form which makes it to be what it is
maker of them And yet because he cannot make them but of such materials as are by the two Houses prepared and proposed unto him therefore they are said in the common and modern stile to be enacted not by the King only but by the King Lords and Commons that is by the King and the two Houses also to the end that the People who are to be governed by them may as I said before the more willingly submit to them when they know that although they are called the Kings Laws as being made by him yet the materials whereof they were made were first devised debated digested and agreed on and then suggested to the King not only by the Lords but by the House of Commons also that is by their own Representatives and Trustees and consequently in effect by their own selves when they know this I say they must needs be the more willing to submit to them CHAP. VI. The Preface of our Laws doth not prove the Legislative Power to be in the Parliament The Old stile of enacting Laws why changed by Henry the VIII and why since resumed AND this and no more than this is the meaning of the modern form of prefacing our Laws and Statutes which we call Acts of Parliament when they are said to be enacted by the King Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament and by the Authority of the same which I call the modern stile because antiently it was otherwise And therefore Mr. Baxter laying so much stress as he doth upon this form of words to prove the Legislative Power and consequently a principal branch of the Soveraignty to be partly in the Parliament meaning the two Houses of Parliament doth well and wisely to say that he will not run to Records for he knows if he know any thing in that kind that this was not the stile that was anciently used in Prefacing the Acts or Statutes made by our Kings in Parliament Ab initio non fuit sic from the beginning it was not so For from the first of our Parliaments recorded by Poulton which was in the 9th of Hen. III. to the 15th of Hen. VIII this stile of Be it enacted by the King Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons in this present Parliament assembled was never used but during all that long Interval of Eleven Kings Raigns and the very many several Parliaments held by them the making ordaining and passing of Laws was in the Kings name only sometime with this addition by or with the Advice and consent of his Bishops Earls Barons c. without naming the Commons and sometimes by the advice of His Bishops Earls Barons c. at the request of the Commonalty or at the special request of the Commons and sometimes with consent of the Commons as well as of the Lords But still and always the making or enacting of the Laws is said to be by the King alone sometimes in these words We of Our meer free will have given and granted which is the stile of Magna Charta or the great Charter it self sometimes in these The King willeth and commandeth and sometimes in these It is by the King made provided and ordained This I say was the stile all along which was used in passing of Laws or Acts of Parliament until the 15th of Hen. VIII for about 300. years And then indeed it began to be changed from Be it Enacted by the King with the advice and consent of the Lords and Commons to Be it enacted by the King Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons but not constantly For in the very next King's time his very first Act of Parliament Cap. 1. runs in the old stile viz. Be it enacted by the Kings Highness with the assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and of the Commons And again in the same Parliament Cap. 4. it is said that at the humble Petition and suit of the Lords and Commons in that Parliament assembled the King did declare ordain and enact by the Assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and of the Commons c. In the same old stile likewise runs the first Act of Queen Mary viz. Be it ordained and enacted by the Queen our Soveraign Lady with the consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and of the Commons c. The like we find in the Raign of Queen Elizabeth as may be seen in the Act of Vniformity made by Her and prefixed in our Common-Prayer-Book to another Act of the same kind made by our present King For in that of Queen Elizabeth the stile is Be it enacted by the Queens Highness with the consent of the Lords and Commons in this Parliament assembled c. And in that of our present King it is Be it enacted by the Kings most Excellent Majesty by the advice and with the consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and of the Commons in this Parliament assembled c. So that the first of the two Proofs Mr. Baxter alledgeth for the Legislative power in the Parliament as well as in the King and consequently their participating with him in the Soveraignty is not so convincingly conclusive from the stile used in the Preface to Acts of Parliament as he would have it thought to be but that it may without immodesty be contradicted though he tells us it cannot because saith he the Laws expresly speak their Authority when they say Be it enacted by the King Lords and Commons in Parliament and by the Authority of the same It is not saith he upon their Petition or Proposal only but by them or by their Authority But did the Laws anciently speak thus at all or do all of them speak thus in all our modern and later Acts I think I have given him Instances of both sorts to the contrary and such and so many Instances as must carry the Question if it be to be decided by the speaking of the Laws either in regard of their Antiquity or Plurality For as I said before all Laws made before Hen. VIII speak and speak expresly the King and none but the King to be the maker of them as may appear by the Instances before given and of many more that might have been given even as many more as there were Acts of Parliament during the Reigns of so many Kings for 300. years during which time I cannot find so much as one single instance of any Law which is said to be enacted by King Lords and Commons but by the King with the advice and consent of the Lords and Commons when most is ascribed to them I mean to the Commons for sometimes it is upon the request and sometimes upon the humble Petition of the Commons and with the advice and consent of the Lords that the Law is said to be enacted by the King So that if as I said before the question of who are the Law-makers be to be decided by the speaking of the Laws
have the King and the two Houses of Parliament to be Co-ordinates and that any of the two is to over-rule the third and consequently the two Houses of Parliament to over-rule the King if They agree and He will not this was HERL's way one of the Prolocutors of the Westminster Assembly called together by the two Houses in the Rebellious Parliament But Master BAXTER will have the Soveraignty divided betwixt the King and the two Houses or betwixt the King and the Parliament and will have it to be lawful for either of the Parties to defend its own Right by force if it be incroached upon by the other and that the People are to take part with the Party encroached upon against the Party encroaching but with this difference that They are always to believe what the Parliament declares against the King to be true because they are their Trustees not only to defend their Rights but to inform their Judgments whether they be wronged or no and because they are their Trustees not only as they are Subjects now but as they were originally or at first Contractors before they were Subjects and did then by bargain reserve unto themselves certain Priviledges and Immunities to be exempted for ever from the Kings Jurisdiction which if their Trustees whom they are to believe declare to be violated they may lawfully take Arms against the King to maintain or recover those Rights of theirs and to defend that part of the Soveraignty which the Parliament have in the Government Now putting all these things together and supposing a corrupt Majority of Parliament-men in both Houses as Mr. Baxter confesseth there may be and we know there hath been and therefore may be so again who can secure the King though he reign never so much according to Law from being always in danger of a Rebellion or the Kingdom from being always in danger of a Civil War which being the worst of Evils that can happen to any Body Politick they that sit at the helm ought above all things else to take especial care to prevent the broaching any such Principles as tend to the stirring up of the People to Sedition and Rebellion by making them believe that in some cases it is not only lawful but their duty to take up Arms against the King and that they shall do God and the King too good service in so doing Such are those Principles of Mr. Baxter before rehearsed published and owned by him in many of his Books especially in that of the Holy Common-Wealth and amongst the rest especially two of which he seems to be the Original Parent or very first Author as namely first That the Peoâ—le of England are represented by their Trustees in Parliament not only as Subjects to the King but as Contractors with the King before he was their King and before they were his Subjects for which he brings no other proof but that he takes it for undeniable And 2dly That the Soveraignty here with us is not in the King alone as the Oath of Supremacy saith it is but that it is divided betwixt the King and the two Houses of Parliament and for proof of this the only reason he gives is That the Legislative Power which is essential to Soveraignty is in them as well as in the King and the late King himself confessed it to be so Whether it be so or no I have already considered and examined at large and I hope have proved that the King and the King alone is the efficient cause or maker of our Laws whatsoever the two Houses may antecedently do towards the making of them CHAP. XIII The late King 's owning that the Laws are made jointly by King Lords and Commons how to be understood NEither do I think what Mr. Baxter saith the late King confesseth in his answer from York to the Parliaments XIX Propositions namely That in this Kingdom the Laws are joyntly made by a King by an House of Peers and by an House of Commons chosen by the People doth being rightly understood contradict what I have said of the making of our Laws by the King only For although to say the same thing is made solely by one and joyntly by more than one seems to be a contradiction yet if by making the same thing be meant the making of it not in the same but several sences it is no contradiction to say it is made by one and no more in one sence and yet that it is made jointly by more in another sence For example according to an instance before given It may truly be said that Christ alone shall judge the World and yet it may truly be said that the XII Apostles for so saith Christ himself and all the rest of the Saints for so saith St. Paul shall judge the World together with him because the judging of the World by Christ is meant in one sense and the judging of the World by the Saints in another For it is Christ and Christ alone or Christ and none but Christ shall judge the World as a Judge properly so called that is authoritativè or by his own inherent power and Authority But the Saints are said to judge the World approbativè by assenting to and approving of the judgment given by Christ as just and righteous so that in propriety of speech they are not to be called Judges but Assessors and Assenters only In like manner as to the making of our Laws it may be truly said that the King alone is the maker of them because it is by the King and by the King alone that they are made to be Laws which were before no Laws and yet it may truly though not so properly be said too that they are made by the King and the two Houses of Parliament because they do consent to the Kings making of them to be Laws and not only so but also because they do not only consent to the making and publishing of them after they are made Laws by the King but they must consent to have them made Laws by the King before the King can make them to be Laws And yet for all that it is the King and the King alone who by his LE ROT LE VEVLT or his FIAT doth make them to be Laws In which operative and efficacious words neither of the Houses concur with him and yet it is by those words only or alone that what was before but a Bill that is an Embryo or at most but materia disposita matter fit to be made a Law of is informed and enlivened with that obliging power and authority both directive and coactive which makes it to be a Law So that all the two Houses can be said to do towards the making of a Law is to give it a posse fieri a capacity to be made a Law but it is the King and the King only that gives it its factum esse its being made so and yet because the
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
all others besides themselves are to be excluded from Governing or chusing of Governours And amongst the ungodly that are to be thus excluded he reckons all those that will not hearken to their Pastours he means the Presbyterian Classis or that are despisers of the Lord's-Day that is all such as are not Sabbatarians or will not keep the Lord's day after the Jewish manner which they prescribe and which is condemned for Judaism by all even of the Presbyterian perswasion in the world but those of England and Scotland onely XV. If a People that by Oath and Duty are obliged to a Sovereign shall sinfully dispossess him and contrary to their Covenants chuse and Covenant with another they may be obliged by their latter Covenant notwithstanding their former and particular subjects that consented not in the breaking of their former Covenants may yet be obliged by occasion of their latter choice to the person whom they chuse Thes. 181. XVI If a Nation injuriously deprive themselves of a worthy Prince the hurt will be their own and they punish themselves but if it be necessarily to their welfare it is no injury to him But a King that by war will seek reparations from the body of the people doth put himself into an hostile State and tells them actually that he looks to his own good more than theirs and bids them take him for their Enemy and so defend themselves if they can Pag. 424. XVII Though a Nation wrong their King and so quoad Meritum causoe they are on the worser side yet may he not lawfully war against the publick good on that account nor any help him in such a war because propter fiuem he hath the worser cause Thes. 352. And yet as he tells us pag 476. we were to believe the Parliaments Declarations and professions which they made that the war which they raised was not against the King either in respect of his Authority or of his Person but onely against Delinquent Subjects and yet they actually fought against the King in person and we are to believe saith Mr. Baxter pag. 422. that men would kill them whom they fight against Mr. Baxter's Doctrine concerning the Government of England in particular HE denies the Government of England to be Monarchical in these words I. The real Sovereignty here amongst us was in King Lords and Commons Pag. 72. II. As to them that argue from the Oath of Supremacy and the title given the King I refer them saith Mr. Baxter to Mr. Lawson's answer to Hobbs's Politicks where he sheweth that the Title is often given to the single Person for the honour of the Commonwealth and his encouragement because he hath an eminent interest but will not prove the whole Sovereignty to be in him and the Oath excludeth all others from without not those whose interest is implied as conjunct with his The eminent dignity and interest of the King above others allowed the name of a Monarchy or Kingdom to the Commonwealth though indeed the Sovereignty was mixed in the hands of the Lords and Commons Pag. 88. III. He calls it a false supposition 1. That the Sovereign power was onely in the King and so that it was an absolute Monarchy 2 That the Parliament had but onely the proposing of Laws and that they were Enacted onely by the King's Authority upon their request 3. That the power of Arms and of War and Peace was in the King alone And therefore saith he those that argue from these false suppositions conclude that the Parliament being Subjects may not take up Arms without him and that it is Rebellion to resist him and most of this they gather from the Oath of Supremacy and from the Parliaments calling of themselves his Subjects but their grounds saith he are sandy and their superstructure false Pag. 459 460. And therefore Mr. Baxter tells us that though the Parliament are Subjects in one capacity yet have they their part in the Sovereignty also in their higher capacity Ibid. And upon this false and traitorous supposition he endeavours to justifie the late Rebellion and his own more than ordinary activeness in it For IV. Where the Sovereignty saith he is distributed into several hands as the King 's and Parliaments and the King invades the others part they may lawfully defend their own by war and the Subject lawfully assist them yea though the power of the Militia be expresly given to the King unless it be also exprest that it shall not be in the other Thes. 363. The conclusion saith he needs no proof because Sovereignty as such hath the power of Arms and of the Laws themselves The Law that saith the King shall have the Militia supposeth it to be against Enemies and not against the Commonwealth nor them that have part of the Sovereignty with him To resist him here is not to resist power but usurpation and private will in such a case the Parliament is no more to be resisted than he Ibid. V. If the King raise War against such a Parliament upon their Declaration of the dangers of the Common-wealth the people are to take it as raised against the Commonwealth Thes. 358. And in that case saith he the King may not onely be resisted but ceaseth to be a King and entreth into a state of War with the people Thes. 368. VI. Again if a Prince that hath not the whole Sovereignty be conquered by a Senate that hath the other part and that in a just defensive War that Senate cannot assume the whole Sovereignty but supposeth that government in specie to remain and therefore another King must be chosen if the former be incapable Thes. 374. as he tells us he is by ceasing to be King in the immediately precedent Thes. VII And yet in the Preface to this Book he tells us that the King withdrawing so he calls the murthering of one King and the casting off of another the Lords and Commons ruled alone was not this to change the species of the Government Which in the immediate words before he had affirmed to be in King Lords and Commons which constitution saith he we were sworn and sworn and sworn again to be faithfull to and to defend And yet speaking of that Parliament which contrary to their Oaths changed this Government by ruling alone and taking upon them the Supremacy he tells us that they were the best Governours in all the world and such as it is forbidden to Subjects to depose upon pain of damnation What then was he that deposed them one would think Mr. Baxter should have called him a Traitour but he calls him in the same Preface the Lord Protector adding That he did prudently piously faithfully and to his immortal honour exercise the Government which he left to his Son to whom as Mr. Baxter saith pag. 484. he is bound to submit as set over us by God and to obey for conscience sake and to behave himself as a Loyal Subject towards him
their Preachers to joyn with a factious ambitious and discontented Party of the Nobility Gentry and Commons in a Rebellion against our late Sovereign Lord of ever blessed memory upon as false and groundless a pretence as that was against the King of France For as there the People were made to believe by their Popish Preachers that their Religion was in danger and that their King was an Hugonott or Presbyterian though as I said before he indeed was as he prosessed himself to be a very zealous and rigid Papist and had given more than proof enough that he was so Even so our People here were by their Presbyterian and other their Schismatical Preachers made to believe that the Protestant Religion here was in very great danger and that Popery was very likely to be brought in because the King was a Papist or Popishly affected at least whereas it was evident to all the world both by his Profession and his Practice that he was as truly a zealous and devout Protestant as any the best of his Protestant Subjects and moreover as resolute a defender of the Protestant Faith as it is setled and established by Law in the Church of England against both Papists and Schismaticks as any King could or ought to be I might add as knowingly so too as ever any King was but his Father onely And yet thousands of his Subjects were made to believe that he was a Papist in his heart and upon that account were perswaded and engaged to fight against him nay many of them were made to believe that the Protestant Religion it self as it was established by Law was but disguised Popery and that the Common Prayer Book was but the Popish Missal or Mass Book translated into English and that the Bishops with all the Episcopal Clergy were an Antichristian Hierarchy and were or would be all of them Vassals to the Pope as soon as they had an opportunity safely to profess themselves to be so Now if the People could be made to believe as we see they were that such a King as He was and such a Church as Ours is were Popish or Popishly affected against all Evidence both of reason and of sense to the contrary what is there that they cannot be made to believe and consequently what security can there be for Kings from their Subjects either for their Power or their Persons or for Subjects from their fellow Subjects or for preserving of the publick Peace for a moment onely If there be any one I say any one case of any kind in any degree wherein Subjects may be allowed without scruple of Conscience to take up Arms against their Sovereign that one as I said before shall always be pretended and believed to be the Case as often as the contrivers and trumpeters of Sedition and Rebellion will have it to be so though there be no ground or reason at all for it as it is evident there was not in either of the aforesaid Instances or Examples I know there were other pretences besides that of Religion to justifie the Rebellion against the late King as his breach of Trust his violation of Laws his bringing or endeavouring to bring in Arbitrary Government and as Mr. Baxter would have it to be believed though Grotius thinks it incredible that any King in his wits should do so his professing himself an Enemy to the whole body of the People by making War against them all as if he meant to be a King without Subjects and finally whatsoever was thought to be most likely to make either his Person or his Government or both to be feared and hated by the whole Nation though really and truly there was no more ground for any of them than there was for his purpose of bringing in Popery which though the Grandees of the Faction knew well enough yet they knew too that it would serve their turn as well as if it were true if the People could be made to believe it was so and withall that they might lawfully nay that they were bound in conscience with their Lives and Fortunes to defend themselves their Wives and Children from being made slaves for that 's the style it must run in by the King or his Evil Counsellours who ought to be brought to condign punishment by force if it cannot be done by Law against which the People were made to believe the King did protect those Evil Counsellours of his And by this means was that Good that Godly that Gracious that Just and every way Vertuous King of ours brought first to be rebell'd against and at last to be murthered by his own Subjects in his capital City and before his own Palace gates And thus may the best Prince that ever was will be or can be in the World be exposed traduced and ruined and the best Government in the World be brought to confusion and dissolution and all the Subjects for fear of an imaginary slavery be made Slaves indeed to those whom they helped to make them so there being no way to secure any Prince State or People from being always obnoxious to these fatal mischiefs but the maintaining of this Axiom or Maxim of true Policy as Sacred and inviolable viz. That Sovereigns are not forcibly to be resisted by their Subjects in any case or upon any provocation whatsoever And that this Maxim may be kept Sacred and inviolable as being the Palladium the Preservative of the publick peace and of the very being as well as of the well-being of Humane Society it ought to be the special care of him or them that have the Supreme Power to forbid under very severe penalty the printing preaching or any way infusing or insinuating into the ears or hearts of the People any Doctrine to the contrary as being not onely false and erroneous but dangerous and Seditious also so seditious and so dangerous that if the Sovereign have not power to secure himself from the Pulpit and the Press or if he do not make use of that power I am afraid that it is not his Scepter nor his Sword that will be able to secure him from his People or his People from themselves I mean from cutting the throats of one another The End of the Second Section SECTION III. The late War in England against the King proved to have been a Rebellion whatever Mr. Baxter plead or argue in defence or justification of it CHAP. I. The late War proved to have been made against the King and consequently to be Rebellion The Parliaments Declaration discuss'd together with the danger of Arbitrary Votes The Judges opinion in the Earl of Essex his Case in Queen Elizabeths time The Presbyterian Clergy charged with the Rebellion AND thus having as I conceive sufficiently proved it to be unlawful for Subjects to rise up in Arms against their Sovereign in any case or upon any provocation whatsoever as being not only contrary to the Precepts of the Gospel and the Practice of
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
legally accountable for all their actions and by whom they were legally punishable even with death it self for their delinquencies whereas the Ephori were accountable to none nor punishable by any and therefore the Sovereign Power of the State was in them and consequently their Kings were Kings and no Kings that is Kings in name and title only but really and indeed no more than Subjects So that the Government of Lacedaemon was not Regal or Monarchical but Aristocratical and so Thucydides calls it For as speaking of the Athenians he calls them the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Multitude or Populace because their Government was Democratical so speaking of the Lacedaemonians he calls them the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Best sort of People or the Nobless because their Government was Aristocratical whereas if it had been truly Regal or their Kings had been truly and properly called Kings he should have called them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Royalists or Kings-men or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Subjects of Monarchs because their Government would then have been Monarchical For a Government to be Regal and to be Monarchical is all one there being no King properly so called but he is a Monarch that is one that governs all and is subject to none and consequentially accountable to none for any thing he doth in his own Kingdom And this is true of all Kings properly so called whether they be greater or less Successive or Elective and whether they be Despoticall or Politicall for both Successive and Elective Kings properly so called may be either Despoticall or Politicall for as the Successive Kings in the three first Monarchies were Successive and Despoticall and are so still in the East and South parts of the World and in both the Indies so those of the fourth and last Monarchy also I mean the Roman Emperors whether Successive or Elective were all of them Despoticall and so in Europe are the successive Emperors of Turky and Russia and Tartary at this day that is such as are not only Monarchs that is such as have the whole Sovereign Power solely in themselves as all Kings or Monarchs properly so called have also but have and exercise that Sovereignty or Sovereign Power without being bounded or limited by any Laws or Rules to govern by but as Lords over their Vassals absolutely and arbitrarily according to their own Will and Pleasures Whereas Politicall Kings and Princes whether Successive as the Kings of England and of France and of Spain or Elective as the Emperor of Germany and the King of Poland are obliged to govern according to the Political Constitutions and Laws of their several respective Seigniories and Dominions but not so as to forfeit their right to their Crowns or to be accountable to any judicatory or punishable by any Power here on Earth if they do not do so no though they be Kings but by Election only so they be elected to be Kings indeed and not in name and title only as the aforesaid Kings of Lacedaemon were and as the Dukes of Venice now are who are Subjects to the Senate there as the Kings of Lacedaemon were to the Ephori in Sparta though those were Successive and these Elective For it is not their succeeding or being elected or being called Kings that makes them to be Kings indeed but their being invested with Kingly Power that is to be over all and under none whether they be born or elected to be so or by what name or title soever they be called whether Kings Emperors Sophies Sultans or but Dukes only For the Duke of Florence is as much a Monarch in his own Dominions as any of the former are in theirs He therefore that is born or chosen to be such a King is not nor cannot after he is such a King be accountable or punishable for any thing he does how unjustly or how much against Law soever it may be but to God only and by God because all within his own Dominions are his Subjects and none without his own Kingdoms and Dominions though they be never so much greater or more powerful Kings than he have any thing to do with him and much less have They any authority over him which they must have that can justly pretend to punish any man how great a Delinquent soever he may be or what wrong soever he hath done against others or against themselves CHAP. IV. A Query resolved whether a King Elective may not be Deposed upon non-performance of conditions Our King proved from Mr. B 's own Principles to be a sole Sovereign BUT may not the People that chuse one to be their King upon such or such conditions upon his non-performance of such conditions Depose him or take away that Power over them they gave unto him I answer that if they chuse him to be their King indeed and not in name and title only then he did thereby become their King indeed that is their Monarch or Sovereign Lord over all of them and consequently they did all of them become his Subjects without any Power Civil or Military left in themselves but subordinate to him or derived from him and consequently such as could not lawfully in any case or upon any provocation be used against him The People having by such an Election parted with all the Power they formerly had without any reservation and much less power of resumption And this was well understood by Valerian the next Successor but one to Julian the Apostate who being chosen by the Army to be their Emperor and they crying out to him to name another to be Consors imperii a Partner in the Empire or one to govern with him he gave them this notable Answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It was in your Power O my Soldiers said he to chuse me to reign over you but now you have chosen me that which you demand belongs not to you but to me and it becomes you as Subjects to be quiet or not to meddle with matters of Government and to me as your King and Emperor to consider what is fit to be done Again I answer that even in Elective Kingdoms he that is chosen by the People to be their King hath not his Kingly Power from them that chose him but from God which is in express terms not only granted but asserted by Mr. Baxter and he values himself upon it as being upon that account a better friend to Kings than as he saith some Episcopall men are and indeed if he were always and in all he saith consistent with himself he would not be so great an Enemy to Kings as in this and many other of his Aphorisms which I have collected out of his Book of a Holy Commonwealth he hath shewed himself to be For if it be not the People who chuse him to be their King that give him his Kingly Power but that he hath it
Sovereign So that there being then no controversie of the Kings Sovereignty over the whole Nation whether diffusively or representatively considered nor consequently whether this Kingdom were a Monarchy properly so called or no this Controversie I say there being then no such controversie in being could not be one of the causes of the War as Mr. Baxter saith it was I am sure it was none of the causes then pretended And yet I am apt enough to think that the contrivers and promoters of the War that were then leading-men in the House of Commons and some of them in the House of Lords also did from the very beginning design and intend a real change and alteration of the Government it self though They openly pretended but a reformation of abuses that were in it only I mean they did intend to turn the Monarchy into an Aristocracy and to make a Duke of Venice of the King as appears by the 19 Propositions which when they thought themselves strong enough to own they made to him But this They concealed for a long time from the main Body of their Party for fear it might alienate most or many of them that had any thing of Loyalty or Conscience from them Or if they did communicate this arcanum this secret of their grand design to any it was only to those whom they were sure of as desiring such a change of the Government as themselves did and whose help they were to make use of for the bringing of it about I mean the popular Presbyterian and other Schismatical Preachers and perhaps Mr. Baxter was one of them Otherwise I should wonder how he comes to say as he doth the Parliaments have affirmed it namely the Kingdom of England to be a mix'd Commonwealth For sure by Parliament he meant Parliament-men for Parliaments say nothing but by Votes or Orders of the respective Houses and I verily believe there never was any such Vote pass'd in either of them if there were he should have done well to have named those Parliaments or at least some one of those Parliaments that had affirmed the Kingdom or as he calls it the Commonwealth of England not to be Monarchical but a mixed Government which no doubt he would have done if he could being so desirous as he seems to be to have it so But I can tell him of one who was Speaker of the House of Commons and as Learned a one in the Laws and Legal Constitutions of this Realm likewise as knowing what were the Powers and Priviledges of both Houses of Parliament as ever was before or since Him in the Chair and that was my Lord Cook who saith and saith it positively as a known and undoubted truth That this Kingdom of ours is a Monarchy and Monarchy successive by inherent Birth-right adding that of all others it is the most absolute and perfect Form of Governments excluding Interregnums and with it infinite inconveniences And now what say you Mr. Baxter Do you not think this Oracle of our Law for so I think he is esteemed by those of his Profession do you not think I say that he understood the Legal and Fundamental Constitution of this Kingdom as well as you do or any of those foreign Lawyers or Divines whose judgments perhaps you may rely on and be misled by I name Divines as well as Lawyers because some of the Protestant as well as Popish Divines have done what they can to lessen the Power of Kings the latter to make them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make them accountable and subject to the Pope and the former to make them accountable and subject to the People to their own Subjects which is as dangerous and much more dishonourable than the other CHAP. VI. Calvin answered who though he allows not private Persons to resist yet requires it of some Magistrates whom he supposes the Guardians of the Peoples Liberty No such Magistrates as he supposeth nor doth he say there are and if there were they would be extremely inconvenient to the publick This Opinion taxed by Grotius who yet himself supposing the Sovereignty shared betwixt the King and People in some case allows resistance AND yet this so dangerous and so dishonourable a subjection of Kings to their own Subjects doth Mr. Calvin the Patriarch of the Presbyterians approve of I call him the Patriarch of the Presbyterians because he was the first that after 1500 years Government of the Church by Bishops invented and set up a Government of the Church by a Parity of Presbyters without Bishops and this and this only can properly and truly be called Calvinism whatsoever he holds besides even the most rigid of his Tenets having been held by some of the Schoolmen and some of the Fathers also But this Calvin I say though otherwise a very Learned and as our judicious Hooker saith of him incomparably the wisest man that ever the French Church did enjoy since the hour it did enjoy him though he doth not allow of the resisting of Kings even the worst and most tyrannical of Kings by such of their Subjects as are but private men and consequently not by the generality of the People yet Si qui nunc sunt saith he populares Magistratus ad moderandam Regum libidinem constituti quales olim erant qui Lacedomoniis Regibus oppositi erant Ephori quâ etiam fortè potestate ut nunc res habent funguntur in singulis Regnis tres Ordines quum primarios conventus peragunt adeò illos serocienti Regum licentiae pro officio intercedere non veto ut si Regibus impotenter grassantibus humili Plebeculae insultantibus conniveant corum dissimulationem nefariâ perfidiâ non carere affirmem quia Populi libertatem cujus se Tutores Dei ordinatione positos nôrunt fraudulenter produnt I have put down this passage of Calvins in his own words which for the English Readers sake may be thus translated If there be now saith he any such popular Magistrates constituted I presume he meant legally constituted or appointed by Law for the moderating or restraining the lust or unbridled appetites of Kings such as were of old time the Ephori to the Lacedaemonian Kings and which Power also as things now are perhaps the three Orders or Estates have in several Kingdoms when they meet in Parliament I am so far from forbidding them saith he to interpose their Authority for restraining the raging licentiousness of Kings that if they do but connive at them when they impotently domineer and insult upon the poor Commonalty I do affirm that connivence of theirs is a nefarious persidiousness because they do fraudulently betray the Peoples Liberty whereof they know they are made the Guardians by Gods appointment In which passage of Mr. Calvins wherewith he concludes his Book of Institutions I observe that he speaks not with that confidence and clearness as he useth
had the supreme Power in a higher or so high a degree as he had and therefore he was emphatically called a Dictator because ejus dictum erat pro lege his word was a Law as well to the Senate as to the People and as well to the People as to the Senate and this Government though by the first institution it was but to continue six months at a time yet when Julius Caesar got it he made it perpetual and so became the first of the last sort of Governours in the Roman State who from him were called Caesares and might have been called Dictatores also as well as Caesares and Imperatores for they had always the same Power which the Dictators before Julius Caesar had but for a time only of the last of whom before himself who was Sylla Caesar scoffingly was wont to say Scylla nescivit dictare that Sylla did not-know how to dictate or act the Dictator because he had laid down the Dictatorship when he might have kept it and consequently of a Sovereign became a Subject But as the Government by Dictators in Rome before Caesar was but temporary and extraordinary so was that of the Decemviri and the Triumviri also and therefore to speak properly there were but three Changes of the ordinary and standing Government in the Roman State of which the first was Monarchical under the Kings into an Aristocratical under the Consuls and Senate the second from Aristocratical into Democratical under the People and their Tribunes and the third into Monarchical again under their Emperors And as when the Government was Aristocratical the whole Sovereignty was in the Senate and as likewise when the Government was Democratical the whole Sovereignty was in the People so likewise when the Government was Monarchical as it was first under their Kings and at last under their Emperors the whole Sovereignty was in those Kings and Emperors For though there was a Senate when there were Emperors as well as when there were Kings yet those Senators were not Partners in the Sovereignty with either of them but Subjects to them both though Mr. Baxter will needs have the Senate as well as the Emperor of Rome to be understood by St. Paul when he saith Let every soul be Subject to the higher Powers as if the Senate then were not any of those that were to be subject to the Emperor but of those that were to be obeyed as well as the Emperor as being Co-partners with him in the Sovereignty But perhaps Mr. Baxter had never heard of the Lex Regia the Royal Law whereby the whole Power of the Senate and People of Rome was transferred unto their Emperors and so his ignorance of that particular might lead him into that error though I believe he had something of design in it also as namely from the supposition of such Co-partnership of Sovereignty in the Roman Senate with the Emperor of Rome to infer the like Co-partnership of Sovereignty in the Parliament of England with our King though very illogically as shall be shewed hereafter CHAP. VIII The Low-Country War against the King of Spain justified by Grotius upon another account in that the whole Sovereignty he saith was in the States and King Philip had usurped it Sovereignty is wholly wherever it is like the Soul in the Body IN the mean time I cannot chuse but think that Grotius had some design of his own to serve when he supposeth there may be such a division of the Sovereignty betwixt such a Prince and such a People as he here speaks of namely when a free People in chusing one to be their King enjoyn him by a standing and perpetual Law to be content with such a part or parcel of the Sovereignty reserving to themselves the rest which if he invades they may not only resist him by force but if they can depose him also which if Grotius can prove to have been the Case of the Vnited Provinces when they took up Arms against the King of Spain he thinks thereby to justifie the War which his Countrymen have for so many years together made and maintained against the aforesaid King or at least to excuse himself and them not having been Rebels against the King of Spain because neither he was nor any of his Predecessors had been their Sovereign at least not their sole Sovereign nor indeed if what he says in his Book de Antiquitate Reipublicae Batavicae be true not their Sovereign at all but their Subject rather For the House of Spain saith he could have no more nor no other Right to the Sovereignty of the Vnited Provinces and the rest of the Netherlands or Low-Countries than they derived from the House of Burgundy nor the House of Burgundy any more than what came to them by marrying with the Heirs of the several Princes of those respective Provinces who could derive to their Husbands no more than was derived to them from their Parents and that as Grotius tells us in the aforesaid Book of his which he Dedicates Illustrissimis Hollandiae West-Frisiaeque Ordinibus to the States of Holland and West-Friezland was not the Sovereignty or supreme Power of any of those States and Provinces wherein they and their Husbands in their Right succeeded because none of their Fathers nor Fore-Fathers from the very beginning of Government in those Countries particularly of Holland and West-Friezland which he reckons to have been more than a thousand and seven hundred years before his writing of that Book had ever any of them the Sovereignty or supreme Power For although some of them were at first called Reges saith he that is Kings and some of them Duces or Dukes yet had they no more Power than those who were afterwards called Gravii or Comites Graves or Counts and that was none of the Sovereignty or supreme Power which was always penes Ordines in the States just so as now it is saith Grotius that is as it was at the very time when he writ that Book which was in the time of Grave Maurice or when Maurice Prince of Orange was Grave of Holland and West-Friezland and Zealand under the States of those Provinces quarum summa Potestas of which the Sovereignty or supreme Power as it was then so saith Grotius it had been always before in the States until the House of Burgundy did first secretly begin to undermine and Philip the II. of Spain did afterwards openly and violently and injuriously invade and usurp the Sovereignty it self of those Countries being Heir to them indeed but not as Sovereign but as Grave or Count only the Sovereignty being still in the States as it always had been And upon this Usurpation of the Sovereignty by Philip of Spain saith Grotius it was that Holland and the rest of the Vnited Provinces took Arms and at length cùm Philippum nec preces nec monita ad saniorem mentem revocare poterant when neither their intreaties
the Truth of it or as to the Inference he makes from it we will therefore examine First whether the Hypothesis namely that the Legislative Power is divided betwixt the King and the Parliament be true or no. And 2dly supposing not granting it to be so whether he doth rightly infer from thence that therefore the War made by the Parliament against the King was a just War and no Rebellion First then as to the Hypothesis it self so far as it supposeth the Legislative Power to be a part and principal part of the Soveraignty I grant it to be true but as it supposeth the Legislative power to be partly in the King and partly in the Parliament so as that the Laws are made by the Parliament as well as by the King I affirm it to be false For proving of which Assertion of mine and consequently for disproving the contrary Assertion of Mr. Baxters We are first to agree what is meant by the word Parliament 2dly How that which is meant by the word Parliament comes to be a Parliament or whence it hath its being what it is and its meeting when it does meet and its continuance after they are met 3dly What they do or legally can do in order to Law-making whilst they sit First then as to what is meant by the word Parliament in this Hypothesis it cannot be the King Lords and Commons because the Legislative power which is supposed to be divided betwixt the King and the Parliament cannot be supposed to be divided betwixt the King and the King as it must be if it be divided betwixt the King and the Parliament as the Parliament signifies the King Lords and Commons and therefore by the word Parliament here must needs be meant the Lords and Commons only or the two Houses as they make up that Body whereof the King is the Head And in this sence the word Parliament is always taken when the King and Parliament are spoken of together as distinct from one another as when the King is said to call or prorogue or dissolve the Parliament or the Parliament to make Addresses or to grant Subsidies to the King And in this sence I think Mr. Baxter would be thought to understand the word Parliament when he saith the Legislative power is divided betwixt the King and Parliament that is betwixt the King and the two Houses of Parliament Though there be many passages in this Book of his Holy Common-Wealth where speaking of the Parliament he must needs mean the House of Commons exclusively to the House of Lords as when he tells us the Parliament is to be believed by the People because they are the Peoples Representatives and Trustees where by Parliament must needs be meant the House of Commons only they and not the House of Lords being the Representatives and the Trustees of the Commons And so again when he saith the King is obliged to pass such Laws quas Vulgus elegerit which the People or Commonalty shall make choice of he must needs mean that the King must needs pass such Laws as the House of Commons will have him to pass so that the whole Legislative power is to be in the House of Commons alone exclusively to the Lords as well as to the King and to the King as well as to the Lords the King being only to declare that to be Law which the House of Commons without the concurrence of the Lords had voted to be so and this we saw and felt it come to at last and that it may not come to it again for it seems to be furiously driving that way it concerns the Lords as well as the King to consider But I will not in this debate take advantage of this notion of a Parliament I mean as it is often taken by Mr. Baxter for the House of Commons only but I will consider it as it is taken for both Houses and that not only severally but as in conjunction with one another And as thus considered the next Inquiry is how they come to be so or whence they have their Parliamentary existence and continuance I mean their being and continuing to be two Houses of Parliament and consequently whence they have the power of doing what they do or legally can do whilst they are two Houses If the Lords Temporal say they are of the Lords House by their Birth-rights because they are Lords and the Lords Spiritual say they are of the House of Lords because they are Representatives of the Clergy or because they are Bishops I answer it is true indeed they are so or have a right to be so when there is a House of Lords because they are constituting parts or members of it but neither of them can be actually and existingly of the House of Lords before there is a House of Lords and there is not nor cannot be actually a House of Lords or any existence of such an House until the King summons both the Lords Temporal and the Lords Spiritual to come and meet together at such a time in such a place and when upon such a summons or by virtue of the King's command they do come and meet together at such a time in such a place appointed and then and not till then they are a House of Lords The like may be said as to the House of Commons For if the Knights and Burgesses shall say when they are met that they are the House of Commons because they are chosen by the People to be their Representatives 't is true they are so but who gave the People leave or power to choose them to be their Representatives or to be that Body which we call the House of Commons Was it not the King could the People have done it without the King's Authority inabling them to do it or could they refuse to do it when he commanded them to do it If not then though the choice of those that are to be of the House of Commons be from the People yet the Peoples power to choose them being from the King it is that which makes them after they are chosen to be the House of Commons when they meet together which must be when and where the King pleaseth So that after they be chosen by the People to be the House of Commons or to be the representative body of the People yet are they not the House of Commons nor the representative body of the People till they meet at the time and in the place by the King appointed at least so many of them as are agreed on to be sufficient to make them act as a House or in their representative capacity The like in proportion may be said of the House of Lords also So that both Houses of Parliament as such have no existence or being at all until the King gives it them by calling them together nor continuance in being any longer than he pleaseth to continue them For
If therefore the Law hath its obliging power which is its form or that which makes it to be Law from the King and the King only the King and the King only must needs be the efficient and sole efficient cause of Law and consequently the whole Legislative power must needs be in him only unless Mr. Baxter can prove that the two Houses of Parliament can of themselves and by their own Authority only make their Bills to be Laws or at least that they joyn with the King in making them to be so For if it be the Kings own arbitrary consent only which makes that to be a Law which was no Law before he consented to it then must it needs be confessed that the King is the sole efficient of all Law and consequently the only Law-giver in his own Kingdom according to the determination of the very learned judicious and truly pious and conscientious Casuist Doctor Sanderson Bishop of Lincoln who in his Lecture de Legum humanarum causâ efficiente speaking of our King hath these very weighty and remarkable words Cùm illa sola censenda sit cujusque rei causa efficiens principalis sufficiens quae per se immediatè producit in materiam praeparatam introducit eam formam quae illi rei dat nomen esse etsi ad productionem istius effectûs alia etiam concurrere oporteat vel antecedere potiùs ad praevias dispositiones quò materia ad recipiendam formam ab agente intentam aptior reddatur omninò constat quotcunque demùm ea sint quae ad legem recte constituendam antecedenter requiruntur voluntatem tamen principis ex cujus unius arbitratu jussione omnes Legum Rogationes aut ratae habentur aut irritae esse solam adaequatam publicarum Legum efficientem causam Seeing saith he that is to be held the principal efficient and sufficient cause of every thing which of it self and immediately produceth and introduceth into the matter prepared for it that form which giveth name and being to that thing though for the producing of that effect other things also must concur or rather precede as previous dispositions to make the matter fitter to receive the form intended by the Agent to be introduced into it it is certain for all that how many soever the things are that are antecedently requisite for the constituting of the Law the Will of the Prince on whose alone arbitrary consent or dissent the ratifying or rejecting of such Laws as are tendred unto him doth depend is the sole and adequate efficient cause of all publick Laws This I say was the judgment of that very learned pious and very judicious Casuist Dr. Sanderson concerning the only proper adequate subject of the Legislative power here in England who was Professor of Casuistical Divinity in the University of Oxford as long as the Rebellious Parliament would suffer him to be so and who would in all probability if he might have been suffered to have continued some few years longer have left us a truer and more exact and compleat body of Casuistical Divinity than any the World hath been so happy as to see yet and in which the World hath more need to be truly and thoroughly instructed in order to peace here and happiness hereafter than in any other part either of Polemical or Dogmatical Divinity the Essentials of the Creed excepted only But that very reason it was for which the Vsurpers of the Regal power in those times would not suffer so vigorously an Opposer and so strongly and clearly a Convincer of that Trayterous and Tyrannical Vsurpation of theirs to be a publick Professor and Standard of that truth which they were concern'd the People should be kept ignorant of or made to believe the contrary as they were by such Preachers as they who could not endure sound Doctrine heaped up unto themselves after their own Lusts and by such Casuists and Writers of Political Aphorisms as Mr. Baxter was whose business it was to make the People believe the Vsurpation of an Arbitrary power and Tyranny to be an Holy Common-wealth for such was the Government here which Mr. Baxter in his Preface to that Book of his calls the best Government in all the World affirming those that were then the Governours namely the two Houses of Parliament without the King not only to have a part of the Supremacy or Soveraignty but to have all the Supremacy or whole Soveraignty and therefore such as whom to resist or depose is forbidden saith he to Subjects upon pain of damnation They are his own words in the before-cited place which one would think were hardly to be reconciled with what he affirms in the place we are now examining viz. That the Supremacy or Soveraignty is divided betwixt the King and them and consequently that they have not the Supremacy but a part of it only But for answer to this Objection perhaps he will say as indeed in effect he doth say that although before the War betwixt the King and them they had but a part of the Soveraignty only yet the King having by force endeavour'd to take their part from them and being overcome by them he had lost his own part which jure belli by right of War did accrue to them and so they became the Possessors of the whole Soveraignty though the King was then living But he had ceased to be King saith Mr. Baxter because he had entred into a state of War with his People and consequently by Mr. Baxter's Logick had lost his part of the Soveraignty But who was to have his part of the Soveraignty supposing him to be justly deprived of it Those that had the other part of it by whom he was conquered No saith Mr. Baxter for if saith he a Prince that hath not the whole Soveraignty be conquered by a Senate that hath the other part and that in a just defensive War that Senate cannot assume the whole Soveraignty but supposeth that Government in specie to remain and therefore another King must be chosen if the former be incapable CHAP. IV. Mr. B. 's high strain in commending those for the best Governors in all the World whom yet he owns to be Intruders and Vsurpers His compliance with Richard remarkt His high commendation tax'd and challenged The Recapitulation WHat he means by the last words of this Thesis viz. Another King must be chosen if the former be incapable I know not unless he means that the former King though he had lost his part in the Soveraignty and ceased to be King by being conquered by the Parliament in a just War yet he might be capable of being King again if the Parliament thought fit to choose him which having used him as they had done Mr. Baxter no doubt wished as heartily as he thought it likely they would do But whatsoever Mr. Baxter meant by these last words of this Thesis
I mean the House of Commons presently after the Kings death yea and both the Cromwels also of which the former was resisted though not deposed and the latter was both resisted and deposed together with the several mock-Parliaments in both their times and the last mock-Parliament of all which by the admirable conduct and courage of that ever to be renowned and ever to be remembred Souldier and Servant of God the King and his Country I mean General MONK was shatter'd in pieces never to be sodred or re-united in order to restoring of the Soveraign Power to its only true and right owner the King For as for all or for any of the rest of those Soveraign Powers as Mr. Baxter calls them and which he magnifies so much they were as far from having any right to Soveraign Power as they were from being the best Governours in all the World as Mr. Baxter most falsly and I had almost said most impudently saith they were For let him name that which he thinks to have been the best of those Governments or Governours betwixt the assuming and usurping of the Soveraign Power by the two Houses of the long Parliament and the present King 's coming home And I will undertake as old as I am if God spare me life and health to demonstrate that they were not only as arrant Traytors and Rebels as ever were in the World but that in the managery and exercise of their usurped Power they carried themselves as hypocritically and blasphemously towards God in the use of his Name and his Ordinances as insolently insultingly and barbarously towards their King not only in their buying and selling and imprisoning of Him but even in their Addresses to him and treating with Him and withal as arbitrarily as despotically as injuriously and every way as tyrannically towards their Fellow-Subjects in taking away their Goods their Liberties and their Lives not only without but against Law as ever any Governours did whether justly or unjustly so called either in this or any other Nation But when I say this I would not be understood to mean what I say of all that sate in both or either of the two Houses of Parliament that made War against the King for I do verily believe there were many and I know there were some both of the Lords and Commons that after the King was driven away stayed and sate in both Houses and did what they could to hinder the rebellious and outragious proceedings of the factious Party which was predominant in the one House as well as in the other But the Tyde was too strong and those good Men too few to stemm the current or to prevent the overflowing of it as it did over all the banks and boundaries of Obedience to the Laws as well as of Allegiance to the King And therefore as Mr. Baxter when he tells us the two Houses of Parliament were the best Governours in all the World he tells us too that by the two Houses he means the Majority of the two Houses so when I say they were Vsurpers and Traytors and Rebels and as ill Governours or Managers of their usurped power as ever were before them in this or in any other Kingdom I mean the Majority of those two Houses only Which it was not my purpose to say so much of as I have said at present but my just indignation at Mr. Baxter's extravagant magnifying such men as they were hath carried me out of the way I was in which was to prove that neither those nor any other two Houses of Parliament can properly and truly be said to share with the King in the Soveraignty or Supreme Power upon the account of theirs as well as the Kings Legislative Power in making Laws for the whole Kingdom which as I have already proved is the Kings Act only by making Bills to be Laws by his FIAT or Assent to them thereby giving them that enlivening and obliging power which they had not before and which makes them to be Laws and this being solely the King's Act without any Act of either or both of the Houses in conjunction with it it is the King alone that makes the Law or that makes that to be a Law which was not a Law before how fit soever it might be to be made a Law whereof the King is the only final Judge also from whom there lies no appeal to either or both the Houses so that whatsoever Preparatory Act or Acts of either or both Houses may be necessary in order to the making of Laws antecedently to the King's Fiat yet it is the King's Fiat only that makes them to be Laws especially it being at his choice whether he will make them to be Laws or not after the two Houses have done what legally they can do towards it CHAP. V. Vpon Mr. Baxter 's grounds the KING may make Laws in some Cases without the consent of the two Houses Ship-mony justified upon the same grounds It is the King's Assent that makes Laws The Parliaments concurrence wherein it lies IF it be objected that as the two Houses cannot make a Law without the Kings Assent so neither can the King make a Law without the Consent of the two Houses and that therefore the two Houses as well as the King are the Law-makers For answer hereunto I will not say as Mr. Baxter seems to say when he puts the Question whether if the People will not consent to that which is necessary for their own Preservation the Soveraign may not do it against their wills and answers he may do it though he be not an absolute but a limited Soveraign and limited by Covenant that is as he expresseth himself in other places by an antecedent compact with the People when they chose or admitted him to be their Soveraign and consequently that even such a Soveraign notwithstanding such a compact as for instance that he will not nor shall not make any Law without the Nobilities and Peoples consent may of himself and without their consents make such a Law as is necessary for their Preservation or that he judgeth to be so for in this case he is and of necessity must be the only Judge whether it be necessary for their Preservation or no and therefore if he judge it to be so he may according to Mr. Baxter's opinion not withstanding any compact or Constitution to the contrary make such a Law not only without but against their consents as Mr. Baxter words it because saith he that Soveraign is God's Officer for the ends of Government and therefore cannot lawfully be restrained by the People from preserving them because the People have no power above God and because it is still to be supposed that the People desire their own Preservation and therefore mistakingly resist the means which else they would consent to This is one of Mr. Baxter's Political Aphorisms which if it be true my Answer to the aforesaid
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
Law of in their Opinions if he please and if it be so in his opinion also So that the King is finally the only and sole Judge whether what is agreed on and propos'd by them as fit to be made a Law be fit to be made a Law or no and if he thinks it fit to be so it is he and none but he that by his Le veult makes it Law So that to conclude this Point the thing proposed whether by King or either of the Houses is the Matter or material cause ex quâ or out of which the Law is made the Efficient or the causa à qua whereby or by whom the matter of the Law is made to be a Law is the King and the King only the Formal cause or the cause per quam res est quod est by which a thing is that thing which it is or that whereby it actually becomes and is effectually made to be a Law is the Kings declaration of his Assent or Will to make it a Law by those Nomothetical or Legislative words pronounced by himself or in his Name Le Roy le veult the Final cause or the cause propter quam Res est for which or for the sake whereof a thing is is Bonum Publicum the Publick good So that the consent of the two Houses to what is proposed to be made a Law is but that which we call Causa sine quâ non a Cause without which a thing is not to be which indeed is a condition rather than a cause but such a condition as is so necessary for disposing of the matter to receive the form that the efficient cannot introduce the form without it though he be not necessitated to introduce the form by it that is it is such a condition as without which the King cannot make what is so conditioned to be a Law though it do not necessitate him to make that to be a Law which is so conditioned so that as I said before it is but Causa sine quâ non only which is indeed no cause at all And this I think enough to prove the Legislative power to be in the King and in the King only and consequently that the Soveraignty upon this account is not divided betwixt the King and the two Houses either equally or unequally or that they have any part of it or share in it And yet upon this Supposition and upon this supposition only Mr. Baxter concludes first that the Kingdom of England is no Monarchy And Secondly that the Parliament's defending of their own part of the Soveraignty against the Kings Invasion of it was a just War and no Rebellion By the first of which Conclusions he seems to think that there is no Monarchy but where the Government is Despotical and Arbitrary ubi Arbitria Principum as Justin saith pro Legibus sunt where the Will of the Soveraign is the Law of the Subject And such indeed were the first especially the Eastern Monarchies of the World and yet not altogether so neither as appears from the 7th compared with the 15th Verse of the 6th Chapter of the Prophecy of Daniel for as in the former of those Verses we find there was a consultation by a Senate or Parliament of all the Presidents Governours Counsellors and Captains of the Kingdom of Persia for the making of a Decree or Law by the King which he did by his signing of it so in the latter of those Verses we find also that it was a standing Law of or amongst the Medes and Persians that no Decree or Statute made by the King with the advice of an Assembly of the chief Men of his Kingdom could be changed or repealed without the consent as I presume they meant of those that advised the King to make it So that there were or might be some fundamental unchangable Laws or Rules even in the most absolute and most despotical Monarchies for such was the Persian if ever there were any and yet you see there was a Law by which the King himself was obliged And probably the like was in the former or first Monarchy that of the Chaldeans or Assyrians also For as Darius here so Nebuchadnezzar there called all his Princes and great Men when he made a Decree that all that would not fall down and worship the Image he had set up should be cast into the fiery Furnace Dan. 3. 12 c. CHAP. VIII The English Monarchy asserted The King under no Judicatory Accountable to God alone That Laws are not to be made without the Peoples consent in Parliament was from the favour of the Kings THE Truth is that it is not the Governing by Law or without Law that makes the Government to be Monarchical but the governing of One over all whether his way of Governing be Arbitrary Despotical or Legal and Political Ours indeed is Legal and Political but for all that it is Monarchical because it is but One that governs us all He governs indeed and is obliged and hath obliged himself by his Coronation Oath to govern by Law but it was not his Coronation Oath that made him King for all our Kings are as much Kings before they take the Oath as they are after the taking of it Neither is it their governing by Law that gives them their Right nor their not governing by Law that can take away their Right they have unto their Crowns for then there must be some Judicatory above them to judge betwixt them and their People whether they have forfeited their Right or no and if they have to take the forfeiture of it And if there be such a Judicatory it is indeed no Monarchy though it may be called a Kingdom as that of Sparta was as I have proved at large already Mr. Baxter therefore if he will prove this Kingdom of ours to be no Monarchy he must prove there is some such standing Judicatory here amongst us as the Ephori were in Sparta If he saith the Parliament is such a Judicatory He must prove it to be a Court or Judicatory always in being as that of the Ephori was and as the Senate of Venice is and not such a one as must not meet but when the King calls them and must be gone when he bids them and such a Judicatory is our Parliament according to the Legal Constitution of this Kingdom And how such a King as ours can be liable or obnoxious to such a Judicatory as this which he may make or unmake as he pleaseth so as to be question'd or tried or judged or condemned by it as the Spartan Kings might be and were by the Ephori and as the Dukes of Venice may be and have been by their Senate let Mr. Baxter tell us if he can For my part I cannot imagine the Practicability of it I mean the practicability of it de jure as to right in any Case or upon any Provocation whatsoever
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
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
out of them that seem to be possessed with him which is above all things to be wished and prayed for or those that are so possest be kept from infecting others by teaching and printing with that intolerable licence as they do and have done for so many years together we are not to expect to be long without another Civil War and whether the effects of that will not be as bad or worse than the former no man can tell I am sure we are not always to expect miracles I mean such a miraculous deliverance as we have once had from so many several sorts of arbitrary and Tyrannical Governments as that War brought us to or rather as we our selves brought our selves to by that Rebellion and as such a rebellion as that was may and nothing but such a rebellion as that was can probably and humanely speaking bring us to again CHAP. IV. An Expedient proposed to secure the Government both in Church and State viz. some such Law as the Scotch Test. The Heir of the Crown 's being a Papist or a Presbyterian c. comes much to the same pass FOR the preventing whereof why should not we follow the example of the Scots in that which is good as well as we did follow their example in that which was evil We took such a Covenant as they did in order to the making and helping us to make such a War against our King and theirs as they did and for the alteration of the Government and Religion established by Law in both Kingdoms And why should not we make such a Law as they have now made for the preservation of their Government and Religion as it is now by Law established amongst them why should not we I say make such a Law for the maintenance and preservation of the Government and Religion established by Law amongst Vs also I mean such a Law whereby all Men are disabled and made uncapable of any Office or Place of Power and Trust either Military or Civil or Ecclesiastical as likewise of being chosen themselves or of choosing others to be Members of Parliament as will not take such a Test and Oath as they have taken in Scotland that is never to give their consent to the Alteration either of the Religion or of the Government either in Church or State as it is there by Law established Such a Law as this and no worldly means but such a Law as this will secure us and our Posterity from all that we fear or pretend to be afraid of especially from Arbitrary Government and Popery and from Presbytery too For the Heir of the Crown may be a Presbyterian or an Independent or an Antinomian or an Anabaptist or a Socinian and may be every whit as great a Zealot and as much a Bigot in any of those perswasions as any Papist can be in his and consequently be as zealous and industrious to promote bring in and set up his Religion for the Only or at least for the Predominant Religion of the State as any Papist can be to bring in Popery and consequently to suppress all of any other perswasion but his own and that perhaps with as bloody a persecution as ever any Papist did when he hath as much power to do it Of this One of the Sects hath given us proof more than enough already I mean the Presbyterians who for the setting up of their Dagon instead of the Ark of God and for the abolishing of Monarchy in the State as well as Episcopacy in the Church entred into that Antichristian League and Covenant with the Scots whereby both Nations were ingaged in a bloody War with and against one another of which the execrable effects as no Act of Oblivion can ever make to be forgotten so can they never be remembred without horror nor indeed should be remembred without detestation of the procatarctical or promoting causes of it of which the most principal and most energetical was that Presbyterian Solemn League and Covenant for the setting up that Idol of theirs the Presbyterian Government for which they were so peremptorily and pertinaciously zealous and ambitious that in all their Treaties with the late King one of the conditions of Peace always was the abolishing of Episcopacy and setting up Presbytery instead of it without consenting whereunto and without taking of the Covenant as the Scotch Presbyterians did refuse the late King so the English Presbyterians would if they might have had their will have refused the present King to reign over them as might be made appear by the Consultation had amongst the Grandees of that Party to that purpose till they found it would be in vain to stand upon such terms the Noble and never to be forgotten General the late Duke of Albemarle being resolved to bring in the King as a King without condition and therefore as well for that as for his whole most prudent as well as loyal and couragious Conduct in that great affair I think that which was said of Fabius Maximus may be as properly and truly verified of him Vnus homo nobis cunct ando restituit rem That is One Man by his wary conduct hath restored our State and welfare And I wish it were engraven in Golden Letters upon his Tomb ad sempiternam rei memoriam for an everlasting Memorial But to return unto what I was speaking of what I have said already is enough to prove that a Presbyterian Heir of the Crown would do what he could to bring in and set up the Presbyterian Government which can no more consist with Monarchy in the State than it can with Episcopacy in the Church and make us all Presbyterians as well as a Poâ—ish Heir would to bring in Popery and to make us all Papists And that they would not suffer any that would not conform to them and comply with them is evident not only by what they did against us that were as they call'd us Cavaliers and Malignants but against their own Brethren in Iniquity the Independents and all the rest of the Sectaries their Fellow-Rebels against the King and Companions in Arms against Us all of whom they would have suppressed as well as they did Us if it had been in their power to do so as appears by their Books Sermons and Addresses to that which they call'd a Parliament against them And what the Presbyterians did against us and would have done against the Independents by the Parliament the Independents did against them by the Army And so no doubt would any other of the Schismatical Parties have done against all the rest that were not of their perswasion if they had got the power into their hands But none of them may some of their Friends say would have been so cruel as the Papists who hold it not only lawful but meritorious to put Hereticks that is all that are not Papists to death Did not the Presbyterians and Independents and the
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
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
with the King As likewise for another and in my humble opinion a very weighty and important reason namely to prevent the Kings not being able to govern by Parliament though he be never so willing and desirous to do so as when there is a difference betwixt the two Houses concerning priviledge there the order is that whatsoever business they are about of what concernment or importance soever it must cease and nothing must be done until the difference concerning Priviledge be decided which being no other way to be decided but by one of the Houses yielding to the other for neither the King nor the Judges are admitted to umpire betwixt them if after Conference upon conference they finally adhere on both sides as they did in the case of Dr. Sherleys appealing to the House of Lords from a Decree in Chancery wherein one of the House of Commons was concern'd there is no more to be done that Sessions though Hannibal were ad portas knocking at the City-gates though the business they were about before were of never so publick or never so necessary a concernment as indeed that which we were about then was namely the passing of an Act for securing the Government both in Church and State by taking such a Test as the aforesaid Test that was lately enacted to be taken in Scotland and which would undoubtedly have past in the Lords House at that time if some that desired an alteration in both had not thrown that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that stone of offence betwixt the two Houses which as it was done to hinder what we were a doing then so that or the like may be done at any time by either of the Houses to make any Parliament useless and fruitless though there be never so present or so great need of it and though the King and the People do never so much desire the contrary unless there be some means devised and consented to by both Parties to adjust the difference betwixt them as there is betwixt all other differing Parties but these only or unless the Priviledges of each of the Houses be so particularly enumerated and cleerly stated by the consent of both of them that there may not be any difference betwixt them upon this account for the future If I have been too bold in saying what I have said in relation to either of the two Houses of Parliament I humbly beg pardon of them both for Si peccavi peccavi honestâ mente if I have offended in it I have done it out of an honest meaning I am sure I did not intend to lessen the dignity or power or priviledges of either of them Good luck have they with their Honour but all that I said upon this Subject hath been to vindicate the Kings Soveraignty over all His Subjects of all denominations and in all capacities whatsoever which I am sure may well enough consist with whatsoever Power or Priviledge can by the legal constitution of this Kingdom be claim'd by either or both Houses of Parliament CHAP. XII The Kings making our Laws no disparagement to the Parliament The several ways of justifying the taking up Arms against the King The danger of Mr. B. 's Principles that way WHereunto if it be objected that by making the King sole Law-giver or the sole Law-maker I seem to take away the greatest of all the Priviledges the two Houses have and which it most concerns all the People of England they should have I answer it were true indeed that I did so if by saying the King is the sole Law-giver or the sole maker of our Laws I meant he could make what Law he pleas'd but when I say withal that although whatsoever is Law is made by the King to be Law yet he cannot make any Law or any thing to be Law without the consent of both Houses to it or to his making of it by giving to Caesar what is Caesar's by giving to the King what belongs to the King I take away nothing from either of the Houses that belongs unto them or what is requisite for them to have for the securing of themselves and the People from Arbitrary Government for which end it is abundantly sufficient that the dissent of either of the Houses can hinder the making of any Law though the consent of both of them cannot make a Law for that would destroy the Monarchy not by dividing the Soveraignty betwixt the King and the two Houses which is really impossible but by vesting the Soveraignty wholly in the two Houses and consequently by taking it wholly from the King whereas the power to hinder the making of Laws without their consent being vested in the Houses and the power of making Laws with their consent being vested in the King the Soveraignty and Majesty that is due to a Monarch is reserv'd to the Prince and as great power and Authority as Subjects are capable of is communicated to the two Houses and their Liberty and Property which is due to them is secured to all the People which blessed frame and temper of our English Government is such as no wiser can be devised nor no better can be desired and such as no Nation but ours under Heaven is or can be unless it be situated as ours is so happy as to enjoy and therefore such a one as if it were well understood and seriously considered by us it would make us first to be truly and heartily thankful to God for it Secondly to live obediently quietly and contentedly under it and consequently not only to be content but desirous that such a Law as I before spake of should be made to prevent the alteration or change of it into any other form or frame of Government whatsoever And in the mean time not to give ear or credit to any of those seditious Preachers or Pamphleteers who do what they can to disaffect the People to this excellent Government as it is by Law established and only to this end that as they have once already so they may now again make such an alteration in this Government as to turn the Monarchy into a State and Episcopacy into Presbytery which because they think it cannot be done now but as it was done then namely by a Rebellion therefore as they did always so they do still maintain that it is lawful for Subjects in some cases to take up Arms against their Soveraign though some of them take one way to prove it lawful and some another for some will have a middle kind of power betwixt the King and People to be Vmpires or Arbitrators between them whose Arbitrement if the King will not submit to they may by force compel him with the assistance of the People and the People are bound to assist them in so doing this is CALVIN's way whereunto he adds that fortassè Ordines Regni in Angliâ that perhaps the Parliament in England are this middle sort of Magistrates Others will
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
observeth to have been the error of Polybius in judging the Roman to have been a mixed Government and the Soveraignty or supreme power thereof to have been divided betwixt the Consuls the Senate the People when saith Grotius the Government was indeed meerly popular or Democratical And the cause of this mistake in Polybius saith Grotius was his respiciens ad actiones ipsas non ad jus agendi his looking at the things that were done not at the authority whereby they were done whereas if he had consider'd that what was done either by the Consuls or by the Senate was done by an authority derived from the People signified nothing if it were not ratified by the People he would have been convinc'd that the Soveraignty or supreme power was wholly in the People consequently that it was a meer Democracy and not a mixed Government In like manner Mr. Baxter looking only at the things that are done by the 3. Estates in Parliament as to their concurrence to the making of Laws subordinate managery of other parts of the Government not considering by whose Authority they do what they do and that all that they do signifies nothing unless it be ratified by the King erroneously at least if not fallaciously concludes the Soveraignty or supreme power it self to be divided betwixt the King and the 3. Estates or betwixt the King the 2. Houses of Parliament whereas their very Parliamentary being consequently the power of their Parliamentary acting is derived from the Supremacy of power inseparably and indivisibly and incommunicably inherent in the King But although the Soveraignty it self or original fountain of all power in a Monarchy be indivisibly incommunicably in the person of the King yet the streams that issue or flow from that fountain may be and are and of necessity must be divided communicated so as may be most serviceable for the several uses the whole body Politick or the whole body of the Kingdom may have of it And as this Supreme or Soveraign Power though it be always indivisibly inherent in the King as the fountain of it may have its several streams divided communicated so in the exercise of its several Acts operations it may be in all Political Kingdoms it is limited determined in some more in some less but in none more nor so much for the good of the Subject without prejudice to the Soveraignty Majesty of the King than in this of ours where the People by their Representatives are not only admitted to propose what they would have to be made Laws but where no Law can be made but what they propose or consent to though they do not make it though it be in the Kings power to refuse the making of it because the Laws we have already are sufficient to secure all their Rights unto the People as long as they are in force in force they will be until the People themselves do consent to the repealing of them For the King as he can make no new Law so he can repeal no old Law without the consent of the Representatives of the People who most certainly will never give their consent for repealing of Magna Charta or the Petition of Right or any other Law now in force for the securing any of their just Rights and Privileges So that the Kings Negative is not nor cannot be prejudicial to the Interest of the People but it is absolutely necessary for the preservation of Monarchy For if the King could not refuse to make what the 2. Houses propose to be Laws the Soveraignty would be wholly in them not at all in him Nay he would be so far from having the Soveraignty of a King that he would not have the liberty of the meanest of his Subjects that sits in the House of Commons in giving his I or No according to the dictate of his own Reason and Conscience which as it is every private mans right by nature as he is a reasonable Creature so it is the Kings right by Nature and Prerogative too as he is a King it being impossible to be a King without it And therefore those that say the King is bound to pass all those Laws quas Vulgus elegerit which the People or Commonalty shall make choice of or that he is but one of the three Co-ordinates therefore may be overvoted by the other two or that he hath but a part of the Soveraignty and therefore cannot over-rule those that have their parts in the Soveraignty as well as he or that he may not prorogue or dissolve Parliaments when he thinks fit to do so All these are Enemies not only to the well-being but to the very being of Monarchy and that not of absolute or despotical Monarchy only but of Political or Paternal Monarchy also And therefore though they cajole and flatter the People never so much they are the greatest Enemies they have and as such the People ought to look upon them would do so if they were not like Beasts without understanding nay worse than Beasts without sence and memory of what they have so often and so lately suffered by listning to the same Songs of the same Sirens or sweet Singers that have so often deceived them But if the People cannot or will not understand the things that belong unto their peace yet Be wise O ye Kings and be learned O ye Judges of the Earth be wise for the Peoples sake be wise for your own sakes also For if you do not prevent the raising raging of those waves the Pilot as well as the Passengers will be swallowed up by them And there is no way to prevent the raising of those Waves nor the raging of them when they are raised but by rebuking the Winds that raised them for if it were not for those boysterous Winds that puff them up there would be no such swelling Waves as we see there are In the mean time I hope I have said nothing for the justifying of my self from being a Defier of Deity and Humanity and from being an Enemy to God to Kings and to all Mankind as Mr. Baxter saith I am because I maintain it to be Vnlawful for Subjects to resist their Soveraigns in any cause or upon any provocation whatsoever and for the confutation of Mr. Baxter's erroneous and seditious Aphorisms or Principles to the contrary I hope I say I have said nothing in order to either of these ends that will give any just offence to such as are judicious and impartial Friends to Truth and do really wish and desire the continuance of the Peace and welfare of their Country and then for such as are contrary minded I care not what they think or say of me The End of the Fifth Section SECTION VI. The rest of Mr. Baxter's Reflexions called to account as concerning the Bishop's advising him to reade Hooker and
not from the People that chuse such or such a Man to be their King but from God onely so that as the Woman cannot take away the power of a Husband from her Husband after he is her Husband so the People cannot take away the Kingly power from their King after he is their King And therefore he concludes That in case the Kingly or supreme Power should be made use of to the publick detriment he sees not how the Body meaning the whole Body politick by any just means should be able to help it self without the consent of him that hath the supreme Power What could he have said more convincingly for the Declaration of his own Opinion concerning the unlawfulness of the Peoples using Force against their King though he make use of his Kingly Power to the detriment of the publick or of the People in general And though he be such a King as he supposeth to have originally derived his Title from the free choice of the People or from the choice of a free People much less if he come in by Conquest For some multitudes saith Mr. Hooker are brought into Subjection by force Divine Providence it self so disposing for it is God that giveth Victory in the day of Battel and unto whom Dominion is in this sort derived the same they enjoy according to the Law of Nations which Law authorizeth Conquerours to reign as absolute Lords over them whom they vanquish Now this way that is by Conquest was their Dominion or Kingly Power over this Nation of ours originally derived to our present Race of Kings But may they therefore now reign absolutely and at their own Will and Pleasure as their first Predecessours who came in by Conquest did or might have done No Mr. Hooker doth not say so nor I neither but he saith and so say I too That by means of after agreement or rather by after condescensions concessions and grants of Kings it comes to pass in Kingdoms that they whose ancient Predecessours were by violence and force made Subject do by little and little grow into the sweet of Kingly Government that is a Government of Kings governing by Laws in a free and voluntary manner condescended unto And thus this Kingdom of ours of Despotical became Political by our Kings limiting and restraining themselves by Laws of their own and their Predecessours making and much more by restraining themselves from making any Laws at all but such as the Lords and Commons in Parliament should consent to And this is all the restraint that Mr. Hooker acknowledgeth our Kings to be Subject to and is this more than Mr. Baxter doth or can approve of This doth not hinder the Government to be truly Monarchical which Mr. Baxter saith it is not nor the Supremacy to be wholly in one Person both as to Ecclesiastical and secular affairs as Mr. Hooker saith it is and Mr. Baxter saith it is not So that it was not Mr. Hooker's restraining but his extending or rather acknowledging and defending the extent of the Power of all Kings in general and of the Kings of England in particular that Mr. Baxter doth not nor cannot consistingly with himself approve of We will instance in what he saith of our own King onely according as he himself desireth to be understood when he tells us that what he speaks of Kings shall be in respect of the slate and nature of this Kingdom And first he tells us That this is an hereditary Kingdom and that in hereditary Kingdoms Birth giveth right to Sovereign Dominion and that the Death of the Predecessour putteth the Successour by bloud in Seisin He adds That if it should so happen that a man without right of bloud be elected and put into possession with all the usual Ceremonies and Solemnities all such new Elections and investings are utterly void the Inheritour by bloud may dispossess him as an Vsurper the contrary opinion whereunto he saith is an unnatural conceit and an insolent position set abroach by seeds-men of Rebellion onely to animate unquiet Spirits and to feed them with possibility of aspiring to Thrones if they can win the Hearts of the People What say you Mr. Baxter is not this more in favour of such Kings as ours is than you approve I am sure it is more than you did approve when as you tell us in your Holy-Common-Wealth you were bound to submit to the present Government as set over us by God and to obey for Conscience sake and to behave your self as a loyal Subject towards them But what was that present Government It must be one or other of those Governments betwixt the late King's Murther and his Son's Restauration which in Mr. Hooker's judgment were all of them Vsurpations and consequently all that voluntarily adhered and submitted to them Rebels and Traitours because they did as much as in them lay to exclude and keep out the right Heir from the Crown in an hereditary Kingdom So that I do not wonder if Mr. Baxter found more in Mr. Hooker than he could approve as to this particular but it was not for his too much restraining the Power of the King over his People but for his restraining the Power of the People over their King by setting up what Governours and what Government they please contrary to the fundamental Institution of the Kingdom Again as Mr. Baxter might find more in Mr. Hooker than he could approve or had approved for limiting the descent of the supreme Power here with us to the next in bloud or the right Heir without exception so in regard of the supreme Power itself as it is vested in our King he might find more in Mr. Hooker than he did approve not for the restraint but extent of it and that in regard both of persons and of things And first of Persons For Mr. Hooker speaking of our King's Supremacy saith that thereby it is intended and meant to exclude partly foreign Powers and partly the Power which belongeth in several unto others contained as parts in that politick Body over which the King hath Supremacy in and by which words all Persons as well within as without the Kingdom are excluded from having any part in the Sovereignty or supreme Power here in England None without the Kingdom having any thing to doe with it and All within the Kingdom being subject to it And this is the true interpretation of the Oath of Supremacy whereby as I have proved before the King is acknowledged to be the onely supreme Governour in as well as of this Kingdom and by consequence exclusively not onely in relation to any that do pretend from abroad but also from any that may pretend at home to have any part in or of the Supremacy with him Whereas Mr. Baxter will have the Oath of Supremacy to be understood as intending onely to exclude foreign Pretenders to any Supremacy here namely the Pope and
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
and revenge what they had done unto his Father And though they have found the contrary to the praise of his incomparable Clemency be it spoken yet such is their Ingratitude they seem to be as weary of being under the Son as they and their Predecessours were of being under the Father as appears by their taking the same ways and using the same Arts to dissaffect and stir up the People against the one as their Predecessours had done formerly against the other But I hope though the People now rage so furiously and some of the Rulers take Counsel together against the Lord and against his Anointed yet that which they imagine namely to break the bands of their Allegiance asunder and to cast away the cords thereof from them will prove but a vain thing for he that sitteth in Heaven shall laugh them to scorn the Lord shall have them in derision and will keep up him whom he hath set up over us and them too and will bring down those how many and how mighty soever they may seem to be that shall dare to rise up against him But perhaps Mr. Baxter will say that he and his Party for whom he doth apologize are so far from being concerned in what I have said for the bringing them under the King that they were the Men that brought in the King to reign over them and us too and that if it had not been for them he had never been brought home as he was The former clause of which saying of theirs I utterly deny for they kept him out as long as they could and would have done so for ever if they could have established any other Government but that if it had not been for them he had not come home as he did is true in one sense that is he had not come home from having been banished and forced to live abroad so many Years together which they were indeed the cause of but in another sense namely that he came home as he did without any capitulations or conditions of restraint put upon him They I mean the Nonconformists were so far from being the cause of that they did what they could to hinder it and I could name the place where a Consultation was held by the Grandees of the Faction to oblige him before he came home to consent to those very Propositions which were made by the Parliament Commissioners to his Father at the Isle of Wight which would have lest him but the Name of a King onely but the curst Cow had short horns the Army was in better hands than it had been and he that was Commander in chief of it having purged out all that would not comply with his loyal Intention to bring in the King as a King he frustrated the designs of those that would have brought him in manacled or not have brought him in at all which were all the Nonconformists and especially those of the Presbyterian Party who though they did not because they could not hinder the King's Restauration in that manner he was restored nor consequently their being brought under him so far as to own and acknowledge him to be their King by taking a pardon from him for what they had done against his Father and himself yet they do not nor will not own him as all Subjects ought and as all good Subjects do own their Kings by obeying their Laws And perhaps that which Mr. Baxter means by the Bishop of Ely's and my helping to bring him and his Party under is the bringing of them under the obedience of the King's Laws by silencing such as will not obey them What the Bishop of Ely hath done in that kind I know not but this I am sure that neither he nor I could have obeyed the Laws our selves if we had not silenced those Preachers that would not conform to what they were enjoyned by Law and which if they refused We that were Bishops were enjoyned by Law to silence them as we did how few or how many soever they were of them though I verily believe they were not half the number Mr. Baxter speaks of In the Diocese of Worcester whilst I was Bishop there Mr. Baxter himself was the onely man whom I silenced and since I was Bp. of Winchester which is now above 20 Years I do not think the Nonconforming Ministers I have silenced have been half so many I mean half so many men silenced as there have been years since which I do not say to ingratiate my self with the Nonconforming Party as if I would not have silenced more if there had been more to silence that is if there had been more in possession of any Benefice or Cure of Souls in that Diocese who refused to conform to all that by the Act of Vniformity they were enjoyned to conform unto but I say it to shew the impossibility of the silencing 2000 in all when there were so few silenced in that Diocese of Winchester which is none of the least though there be some greater Besides I presume Mr. Baxter means by his 2000 not onely such as were put out of their Livings or Cures for refusing to conform or for their Inconformity onely but such as likewise were put out because they were Intruders into other mens Livings as Mr. Baxter himself was and consequently were by Law compellable to yield possession to the right owners that were then living who perhaps were some Hundreds of those Thousands I am sure all We of the Clergy that were abroad with the King and all those that were at home and had been put out because they would not take the Covenant and lived till after the King 's and the Church's Restitution by being restored to what was our own before must needs dispossess many of those whom Mr. Baxter would have thought to have been put out for Inconformity onely But supposing all that were put out or silenced had been put out and silenced for Nonconformity onely and supposing too that there were 2000 of them yet how the Bishop of Ely and I did more to the bringing so many of them under that penalty than other Bishops did or than all Bishops were bound to do I do not understand unless he means that We did it more effectually than any other of the Bishops did which is to cast an imputation of Connivence at the breach of the Law in favour of the Nonconformists upon all the rest of our Order which I think none of them will own as a favour from him For my own part as I did willingly consent to the making of that Law I mean the Act of Vniformity so I did as willingly put it in execution where I was obliged to do so as believing it not onely to be just and equitable but in an high degree expedient if not absolutely necessary also CHAP. VI. The Justice and Equity as also the Prudence and Necessity of silencing the Nonconformists The King's Promise at Breda being onely conditional
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
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
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
being a a lawfull Command THis proposition being brought by us viz. That Command which commands an Act in it self lawfull and no other act or circumstance unlawfull is not sinfull Mr. Baxter denied it for two reasons which he gave in with his own hand in writing thus One is Because that may be a sin per accidens which is not so in it self and may be unlawfully commanded though that accident be not in the command Another is That it may be commanded under an unjust penalty Again this Proposition being brought by us That Command which commandeth an Act in it self lawfull and no other Act whereby any unjust penalty is injoyned nor any circumstance whence per accidens any sin is consequent which the Commander ought to provide against is not sinfull Mr. Baxter denied it for this reason given in with his own hand in writing thus Because the first Act commanded may be per accidens unlawfull and be commanded by an unjust penalty though no other Act or circumstance commanded be such Again this Proposition being brought by us That Command which commandeth an Act in it self lawfull and no other Act whereby any unjust penalty is injoyned nor any circumstance whence directly or per accidens any sin is consequent which the Commander ought to provide against hath in it all things requisite to the lawfulness of a Command and particularly cannot be guilty of commanding an Act per accidens unlawfull nor of commanding an Act under an unjust penalty Mr. Baxter denied it upon the same Reasons Peter Gunning John Pearson The Postscript LEst Mr. Baxter should say I have defamed him once more by charging him with devising and publishing Maxims of Treason Sedition and Rebellion which till he should as publickly recant I thought it unfit to restore him to the exercise of any Act of the Ministery in my Diocese I think my self obliged to set down some few of his Political Theses or Aphorisms in his own words as they are extant though it be strange such a Book should still be extant in his Holy Common-wealth most falsly and profanely so called Mr. Baxter 's Theses of Government and Governours in General I. GOvernours are some limited some de facto unlimited The unlimited are Tyrants and have no right to that unlimited Government P. 106. Thes. 101. II. The 3. qualifications of necessity to the being of Sovereign Power are 1. So much understanding 2. So much will or goodness in himself 3. So much strength or executive power by his interest in the People or others as are necessary to the said ends of Government P. 130. Thes. 133. III. From whence he deduceth 3. Corollaries viz. 1. When Providence depriveth a man of his understanding and intellectual Capacity and that statedly or to his ordinary temper it maketh him materiam indispositam and uncapable of Government though not of the name Thes. 135. 2 If God permit Princes to turn so wicked as to be uncapable of governing so as is consistent with the ends of Government he permits them to depose themselves Thes. 136. 3 If Providence statedly disable him that was the Sovereign from the executing of the Law protecting the just and other ends of Government it makes him an uncapable subject of the power and so deposeth him Thes. 137. IV. Whereunto he subjoyns that though it is possible and likely that the guilt is or may be theirs who have disabled their Ruler by deserting him yet he is dismissed and disobliged from the charge of Government and particular innocent members are disobliged from being governed by him V. If the person viz. the Sovereign be justly dispossess'd as by a lawfull War in which he loseth his right cially if he violate the Constitution and enter into a Military state against the people themselves and by them be conquered they are not obliged to restore him unless there be some special obligation upon them besides their allegiance Thes. 145. VI. If the person dispossess'd though it were unjustly do afterwards become uncapable of Government it is not the Duty of his Subjects to seek his restitution Thes. 146. No not although saith he the incapacity be but accidental as if he cannot be restored but by the Arms of the Enemies of God or of the Commonwealth VII If an Army of Neighbours Inhabitants or whoever do though injuriously expell the Sovereign and resolve to ruine the Commonwealth rather than he shall be restored and if the Commonwealth may prosper without his restauration it is the duty of such an injured Prince for the Common good to resign his Government and if he will not the people ought to judge him as made uncapable by Providence and not to seek his restitution to the apparent ruine of the Common-wealth Thes. 147. Where by the way we are to note he makes the People judge of this and all other incapacities of the Prince and consequently when or for what he is to be Depos'd or not Restored by them VIII If therefore the rightfull Governour be so long dispossess'd that the Commonwealth can be no longer without but to the apparent hazard of its ruine we that is we the people or we the Rebels that dispossess'd him are to judge that Providence hath dispossess'd the former and presently to consent to another Thes. 149. IX When the people are without a Governour it may be the duty of such as have most strength ex charitate to protect the rest from injury Thes. 150. and consequently they are to submit themselves to the Parliament or to that Army which deposed or dispossess'd or murthered the rightfull Governour X. Providence by Conquest or other means doth use so to qualifie some persons above others for the Government when the place is void that no other persons shall be capable competitours and the persons doth not he mean the Cromwells shall be as good as named by Providence whom the people are bound by God to chuse or consent to so that they are usually brought under a divine obligation to submit to such or such and take them for their Governours before those persons have an actual right to Govern Thes. 151. XI Any thing that is a sufficient sign of the will of God that this is the person by whom we must be Governed is enough as joyned to God's Laws to oblige us to consent and obey him as our Governour Thes. 153. XII When God doth not notably declare any person or persons qualified above others there the people must judge as well as they are able according to God's general rules Thes. 157. XIII And yet All the people have not this right of chusing their Governours but commonly a part of every Nation must be compelled to consent c. XIV Those that are known enemies of the Common Good in the chiefest parts of it are unmeet to Govern or chuse Governours but such are multitudes of ungodly vicious men Pag. 174. So that if those that are strongest though fewest call themselves the Godly Party
were some other reasons besides what are alledged by him that made him forbear the Printing of it for whereas he saith It was for peace or for peace sake that he laid it aside or forbore printing it because having already that is before my publishing of the aforesaid Letter greatly incurr'd the Bishop of Ely 's displeasure and mine by what he had said and done against our Way he believed the opening of so many mistakes in matter of fact as were in that Letter would not easily be born and for that reason he laid aside that Answer of his to that Letter of mine I cannot believe that this was the onely or indeed any reason at all of his so doing I mean it was neither his love of peace in general nor his fear of giving me any farther provocation in particular that made him suppress that pretended Answer For first if he were of so peaceable a disposition or so great a lover of Peace as he would seem to be he would not have spent so much of his time in writing so many Volumes to keep up and increase Schism and Separation in the Church together with Faction and Sedition in the State as he hath done Which might be made to appear yet farther from the manner as well as the matter of his writing which is so Magisterial and with that contempt undervaluing and vilifying of those he writes against or that write against him and sometimes with such exasperating and provoking language as very ill becomes him that pretends to be a Peace maker And perhaps in such a style was that Answer of his written if he writ any answer at all to the aforesaid Letter of mine and then perhaps too some wiser Friend of his might advise him to forbear printing of it at least at that time namely at the King 's first coming in against one that came in a little before him and was sent by him and had been all the while the King was abroad in Exile with him and for him and had newly received some more than ordinary marks of his Majestie 's favour from him These or the like considerations to these being suggested to him might peradventure at that time prevail with him rather wholly to suppress or at least to defer the printing of that Answer of his if there were any such answer than thereby so unseasonably to provoke me more whose displeasure he saith he had greatly incurr'd by what he had said and done against the Bishop of Ely 's way and mine as if the Bishop of Ely and I had a Way of our own wherein no body walked but our selves I would therefore fain know what he calls the Bishop of Ely's way and mine and for his speaking and acting against which he had so greatly incurr'd that Bishop's and my displeasure Is it a new or a newly found out Way or a way of our own devising as Mr. Baxter's way is of his a way that never any walked in before nor none but himself doth walk in yet nor will I believe ever walk in hereafter For it is neither Episcopal nor Presbyterian nor wholly Independent nor any of any other denomination either ancient or modern that I ever heard of but partly of all and partly of none of them But Ours I mean the Way which the Bishop of Ely and I do walk in is no By-path not a Way of Sufferance or Toleration onely such as Mr. Baxter and all the Nonconformists plead for but the Good old way the King 's the Church of England's way nay the Catholick Churches High-way the Way wherein all the Primitive Fathers Saints and Martyrs and all the Orthodox Christians in all Ages untill the last before this of ours have gone before us I mean the Government of the Church by Bishops teaching all and nothing else but what was taught by Christ and his Apostles in point of Doctrine and commanding nothing which God has forbidden nor forbidding any thing which God has commanded in the outward Administration of God's publick Worship and Service but making use of that liberty and power that God hath left to his Church in order to Decency and Uniformity and Edification and consequently in order to that Unity and Concord which Mr. Baxter doth so much pretend to desire and plead for This and no other but this is the Way of the Church of England and this and no other but this is the Way which the Bishop of Ely and I do walk in and would have all men else that are born within the pale of our Church to walk in also And therefore as we cannot chuse but be sorry for those that are led or kept out of this way both for their own and the Churches sake so we cannot chuse but be displeased too with those that not onely refuse to walk in it themselves but endeavour and doe what they can to draw others from it and to keep those that are gone out of it from returning again into it by making and preaching and printing Pleas and Apologies for Nonconformists which can have no other end consequentially at least if not intentionally but to confirm them in their Non-conformity And surely he that would not forbear to doe this and to doe it over and over again being so prejudicial and destructive to the peace of the Church and State as We have experimentally found it to be He I say that would not forbear to doe this for the publick peace sake nor for fear of offending the King and the Parliament the makers of those Laws against those things and persons he so loudly and so boldly pleads for did not in all probability for peace sake and much less for fear of displeasing Bishop Morley forbear to publish what he had written in answer to that Letter of the Bishop's which would have been much less provoking by specifying though not proving some of those many mistakes he now chargeth him with without naming any of them and consequently as much as in him lies imposing upon his Readers especially such as are ill-affected to Bishops an implicit belief that there are indeed many very many mistakes in the Bishop's Letter and perhaps gross ones too and such as Mr. Baxter could have named and proved also but being a man of so peaceable so patient and so meek a disposition as he is he did for peace sake and because he would not provoke the Bishop to be more displeased with him than he was already forbear to doe so Credat Judoeus non Ego Believe it who list for me as he faith And therefore he must give me leave to think upon better considerations that he never writ any Answer at all to my Letter So that all the Reply I need to make to this general unattested and unproved Charge of Mr. Baxter is to oppose my bare Negative to his bare Affirmative for Affirmantis est probare He who affirms a thing ought to prove it which
will not conform but the Parliament That is the King with the consent of Lords and Commons and not the Bishops who doe nothing but in obedience to those Laws are the Men whom Mr. Baxter if he speaks properly as he would be thought to do always must needs mean by the men of confounding Practices which how he will justifie if he be called in question for it he were best to consider But as for the men of confused Conceptions and such as could not be reconciled to distinctness and congruity of speech I doubt not but he meant Me for one as I doubt not neither but he meant me for one of the men of confounding Practices also but as he meant more besides my self when he speaks of men of confounding Practices so he must do also when he speaks of men of confus'd Conceptions because he speaks of men in the plural number speaking of both the sorts of them and therefore by the men of confused Conceptions though he may and I believe doth mean me for one yet he must needs mean those that disputed with him as well as me and rather them than me or any other of the Bishops that were there for the Disputants on our part were they that he and his Assistants had to deal with And they were men that I dare say were never thought by any but Mr. Baxter to be men of such confus'd Conceptions and so irreconcileable to distinctness and congruity of speech that is so utterly without Logick or Grammar as he would have them thought to be I am sure the University of Cambridge did not think them to be so when two of them were made the Primary Professours of Theology in that famous University Neither did the King think them to be so when he made all three of them Bishops nor did We that were then Bishops think them to be so when we made choice of them to be ours and the Churches Advocates in a Cause of so high concernment as that was But Mr. Baxter having been so shamefully nonpluss'd as he was at that Disputation would have it to be believed by those that were not there that he had or should have had much the better of it if the men he had to deal with had not been men of such confus'd Conceptions that they could not understand his meaning by his words or of such impatience for that 's part of his character of them also that they would not give him leave to explain himself more fully than he did This might have had some colour of reason in it if the Conference betwixt our and their Disputants had been oral or by word of mouth which is always indeed lyable to heat and eagerness and impatience and misunderstanding of one another whilst they are arguing as likewise to misreporting afterwards of what was said of either side But this Conference was by writing to prevent jangling and all other the aforesaid inconveniences which oral interlocutory Disputes are subject to as likewise that each party might have time to consider what they were to stick to and abide by before they writ it down and to peruse it afterwards and if need were to alter or amend any thing they saw amiss in it before they delivered it to those that were to answer or reply to it And thus were our Arguments delivered unto them by us and thus were their Answers to our Arguments delivered unto us by them all of them written with Mr. Baxter's own hand who seem'd to be the Dominus factotum The Ruler of the Roast in the business The Arguments and the Answers that were written down and interchangeably delivered from one Party to the other were the very same in terminis which I have before recited and which are attested by the subscriptions of the aforesaid witnesses printed above 20 years since and now again reprinted with the Letter whereunto they were first annexed which Attestation together with the Arguments and Answers which are attested I desire the Reader seriously and impartially to peruse and consider and then to judge whether the men Mr. Baxter had to deal with were Men of such confus'd Conceptions and so irreconcileable to distinctness and congruity of speech as he would have them thought to be or whether indeed he himself were not evidently and inextricably confus'd puzzled and perplexed in his Answers to their Arguments especially when he gave his final Answer to their last Syllogisme the Major Proposition whereof I am confident would never have been denied by either of his Assistants had not he being such a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lover of preheminence such a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so contentious and self-will'd as he is overruled them both For who not blinded with prejudice or transported with passion as Master Baxter often is and as it seems then was would have denied as he did the truth of this Proposition viz. That Command which commandeth an act in it self lawfull and no other act whereby any unjust penalty is enjoyned nor any circumstance whence directly or per accidens any sin is consequent which the Commander ought to provide against hath in it all things requisite to the lawfulness of a Command and particularly cannot be guilty of commanding an Act per accidens unlawfull nor of commanding an act under an unjust penalty This this I say was the Proposition which Mr. Baxter did in Writing with his own hand finally deny to be true and this is that which I charge him withall and from which as I then told him it necessarily follows that no Law either humane or Divine can be lawfull because there is no Law of either sort but may by some accident or other be the cause or occasion of sin For example Preaching and Fasting and Praying and Thanksgiving are all of them God's holy Ordinances but may not any nay all of these Ordinances of God himself be by accident the occasion of sin nay were not all of them so in a very high degree in the late Times being made use of in their several seasons to stir up and encourage the People to rebell against their Sovereign and to plunder and murther their fellow Subjects But did this make God's commanding all or any of these holy Ordinances to be unlawfull by Master Baxter's Logick it must do so because by accident they were the cause or occasion of very many and very great sins and such sins as the Commander foresaw they would be the occasion of and might have prevented if he would by suffering no ill use to be made of them which is more than any humane Lawgiver can doe and yet he did not nor would not prevent those accidental evils either by forbearing to make such Laws as he knew would be the occasion of sin or by repealing or altering or dispensing with them after they were made or by remitting and not inflicting the punishment that was due
magne Sacerdos But do not bluster so mighty Presbyter Is this the humble the meek the mortified and daily dying Mr. Baxter Tantoene animis Coelestibus irae Have heavenly minds such boisterous passions And why not may some Friend of his say can a man be too zealous for God or too angry with any that defies God or that denies his Sovereignty over all his Creatures and consequently over all humane Powers or Governours Was not Moses the meekest man alive and yet was not he angry very angry so angry that he brake the Tables of stone wherein the Law was written by God's own hand because the People had by their Idolatry broken the Law written by God's own hand in the Tables of their hearts The like may be said of Phineas of David and of St. Paul who was so angry that he wished that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The disturbers and overturners of the Church in those times were cut off which by the way is as bad if not worse than silencing Why then should Master Baxter be blamed if he thinks no words bad enough for those that are the defiers of Deity and Humanity and the Enemies to God to Kings and to all Mankind True but who or where are they that are so they are those saith Mr. Baxter in one place that deny all humane Powers to be limited by God But who are they that deny all humane Powers to be limited by God they are saith Mr. Baxter in another place Such as deny all Governours whether limited or unlimited to be Subjects themselves and under the Sovereignty and laws of God But who are they or who is he that denies either this or the former of those two Propositions Bishop Morley for one saith Mr. Baxter in the aforesaid late Book of his and therefore he is a defier of Deity and Humanity and so are others too for the same reasons as he tells us in his Paper of Recantation but they it seems must be nameless Well but how doth he know that Bishop Morley doth or ever did deny either That all humane Powers are limited by God or that all Governours are subject to God Did he ever hear me say so himself or can he produce any Witness that is fide dignus That may be believed who told him so I am sure I never thought so and therefore I am sure I never said so But because he grounds my being a defier of Deity and Humanity upon this supposition and upon this supposition onely That I deny all Humane Powers to be limited by God or That all Humane Governours are Subject unto God And because there be many that will believe whatsoever he saith because he saith it Be it known to Mr. Baxter and all Baxterians in the World that I Bishop Morley do in my own name and I am confident may doe it in the name of all the Episcopal Party that is of the whole Church of England truly so called not onely confess and acknowledge but declare and aver and avow first That all Humane Powers and not Humane onely but Terrestrial Celestial and Infernal Powers also are subject to God and limited by God that is by the Power the Will and Wisedom of God so that none of them can doe more or less or otherwise than he wills or permits them to doe and that he restrains overrules and orders whatsoever they doe as he pleaseth in order to his own most wise and just ends Secondly I do acknowledge and declare also that all humane Powers or Governours the Supreme as well as the Subordinate and the Vnlimited I mean the unlimited by humane Pacts and constitutions as well as the Limited are all of them limited by God and that not by his Power onely but by his Laws also either as they are written by him in Mens hearts or revealed by him in his Word and that as all the Heathen World Kings as well as Subjects were limited by the former so all the Christian World Kings and States as well as Subiects are limited by the latter and by the former also so as to be thereby obliged though not necessitated to observe the Dictates and to doe nothing contrary to either of those Laws and if they doe not accordingly that they are answerable to God and punishable by God for it as he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 King of Kings and Lord of Lords as much or more than any of the meanest of their Subjects This is and always was my Creed as to this parcular and therefore instead of defying Deity and Humanity I defy Mr. Baxter and all the Baxterians in the World to prove that I ever did dicto vel scripto By saying or writing directly or indirectly in terminis vel in sensu oequipollenti In downright terms or equivalent meaning formally or consequentially deny all or any humane Powers or Governours either de jure As to matter of right or de facto As to matter of fact to be limited by God or that I did ever accuse Mr. Baxter or any body else for affirming it And therefore I do now accuse him for having falsely accused me of such a Crime as is no less as he himself saith than the defying of Deity and Humanity which is a very high degree not of Profaneness onely but of Atheism and Blasphemy also and therefore highly criminal and highly punishable even here in this world in them that are guilty of it and per legem talionis By that law which requires like for like in those also that accuse any man of it and cannot prove it especially in one Church man accusing another and more especially according to the ancient Canons of the Church in a Presbyter accusing a Bishop of so high a Crime as this is But Mr. Baxter it seems will joyn Issue with me upon this point and will prove that though I did not in terminis defy Deity and Humanity by denying in terminis all humane Power to be limited by God Yet I am nevertheless a defier of Deity and Humanity because I do consequentially deny all humane Powers to be limited by God And that I do consequentially deny all humane Powers to be limited by God he proves or thinks he proves or rather indeed would have others think he proves it for I am confident he himself believes it no more than I do because I deny this Aphorism of his That all unlimited Governours are Tyrants and have no right to their unlimited Governments so that the proof of my being a defier of God because I deny all humane Powers to be limited by God depends upon the truth of this Syllogism He that denies all unlimited Governours to be Tyrants and such as have no right to their unlimited Governments doth consequentially or by necessary consequence deny all humane Powers to be limited by God But Bishop Morley doth deny the former Ergo he doth deny the latter also Well
suppose he did so yet if being not so clear-sighted as Mr. Baxter is nor having such a Metaphysical Microscope as Mr. Baxter hath to see so far into a milstone as Mr. Baxter doth the Bishop doth not discern either the necessity or probability or possibility of any such consequence must he because he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 moap-ey'd or because he hath no better a discerning faculty than God hath given him must he needs I say be therefore a defier of Deity and Humanity when if he saw or did believe there were any such consequence he would be as ready to condemn the opinion from whence it is inferr'd and to anathematize the maintainers of it as Mr. Baxter himself is or can be But thanks be to God we have a more mercifull Judge than Mr. Baxter is for Woe be to the Bishop and Woe be to Mr. Baxter himself nay Woe be to the best and wisest of all mankind neither of which do I think that I or Mr. Baxter himself is if we were to be judged by the consequences of all our Opinions at the last day For I know nothing by my self says St. Paul who was spiritually as wise and as good a man as perhaps ever any mere man was yet I am not saith he thereby justified and therefore though our hearts do not condemn us says St. John yet God who is greater than our hearts may And truly I know no Man that hath more reason to be afraid to be tried by Consequences than Mr. Baxter himself hath as I think I have made it appear already from the Consequences of what he asserted at the Savoy-Conference and shall make it appear more and more before I have done with him And therefore it is for his sake more than for mine own at least upon this occasion that I would not have men judged of by the Consequences of their Opinions though never so truly inferr'd from them if they be denied by them But I say not this as any way or in any the least degree acknowledging that there is any such Consequence logically or rationally to be inferr'd as Mr. Baxter saith there is from my denying of his aforesaid Aphorism to be true that therefore I deny all humane Powers to be limited by God But doth not saith Mr. Baxter he that maintains as the Bishop doth that there is such a thing in the world as an unlimited lawfull Monarchy or humane Power consequentially deny that all humane Powers are limited by God No saith the Bishop if by unlimited he means unlimited by men or by humane Laws or constitutions for some humane Powers may be unlimited in this sense and yet all of them notwithstanding be limited by God I but saith Mr. Baxter this subterfuge will not serve the Bishop's turn for in my Aphorism which he noteth as false I do expressly speak of God's limitation Do you so Mr. Baxter then the Printer hath done you great wrong or mine Eyes are grown so dim with age as no spectacles will enable me to see any such words as limitation of God or by God either in the Text or Margent of that Aphorism which is now in question no nor in the Paraphrase which you give us of that Aphorism in the aforesaid late Book of yours which I have now before me where indeed it is said that Bishop Morley maintains though he had not maintained it then but means to do it now that there may be a lawfull unlimited Monarchy or Sovereign Power but it is not said there nor any where else that Bishop Morley maintains there may be a lawfull Monarchy or any other Government lawfull or unlawfull unlimited by God But he that denies that aforesaid Aphorism may Mr. Baxter reply doth consequently maintain there may be such a Monarchy or Sovereign power unlimited by God because Mr. Baxter doth expressly speak of limitation by God He doth so indeed in the words immediately subjoyn'd to that Aphorism but not in the Aphorism it self neither doth he speak of it in the words subjoyned to explain what he meant by the limitation he speaks of in the Aphorism before but rather to intimate that it was not a limitation by God which he before spake of For having said in his Aphorism that Of Governours some were limited and some unlimited and that the unlimited were Tyrants and had no right to their unlimited Governments he adds as a reason why the unlimited were Tyrants and had no right to their Governments For they are all subject themselves and under the Sovereignty and Laws of God Which is in effect as much and no more than if he had said Though I tell you that of Governours some are limited and some are unlimited I do not mean any of them are unlimited or not limited by God and what is this but a plain confession that by limitation of Governours in the aforesaid Aphorism he means their limitation by men and not by God And then Ihope a man may deny all such Governours to be Tyrants that are not so limited without denying them to be limited by God and consequently without incurring the Censure of being a defier of Deity and Humanity For why of these Governours or humane Powers that are all of them limited by God may not some of them be unlimited or not limited by men that is by humane Pacts Laws or Constitutions And if this be not Mr. Baxter's own meaning I would fain know how he will make good his division of Governours into some that are limited and some that are unlimited For if his meaning be this that of Governours some are limited by God and some are unlimited by God he must needs own that assertion to be his which he would impose upon me namely that all humane Powers are not limited by God and consequently besides his unavoidably involving himself in a palpable Contradiction for what can be more contradictory than to say that all Governours are and some are not limited by God he doth necessarily make himself what he would have me thought to be viz. a defier of Deity and Humanity if to deny all humane Powers to be limited by God be consequently to defy Deity and Humanity For what more evident or undeniable consequence can there be than this Some Governours or some humane Powers are unlimited that is not limited by God Therefore All Governments or all humane Powers are not limited by God but the Antecedent or former of these two Propositions is Mr. Baxter's if by limitation in his Aphorism he means limited by God as he saith he does and therefore the Consequent or latter of these two Propositions must be his also Neither will his de facto doe him any service at all to help him at this dead lift for whereas he saith in his Aphorism Some are limited and some are de facto unlimited supposing him still to mean unlimited as well as limited by God I would
means such as are not de facto limited by men or by humane Pacts and Constitutions and consequently of all such Sovereign and Supreme Governours it is that he affirms that they are Tyrants and that none of them have any right to their respective so unlimited Governments These things premised I demand first of Mr. Baxter what he thinks of Paternal Government or the Government of Fathers over their Children which was the first and most natural Government that ever was in the World and was antecedent to Propriety in Nature as well as in Time though Mr. Baxter doth Magisterially pro more suo According to his custom define Propriety to be in Nature antecedent to Dominion But to let that pass I demand I say whether Paternal Government was either de facto or de jure a limited Government by any humane antecedent Law Pact or Constitution If so I demand again by whom or betwixt whom was it made to be so There were no Men to make it to before Adam unless Mr. Baxter will allow of the dream of the Preadamites nor any besides Adam untill the World began to be peopled with his Children of all whom I presume Mr. Baxter will not deny their Father Adam to have been the lawfull Governour though he was not nor could not be limited by them nor by any antecedent Covenant or Constitution made betwixt them and him whence it follows that either all de facto unlimited Governours are not Tyrants and such as have no Right to their unlimited Governments or that Adam the Father of all Mankind and the first Governour that ever was in the World was a Tyrant and had no right to Govern his own Children as he did and his Childrens Children also or at least had a right to do so as long as he lived which was very near a thousand years So that if any during that time did not submit to his Government it was not because he was not a lawfull though an unlimited Governour but because whosoever disobeyed or resisted him were not onely unnatural Children but rebellious Subjects of whom Cain that killed Abel his Brother was the first and probably so were all descended from him a wicked and rebellious generation who for their rebellion against God and God's Vicegerent their Father Adam their Sovereign Lord and King were all swept away by that universal Inundation and Deluge wherein all mankind perished but Noah and his Family onely who were none of the cursed offspring of Cain but the Posterity of Seth whom God gave unto Adam instead of Abel whom Cain slew After the Deluge the first Monarch of the new World de jure was Noah and probably de facto too as long as he lived or at least as long as he and his Children and his Childrens Children lived together or near one another and were all one people and of one language as the Text tells us they were untill they set upon the building of Babel but assoon as there was a confusion of Tongues some speaking one language and some another then saith the Text they were scattered over the face of the Earth those that spake the same language and understood one another going together to the same place and planting themselves in the same Countrey which being then uninhabited was jure naturali By the right of nature primi occupantis His that took first possession and jure Divino positivo also By God's positive law God himself telling us that he hath given the earth to the children of men that is to be possessed inhabited and cultivated by them So that there were as many several Colonies which afterwards grew into as many several Nations as there were then several Languages and as many several Governours in chief over them who if they were not the Fathers and Heads of the several Colonies as probably enough they might be and then the Regiment might still be Paternal yet were without doubt such as for their eminent courage and vertue were submitted to by the rest of the same Language or took upon themselves to be first their Conductors to their several places of habitation and then to be their Kings or Supreme Governours after they came thither and became one People or Body-Politick So that upon this division and distribution of Mankind into several Countreys and Nations were those first Kings whom Justin speaksof when he tells us that Principio rerum Gentium Nationumque Imperium penes Reges erat That all Nations at first were governed by Kings arbitria Principum pro legibus erant And the Will of the Prince saith he was the Law of the People so that as Monarchy next to the Paternal was the most ancient of all Governments so Arbitrary or unlimited Monarchy was the most ancient of all Monarchies I say most ancient I do not say the best for I do willingly acknowledge a Political Monarchy such as ours is in England where the people are Governed by a King governing by Laws and by Laws made for them by the King with their own consent is incomparably a much better Government both for King and People than an absolute arbitrary and Despotical Monarchy is or can be as I did at large assert and maintain in the Sermon I preached at our present King's Coronation and afterwards printed by his Majestie 's special command which I add to shew that the King himself was of the same Judgment as to that Particular But yet for all that I am not afraid to affirm that Mr. Baxter's Political Aphorism I am now speaking of viz. That all unlimited Governours are Tyrants and have no right to their unlimited Governments is false in it self and the publishing of it as it is capitally criminal in a Subject of any unlimited Government so it is of dangerous consequence and seditious even in a limited or Political Government of any Species or kind whatsoever For there is no species or kind of Government whether it be Monarchical or Aristocratical or Democratical but it may be limited or unlimited and it may be more or less limited but none of them are therefore Tyrannical because they are unlimited For Tyrannus a Tyrant properly so called I mean as now the word signifies for at first it signified neither more nor less than a Monarch or One governing All is either Tyrannus usurpatione a Tyrant by Usurpation or Tyrannus exercitio a Tyrant in Administration that is such a one as doth either violently and injuriously usurp the Government which he hath no right to or though he hath a right to it doth wickedly and injuriously behave himself in the exercise of it And such in both respects was Cromwell if ever there were any notwithstanding Mr. Baxter's magnifying of him when time was and exhorting his Son to follow his example in Governing as he did which was as he saith to his immortal glory and yet was as arbitrarily and as
unlimitedly as ever any of the Assyrian or Persian or Roman Emperours did heretofore or as the Turk or great Mogul now do And so may any unlimited Monarch doe and yet be neither an Usurper nor an unjust Governour nor consequently be a Tyrant in either of the true notions of a Tyrant as Cromwell was in both for as in the Monarchies before named and in all other Kingdoms in all parts of the World the Succession of Princes one unto another was Hereditary generally at least and I think I may say universally till oflate and consequently They cannot all of them be said to have been Usurpers or Tyrants by Vsurpation so many of them have been Just and Wise and Temperate and every way most excellent Princes and so beloved by their Subjects while they lived that they were Deified and adored by them after they were dead and consequently they were not all of them Tyrants in the Exercise of their Governments though they were unlimited by any antecedent Pact Covenant or Constitution betwixt them and their Subjects which is enough to prove that all de facto unlimited Governours are not Tyrants and consequently to prove this Aphorism of Mr. Baxter's which affirms they are so to be false Neither if it could prove them to be Tyrants Exercitio that is to govern Tyrannically would that prove them to have no Right to their Government supposing them to be no Usurpers CHAP. IV. No obligation from any Law either of God or Nature or Nations that all Governours should be limited by the People Conquerours in a just War have an Vnlimited right and for the people conquered after submission to rise up against them is Rebellion BUt Mr. Baxter perhaps will reply All of them are therefore Vsurpers because they are unlimited as indeed he seems to insinuate by annexing de facto to unlimited as if de jure all Governours ought to be limited in their governing by antecedent Covenants and Compacts betwixt those that are to govern and those that are to be governed by them and therefore those Governours that are not so limited or precontracted with are Tyrants and such Tyrants as have no right to govern because de jure by right they ought to be limited or precontracted with And this I do verily believe to be Mr. Baxter's genuine sense and meaning in this Aphorism and he that reads what he writes afterwards especially in his Aphorisms and discourses of the Causes of Conveying power and of Obedience and Resistance will I am confident be of my mind as to this particular Now if the reason why he doth so magisterially pronounce all those Governours that are de facto Vnlimited to be Tyrants and to have no right to their Governments be because they ought de jure to be limited I mean so limited as is before declared I demand quo jure By what right or law they are obliged to be so limited Was it jure divino positivo By divine positive law or was it jure divino naturali By divine law of nature or was it jure gentium By the law of nations for one of these three it must be or else it could not be obligatory to all Governours and all Nations that are to be Governed by them But first it was not jure divino positivo By divine positive law For where or in what place of God's word either of the new or old Testament do we reade any positive command of God that the Kings or Governours of all Nations or of any Nation should be antecedently limited by Pacts or Covenants agreed upon betwixt them and the People over whom they were to reign before they could have any just Right or Title to governor reign over them I am sure the Kings of Israel though they were limited by God not as Men onely and as all other Kings are but as Kings or in the execution of their Kingly Office and that jure positivo By positive law as well as jure naturali morali By natural and moral law yet they were never limited by the people either antecedenter or consequenter neither à parte ante nor à parte post nor was there any command of God or so much as any intimation from God that they should be so Again as such limitation of Governours by the People is not de jure divino positivo By any positive law of God there being no positive Command in God's word for it so it is not de jure divino naturali By the law of nature neither for then it would have been de facto likewise at first as well as afterwards and in all places as well as in some especially in such places where there are no other rules or Laws for the People to live by but the dictates of Nature onely as in all inhabited places of the lately discovered New world where we find no other Government but by Kings or Monarchs no nor other Kings or Supreme Governours but such as are unlimited Lastly as such a limitation of Kings or Supreme Governours by the People is neither de jure positivo nor naturali Neither by any positive law nor by the law of nature so it is not de jure Gentium By the law of Nations neither For nothing is de jure Gentium By the law of Nations but that wherein the interest of all Nations is concerned as freedom of Trade and Commerce the inviolableness of the Persons of Ambassadours c. but how is the interest of all other Nations concerned in this or that particular Nation 's being governed by a limited or unlimited Prince or Governour and supposing the first Kings or Sovereigns to have been unlimited as Justine and all other Historians tell us they were and as in all probability they were indeed in the first plantation of the World and supposing too their unlimited Governments to have been Hereditary as all History Humane and Divine do testify also I would fain know how the Heirs and Successours of such unlimited Princes could come to be limited It could not be upon the account of a conditional Election for an Election cannot be but into a place that is void but in an Hereditary Kingdom there is never any vacancy because in an Hereditary Kingdom The King never dies though the man who was King doth for immediately assoon as the Father ceaseth the Son or next Heir begins to be King and to be King as his Father was that is an unlimited Sovereign as his Father was and so from generation to generation And then Mr. Baxter must grant that the Hereditary Successours of unlimited Governours may have a Right to their unlimited Governments and such a right as their Subjects cannot deprive them of without such a Governour 's own consent nor he deprive his Heirs of the same right by his consenting to the limitation or lessening of it unless they and every one of them consent to it also Or else he must prove
That a lawfull Sovereign whether limited or unlimited doth not lose or forfeit his right to his Sovereignty or Government over his Subjects by being a Tyrant or by Governing them in a Tyrannical manner so as upon that account his Subjects may lawfully disown or rebell against him 1. Because there is nothing in God's word to warrant it 2. Because there is much to be alledged out of God's word to disprove it 3. Because the Doctrine and Practice of the Primitive Christians is against it 4. Because it seemeth to be a contradiction to the nature of the thing it self to maintain it 5. And lastly Because supposing but not granting it to be true it would be mischievous to Mankind and destructive to humane Society in the practice of it And first this Aphorism or Assertion of Mr. Baxter's viz That a Sovereign or Supreme Governour whether limited or unlimited it matters not hath no Right or forfeits the Right he had unto his Government if he be a Tyrant or Governs otherwise than by the Laws of either God or man or both he ought to do is False because there is nothing in Scripture either of the old or new Testament to warrant the truth of it For this being a matter of so important and universal a concernment as it is in regard of all Times Places and Nations though God foresaw that some nay many very many of the Kings or Supreme Governours both unlimited and limited not onely of other Nations but of his own People would be Tyrants that is such as would govern their Subjects not with Equity Justice and Moderation as they ought to doe nor according either to Divine or humane Laws though of their own making but according to their own Will and pleasures yet there is no mention of any forfeiture of their Right to govern their Subjects that they incur by it nor of any permission for their Subjects to rise or rebell no nor so much as to defend themselves by any kind of force against them much less to depose them or to set up others in the stead of them which if they might have done or if it had been best for them to doe so God no doubt having so special and peculiar a care of them and kindness for them more than he had for any other of the Nations would have permitted them at least to have done what they could to have freed themselves from so heavy a yoke and told them how and when and in what case they might have done so which because he hath not we may be sure it was not his Will they should doe so and consequently it was not lawfull for them to doe so and if not for them then certainly 't is for no other Subjects of any other Nation neither Again besides this proof of the falseness of this Aphorism ab authoritate Scripturae negativè From the authority of Scripture in a Negative way because there is nothing in Scripture to justifie the truth of it by there be many Affirmative and positive places in Scripture to prove the contrary namely that Sovereign Princes or Supreme Governours do not forfeit their Right to their respective Governments though they be Tyrants or because they are Tyrants nor are their Subjects disobliged from their Allegeance and Obedience to them in all lawfull things because they are so Such are all those places in the New Testament which command obedience to the Sovereign or Supreme Governours that then were and particularly to Nero himself the Roman Emperour who was not onely one of the worst of Men but the greatest of Tyrants that ever was in the World And yet it was in his time and for subjection and obedience to him and not to the Roman Senate as partakers of the Sovereignty with him as Mr. Baxter would have it that those strict commands were given to the Christians of those times that were his Subjects to obey him in all his lawfull commands and not to resist him not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though they could not obey him when he commanded what was sinfull or unlawfull Moreover it is observable that as the Prince then reigning when these commands of obedience to him and not resisting of him were given to the Christians by the Apostles was a most merciless and cruel Tyrant toward all his Subjects in general and most of all to those that professed themselves Christians in particular So it is observable I say that at this very time this cruel Tyrant did actually persecute the Christians in a most horrible and outragious manner and measure and yet even then when and whilst they were so cruelly persecuted by him they were commanded to behave themselves as dutifull and obedient Subjects towards him and that for Conscience sake and not for fear of punishment onely or for fear of being worse and worse used by him which the Apostles who knew the mind of God much better than we do would never have commanded them to doe if Nero by his tyrannical usage of them had lost his right to govern them or ceased to be their Sovereign Lastly as it is observable at what time these Precepts of obedience to Sovereign Princes and of not resisting them were given to their Christian Subjects namely when the worst of Men and greatest of Tyrants and first Persecutour of Christians was their Sovereign so it is worth our observation also to take notice of the Persons whom the Holy Ghost made choice of to publish and proclaim these Precepts unto the World They were St. Peter and St. Paul of whom the one had been reproved by Christ whilst he was upon the Earth for resisting the Magistrate though it were in defence of Christ himself and the other was reproved by Christ from Heaven for obeying the Magistrate's sinfull commands by persecuting Christ in his members but both of them had now better learned Christ namely neither to obey the Magistrate when he commanded them to doe that which was sinfull nor to resist him when he persecuted them for not obeying of him And what they had learned themselves they of all the rest of the Apostles were the fittest to teach others because as the one of them was more peculiarly than any other of the Twelve the Apostle of the Jews so the other of them was as peculiarly the Apostle of the Gentiles and both of them so by God's own appointment so that the whole world being according to Scripture divided into Jews and Gentiles the whole world or all Mankind might be taught this doctrine which it so much concerns the peace of the world that all men should learn and practice namely the Doctrine of indispensable either active or passive Obedience of Subjects to their Sovereigns how ill soever they are governed or how much soever they are oppressed by them CHAP. VI. This Proposition farther proved from the Practice of the Primitive Christians ANd as this was the doctrine preached both
and positive command from God for the doing of it and as he had God's command to doe it so he had God's approbation of it and reward for it after it was done for the Lord said unto Jehu saith the Text 2 Kings 11. 30. Because thou hast done well in executing that which is right in mine eyes and hast done to the house of Ahab according to all that was in mine heart thy children of the fourth generation shall sit upon the throne of Israel But Jeroboam had neither God's command to doe what he did before he did it nor God's approbation for doing what he did after he had done it neither were Solomon or Rehoboam usurpers as Athaliah and Ahab and Jehoram were To conclude as the Examples even of the best mens actions recorded in Scripture do not make what they did to be lawfull any farther than as they were agreeable to the general rule of all mens actions the Moral Law of God or as they had a special a certain and a positive Dispensation from God the Lawgiver himself to doe something upon some occasions otherwise than by the general Rule they were obliged to doe and Exceptio in non except is firmat regulam An exception to a Rule strengthens the Rule in things not excepted So the doing of that which was justifiably done then by virtue or warrant of such a Dispensation is not justifiably to be imitated by any man or number of men now when no such Warrant no such Dispensation from the Lawgiver himself in so certain so immediate and so miraculous a manner as it was then is to be expected whatsoever our mad Enthusiasticks may pretend to the contrary CHAP. X. A Recapitulation of the two former Arguments from the word of God and Primitive practice against both Papists and Presbyterians BY what hath been said already partly from plain Precepts of Scripture commanding all Christians to obey and forbidding them to resist their lawfull Sovereigns though never so unlimited in the Constitution or never so Tyrannical in the exercise of their Government for who ever was or could be more so in both respects than NERO was in whose reign those Precepts were given and partly from the Practice and profession of all Christians agreeable to those Precepts in the Primitive and purest times together with the Answer to such Objections as have been or may be made from some few misinterpreted and misapplied examples out of Scripture to the contrary though by what hath been said upon these heads it hath I say been sufficiently proved that Kings or Soveraign Princes and Governours do not lose their Right to govern their Subjects though they be Vnlimited or Tyrants and govern otherwise than by God's or their own Laws they ought or are obliged to govern and consequently that their Subjects do not upon that account cease to be Subjects so as to be disobliged from obeying even such Sovereigns from obeying them I say either actively or passively that is by obeying them in all their lawfull Commands willingly and chearfully and by suffering for not obeying them in their unlawfull Commands meekly and patiently and never in any case or upon any provocation to resist rebell or take up either offensive or defensive Arms against them there being nothing to warrant the one more than the other in the word of God or in the practice and judgment of the first and best of Christians which one would think should be enough to convince all that are Christians now of the unlawfulness of it And yet of all Christians those that seem to be most opposite to one another in all things else I mean the Papists and the Presbyterians with other of our Sectaries agree in this one thing I mean in the lawfulness of Subjects taking up Arms against their Sovereigns though the former to wit the Papists like the old Pharisees hold nothing to be lawfull for which they have not a Tradition from their forefathers and the latter to wit the Presbyterians and their Complices like the old Scribes hold nothing to be lawfull for which they have not express Scripture And yet as both Scribes and Pharisees agreed in thinking it lawfull to oppose and fight against the Lord Christ so both Papists and Presbyterians and other Sectaries agree in holding it to be lawfull to oppose and fight against the Christs of the Lord I mean Kings though as neither of those had then so neither of these have now any Warrant either from Scripture or Tradition that is either from the written Word of God or from the practice of their primitive Predecessours to plead for it CHAP. XI An Objection from the Law of Nature and that those Precepts were temporary and the Primitive Christians were too weak to resist answered The Church of England 's judgment upon the case BUt perhaps it may be said though it cannot be said rationally by any that hold either of the aforesaid Principles that though there be nothing to be alledged either from Scripture or Tradition that is either from the written word of God or from the practice of the Primitive Christians to justifie the taking up either of offensive or defensive Arms by Subjects against their Sovereigns yet it may be lawfull by the Law of Nature which is the unwritten word of God or rather word of God written in mens hearts And this Law of Nature say they is as truly the Law of God as that which is written in Scripture and therefore whatsoever is justifiable by the Law of Nature may be and is lawfull though there be no express Warrant for it either from Scripture or from the practice of the Best of men in former times because it being known by all men to be lawfull by the Law of Nature it needed not to be declared to be so by Scripture nor attested to be so by any Mens Practice or Example Neither will it follòw say they that what was lawfully done at one time must necessarily be done at all times or that it should not be lawfull for Christians to doe that now which it was not expedient for the Primitive Christians to doe then because being so comparatively few and fable as they were then their taking up of Arms against their persecuting and oppressing Princes would rather have increased than lessened their sufferings And what if it were upon that account and upon that account onely for so some of these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Despisers of Government and Blasphemers of Sovereign Princes have dared to argue that Christ and his Apostles did give those Precepts in Scripture of not resisting even the worst of Princes and consequently that they were to oblige those to whom they were given no longer than untill they were strong enough to resist without fear or danger of being the worse for it To this I answer first that to have such a thought of Christ or his Apostles who wrote what they writ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
particular whether it be matter of Faith or Manners Doctrine or Practice it is not to be collected or concluded from the sayings or writings of any one or more particular Doctours of the Church though of never so great eminency for Learning or for Piety or both but from the Church her self speaking to us as she doth first in her Articles 2dly in her Catechism 3dly in her Homilies 4thly in her Liturgy which is a Conservatory of Doctrines as well as a form of publick Worship and 5thly in her Canons In all these I say the Church speaks to us her self by her representative Body in Convocation declaring what her own Judgment is and what she will have the Judgment of all those to be whom she will admit to be of her Communion as to matter of doctrine in the three former and as to matter of practice in the two latter Now as to this particular of which we are now speaking viz. Whether it be lawfull for Subjects in any case or upon any provocation forcibly or by taking up of Arms to resist their Sovereign our Church hath clearly and fully declared her judgment negatively in her Homily against Insurrection which Homily being recited and approved in the Thirty fifth Article of the Book of Articles is subscribed unto by all that subscribe unto those Articles as all those do that are legally Ordained in our Church and consequently as Mr. Baxter himself did if he were Ordained by a Bishop as he saith he was But perhaps Mr. Baxter will say for himself what I remember Mr. Jacomb said for Mr. Calamy of whom when I had said at the Conference in the Savoy that he had at his Ordination not onely subscribed to what the Church required him to subscribe unto but added Non invitus nec coactus sed lubens libensque subscribo which was more than was required of him to shew that he did it freely willingly and heartily True indeed said Mr. Jacomb Mr. Calamy did so then but he hath since been heartily sorry for it and repented of it And so it seems Mr. Baxter hath done also And therefore I do not subjoyn the Doctrine and Practice of Ours to the Doctrine and Practice of the Primitive Church as thinking Mr. Baxter or any of the Dissenters from our Church will be moved at all by it but to shew that the Doctrine and Judgment of our Church is in this particular as it is in all other matters of any moment both doctrinal and practical the same with that of the Apostles and Primitive Christians and consequently that they who condemn or despise this doctrine and practice of Ours do thereby or by so doing condemn and despise the doctrine and practice not of the Primitive Christians onely but of the Apostles and of Christ himself also CHAP. XII Mr. B 's meaning in his Aphorism that Tyrants have no right to govern at all Tyranny not justified by forbidding resistance The reproach Mr. B. casts upon the Bishop lights upon Samuel and St. Paul Mr. B. a favourer of the Novatians BUt perhaps Mr. Baxter may say that in this Aphorism of his we are now speaking of he doth not say that either Vnlimited Governours or Tyrants have no right at all to their respective Governments simply and absolutely but onely that they have no right to their Vnlimited or Tyrannical Governments and consequently that his meaning is that although notwithstanding their being Vnlimited and Tyrannical they may have a right to govern yet they have no right to govern unlimitedly or Tyrannically But as to the first of these namely That unlimited Governours have no right to their unlimited Governments it is absolutely false as I have more than sufficiently proved already And although the second namely That no Governour hath a right to be a Tyrant or to govern tyrannically be true yet that this truth is not the truth at least not the whole truth of Mr. Baxter's meaning appears by many of his following Aphorisms and Comments upon them especially by those wherein as if he were totius mundi arbiter The Ruler of the whole world or Rex regum and dominus dominantium King of kings and Lord of lords that is a Protestant Pope or the Catholick moderatour and decider of all controversies he boldly and Magisterially defines and states the Cases wherein Subjects may or may not resist their Sovereigns For as of his special grace and favour he gives Kings even limited Kings leave to transgress their bounds to such or such a degree without forfeiting their right to their Crowns and without being lawfully resisted by their Subjects for so doing so if they pass the limits he assigns them as if he should say to Kings as the King of Kings saith to the waves of the Sea Hitherto O ye Kings ye may go and no farther then saith he they depose themselves and then their Subjects ceasing to be Subjects their rising up or making war against them can be no Rebellion Whereby it plainly appears that when he saith Tyrants have no right to their unlimited Governments his meaning is not that they have no right to govern tyrannically but that they have no right to govern at all For that Kings have a right to govern tyrannically or that they doe no injury to their Subjects how much soever they do oppress them I never heard of any Christian or Heathen that was of that opinion but Mr. Hobbs onely But I am as far from Mr. Hobbs his opinion namely That Kings do not injure their Subjects when they govern them otherwise than by God's Laws and their own they ought to govern them as I am from Mr. Baxter's namely That Kings do forfeit their rights to their Crowns That Subjects may resist them or defend themselves by force against them when they doe so to any degree whatsoever In all therefore that I have said hitherto for the justifying of my exception against this Aphorism of Mr. Baxter's there is nothing I am sure to justifie either the Tyrannical Government of unlimited and despotical Sovereigns or the illegal and arbitrary Government of limited and political Sovereigns but onely to prove that lawfull Sovereign Princes whether limited or unlimited are not to be resisted by their Subjects which is no more than St. Paul asserts speaking of the worst of Princes nor no more than what may rationally nay necessarily be collected from what Samuel said to the People of Israel when they would needs have a King as other Nations had and when God bids him tell them the manner of their King or what manner of Kings they must expect to have sometimes even such as all other Nations had sometimes bad as well as good and that they were to endure the one as well as the other as all other Nations did also For when he had told them not what all or any Kings ought to doe or lawfully might doe but what
some Kings violently and wrongfully would doe and which if any of their Kings should doe as he foresaw many of them would doe all that they were to doe to help themselves was onely to cry unto God to help them and consequently that though Kings govern never so unjustly or never so contrary to God's Laws or their own as some of the Kings of Judah as well as those of Israel did yet they must not forcibly be resisted by their subjects but all that Subjects in that case can or ought to doe is to cry unto God Preces lachrymoe Prayers and tears being the onely arms the Primitive Christians did use or thought lawfull for Christians to use against such Princes And now let Mr. Baxter lay his hand upon his heart and consider who it is that in one place he calls a defier of Deity and Humanity and in another place an Enemy to God to Kings and to all mankind It is not Bishop Morley at least it is not Bishop Morley onely but Samuel the Prophet and St. Paul the Apostle and St. Peter too or rather the Holy Ghost himself that spake by them so that what was intended by Mr. Baxter as a reproach to Bishop Morley is become Blasphemy against God himself whose truth it is for the maintaining whereof Bishop Morley is so heinously reproached And therefore as St. Peter said to Ananias when Ananias thought he had lyed to St. Peter onely Thou hast not lyed unto men but unto God so might I say unto Mr. Baxter that he hath not reproached me or not me onely but the Holy Ghost himself in calling that doctrine a defiance of Deity and Humanity and an Enmity to God to Kings and to all mankind which was by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost taught by Samuel the Prophet in the Old Testament and by St. Paul and St. Peter in the New But is it possible will some say that Mr. Baxter being so sober and discreet and so meek a man as he is thought to be should publish in Print so very severe a censure against Bishop Morley or any man else that is called a Christian because and onely because he maintains that and nothing but that which was taught by Christ and his Apostles and was believed and practised by the next and best of their Disciples I answer that Mr. Baxter hath censured Bishop Morley as a defier of Deity and Humanity and as an Enemy to God to Kings and to all mankind is evident from the places before quoted out of his printed Papers and that he hath no other but the aforesaid cause for it is evident likewise from what I have now said to disprove that Calumny but the way he takes to induce his Readers to believe it is worth the observation it being the very same artificial jugling trick which I have observed him to make use of more than once before I mean his putting a false Proposition of his own instead or in the place of a true one of mine and then inferring from the false one what he knew could not be inferred from the true one he chargeth me with what he infers from it Thus by misreporting what was affirmed by us and denied by him at the Savoy-Conference he thence infers that I was grossly mistaken in the report I had made of what he said at that Conference And thus again because I had excepted against that Aphorism of his as false which affirms all unlimited Governours to be Tyrants and to have no right to their unlimited Governments He makes me say that all humane Powers are not limited by God and then infers that I am a defier of Deity and Humanity And so here likewise because I say that lawfull Sovereigns are not to be resisted by their Subjects though they be Tyrants or though they do govern otherwise than by God's or their own Laws they ought to govern he would make his Readers to believe that I justify Tyranny it self and that Kings may lawfully doe what they list to their Subjects and take away what they list from them their Lands their Houses their Wives their Children and their Lives also and all this because I say they are not to be resisted if they doe so by their Subjects And doth not St. Paul say so too when he chargeth the Christians upon pain of damnation not to resist Nero who did all these outrages and more and worse also for he caused them to be impaled with stakes thrust into their bodies up to their throats and then besmearing them all over with combustible matter set them on fire to burn like Flamboe's to give light to Passengers as they went along by night in the streets of Rome And dares Mr. Baxter say that St. Paul because he forbad his Christian Subjects to resist this monster did therefore approve all the horrible cruelties and outrageous crimes that he was guilty of or that he did thereby encourage all or any other Kings to doe as he did and consequently was an Enemy to God to Kings and to all Mankind I think he dares not and yet if this Inference of his be good against me it must from the same Premisses be good against St. Paul also for the same Premisses will always infer the same Conclusion and therefore St. Paul is or Bishop Morley is not upon this account what Mr. Baxter saith he is an Enemy to God to Kings and to all Mankind But what is Mr. Baxter then in the mean time certainly either not so good a Logician or so good a Christian as he would be thought to be I am sure he is not such a Christian as those of the Primitive times were who neither wanted courage nor force to defend themselves against the strongest as well as the cruellest of their persecuting Princes and consequently in Mr. Baxter's opinion were no better than fools or madmen to suffer so tamely and so patiently as they did not onely the loss of all they had but death it self and death with the most exquisite torments under their Pagan persecuting Princes and under some Christian heretical Princes also rather than they would transgress those Precepts of St. Paul by so much as offering to defend themselves against their Sovereigns whether Pagans or Hereticks or against those that were commissioned or impowered by them And this doctrine of the unlawfulness for Subjects to defend themselves by force against the most cruel of their most persecuting Princes was universally believed and practised for diverse hundreds of years after Christ without any one instance to the contrary but once onely and then that was when an Heretical Arian Emperour was resisted by his Heretical Novatian Subjects for whom I mean the Novatian Hereticks Mr. Baxter seems to have a very great kindness but whether upon this account I mean because they were the first Christian Subjects that ever resisted their Sovereign or because the first founder of them made himself a
Bishop in another man's Diocese as Mr. Baxter and all Baxterians would be or because they were the old 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first Puritans or pretenders to extraordinary purity and strictness of life as Mr. Baxter and his followers now do whether I say it be upon any or all of these accounts I know not but this I know that Mr. Baxter as often as he mentions them speaks very favourably of them although they were as much as the Orthodox Christians themselves were for the Government of the Church by Bishops and by such Bishops as the Orthodox Bishops then were and as ours now are I mean Bishops of a different and Superiour Order to Presbyters and exercising Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and authority over them And therefore there must be some particular and special reason why Mr. Baxter is so kind to them In the mean time it is observable that as They were then so are They now the greatest pretenders to strictness and severity that then took and now take unto themselves a liberty which God never gave them nay which God by his Prophets and Christ by his Apostles hath forbidden them to take I mean the taking up of Arms by Subjects against their Sovereigns though but defensive onely CHAP. XIII Sovereigns highly accountable to God The doctrine of Non-resistance to the advantage of Subjects as well as of Kings Hobbists Papists and Sectaries censured Mr. B 's Aphorism justly excepted against and the Bishop vindicated from being a Defier and an Enemy to God and Man THe contrary doctrine whereunto which we maintain might have been suspected of flattery to Kings as Mr. Baxter calls it if it had not been St. Paul's as well as ours or if because we teach that Kings are not to be resisted by their Subjects it would follow therefore that we taught likewise that such Kings as govern otherwise than by God's Laws and their own they ought to do were not accountable to any or not punishable at all for so doing Whereas Mr. Baxter knows that we of the Church of England believe and teach that Kings the greatest of Kings are as much nay more accountable to God and punishable by God either here or hereafter for whatsoever they doe amiss than the meanest of their Subjects are to them or by them and so much the rather because they are not punishable but by God onely And therefore as it would not onely be absurd but ridiculous that because a man saith the Deputy Lieutenant or Viceroy of Ireland is not to be questioned or punished by any in Ireland for what he doth amiss there therefore he is not to be questioned or punished at all or that he whose Viceroy he is namely the King of England may not or will not punish him either there or when he comes home so it is equally absurd and ridiculous to conclude as Mr. Baxter does that Bishop Morley because he holds that Kings are not accountable to or punishable by their Subjects therefore he must needs encourage them to be Tyrants as if they were not or as if Bishop Morley thought and taught they were not answerable to God and punishable by God for their Tyranny either here or hereafter and that not onely for their oppression and ill usage of their Subjects but for the dishonour they have done unto God whose Viceroys and Representatives they are and therefore should be as he is not onely just and righteous but mercifull and benign and gracious to all their Subjects Thus we Believe and thus we Teach And withall we believe and teach also That Subjects who suffer wrongfully and yet patiently under oppressing Tyrannical and persecuting Princes as the Primitive Christians did and rejoyced when they did so shall be sure to be either the sooner delivered from sufferings here or to be finally so recompensed and rewarded hereafter that they shall find to their unspeakable and endless comfort and joy that it was good for them that they were so oppressed and afflicted Thus I say do we believe and thus do we teach both Kings and Subjects and if both Kings and Subjects did believe and doe as we teach them neither would Subjects have cause to complain of their Kings nor Kings to be jealous or afraid of their Subjects More to blame therefore are they whosoever they are that teach the contrary either in relation to Kings or Subjects Such in relation to Kings are the Habbists and other the like Atheistical flatterers of Kings who would make them believe they may doe what they list without doing any injury to their Subjects and without being answerable to God for it and that either because there is no God at all or that there is no other life after this And such in relation to Subjects are the Papists the Presbyterians Independents and the rest of the Sectaries who teach it to be lawfull for Subjects when they are grieved and oppressed by their Sovereigns to such a degree or which is all one when they think themselves to be so to take up Arms against them whereby they shew themselves to be much more such as Mr. Baxter would have Bishop Morley believed to be I mean Enemies to God to Kings and to Subjects and consequently to all Mankind than Bishop Morley is 1. For first are not they Enemies to God who teach men to rebell against God and is it not rebellion against God to rebell against the Viceroy of God who because he is God's Viceroy is accountable for what he doth well or ill to none but God And therefore in this case if any God may most Emphatically say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vengeance is mine I will repay it belongs to me and to none but me to call mine own Viceroys to an account and to punish them when and how I think fit and therefore for Subjects to take the sword in this case is to take it or rather to wrest it out of God's hand as well as the King 's and to use it against the King is to use it against God and therefore they that take it and use it if they do not perish by the King's sword I mean the sword of War or of Justice here by bodily death they shall undoubtedly except they repent before they go hence perish by the sword of God Bodies and Souls too in the life to come 2. Are they not Enemies to Kings who teach that Kings may be resisted and deposed by their Subjects for male-administration of their Governments whether real or but imaginary and pretended onely of which the Subjects themselves are to be the Judges and consequently the best of Princes as well as the worst are to reign but precariò Upon precarious terms or durante bene placito During the good pleasure of the people 3. Are not the Teachers of this doctrine Enemies to all Subjects as well as to all Kings first by making their Kings jealous and afraid of them
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
without the destruction of very many innocent persons I cannot understand except we can imagine the Sovereign will have no Subjects to fight for him which Christ supposeth all Kings of this world have on that there will be fighting without killing or that none or very few of those that are innocent of either party will be kill'd which in a Civil War which of all other Wars is commonly the most bloudy and most cruel is not to be imagined And consequently if Kings are not to be resisted by their Subjects but in such a case as this they are never to be resisted at all because there can never be such a Case so that Grotius his main Axiome Summam potestatem tenentibus resisti jure non posse That those who have the Supreme Power cannot lawfully he resisted is still safe and without exception Neither is the truth of it impeached by any of those several Instances which he I mean Grotius subjoyns and which seem saith he to be Exceptions to this Rule but indeed are not 1. For as to the first of those Instances it speaks of such Kings as were never Kings at all but in name onely as the Kings of Lacedoemon were 2. The second speaks of those that had been Kings but ceased to be so by their own voluntary resignations as Diocletian did and some of our Saxon Kings did also and retir'd into Monasteries 3. The third speaks of such Kings as would alienate their Kingdoms unto Strangers whom the Subjects may refuse to obey without resisting their own Sovereigns and are bound to doe so not onely in regard of the natural Allegiance all Subjects owe to their natural Sovereign and to him onely as long as he lives or as long as he continues to be their Sovereign but in regard that after his death or after he voluntarily ceaseth to be their King they owe the same Allegiance to his legal Successour in all Hereditary Kingdoms And therefore saith Grotius the act or attempt of such an Alienation is null in it self and consequently is not at all obligatory to the Subject 4. The fourth speaks of such Kings as Verè hostili animo in totius Populi exitium feruntur that is Such Kings as would if they could destroy all their Subjects and endeavour to doe so Sed vix videtur saith Grotius id accidere posse in Rege mentis compote But this saith he is hard to be imagined of any King that is mentis compos that is in his wits or that is not stark mad and if he be stark mad or not mentis compos not in his right mind then his case is the same with that of Kings that are Minors or Infants and his Kingly Power is to be administred in his name by such as by the Laws or Customes of his Kingdom are to have the custody or care of him while he continues in that condition who are no more to be resisted by the Subject than the King himself was before he was in that condition 5. The fifth instance is of such Kings as In ipsâ delatione imperii In the very making of them Kings are made Kings upon this express condition That if they doe this or that so or so Subditi omni obedientioe vinculo solvuntur The Subjects are discharged from all obligation of obedience to them for then saith Grotius he that was King became a private person again But I say such a one was never a King at all properly so called because in the very Act whereby he was made or rather called a King he was indeed made a Subject to them whomsoever they were that had power to question whether he had done this or no and to un-king him if he had nay if he had not if they should think he had or say he had though they thought or knew he had not 6. The sixth Instance is when the King hath but a part of the Supreme Power and the Senate and the People have another part of it But then say I as I said before the King is no King properly so called I mean is no Sovereign but a piece of Sovereign if there can be such a thing and it is the Sovereign He or They that have the Sovereignty or the whole Sovereign power that I say are in no case to be resisted by their Subjects 7. The seventh and last is the same in sense with the fifth though it differ in words or in the manner of expression both of them speaking of one as King who is indeed no King that is no Sovereign as no man or number of men in any Society of men can be said to be that have others in the same Society equal with them and much less superiour to them as they must be to whom they are obnoxious and accountable for their ill managery of their Government and who have authority to deprive them of it and depose them from it And of none but such Kings as these that is such as are not Kings indeed but in name onely are all the aforefaid Instances wherein Grotius seems to grant it to be lawfull for Subjects to resist their Kings to be understood but two onely and those are the third and the fourth in the former of which there is nothing either said or meant of the Subjects resisting of their Sovereign but onely of their not obeying him if he would have them become Subjects to a stranger which they cannot doe if they would without becoming injurious not onely to him but also to his Successours as I said before And there is a great difference betwixt resisting and not obeying of Sovereigns by their Subjects though Mr. Baxter will needs have not obeying to be resisting in its primary and most proper signification As to the other of these two Instances which may be meant of Kings properly so called I mean such Kings as are indeed Sovereigns namely the fourth wherein upon supposition there were such a a King as would doe and did what he could to ruine his own Kingdom and to destroy all his own Subjects Grotius grants indeed that in such a case Rex abdicat Regnum or the King renounces his Kingdom or doth ipso facto declare he will be no longer their King because voluntas imperandi voluntas perdendi non possunt simul consistere Because a Will to reign and a Will to have none to reign over are inconsistent with one another But withall he tells us it is hardly credible he might have said utterly incredible there should be such a King unless he were mad and if he be mad there be other ways as I said before to hinder him from doing himself or his People so horrible a mischief without their taking up of Arms or rebelling against him So that I do not see how it can be rationally concluded out of any of the aforesaid Instances that it is lawfull to resist him or them that have the Sovereign Power
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
Where is the security thereby provided for the Lives Liberties and Properties of Free-born English-men when an arbitrary Vote of the House of Commons if it be believed as Mr. Baxter saith it must be by the People and be put in execution as Mr. Baxter cannot deny but it may be because it hath been may take away any mans life how innocent soever without any farther process or a legal proof of any crime against him For who is there that can secure himself from such a Vote or that can be secured after he is devoted by such a Vote from being killed by the next man that meets him in the Streets for there be more Feltons saith Mr. Baxter than one neither will the hanging of one discourage all the rest from hazarding their lives upon the same account as long as they are possessed and actuated with the same principle viz. that it is not only lawful but a glorious and meritorious deed to kill any man that is an Enemy to the Publick and withal that he is obliged to believe that any or as many as the House of Commons shall declare to be so are so It was high time therefore for the King to give a stop to such proceedings by dissolving the late Parliament to prevent the proscribing of all that were about him and employed by him and perhaps the remonstrating against himself also as their Predecessors had done against his Father which Remonstrance made by the then House of Commons as it was intended and made use of at first by the Presbyterians to begin and carry on their Rebellion against the King and his Party so was it made use of at last also by the Independents for the destruction of the Kings Person the pretended male-administration of the Government which was the matter of the Remonstrance being that for which he was indicted and condemned and put to death by the Independents And yet that very Remonstrance it was that Mr. Baxter in the place before quoted saith the People were obliged to believe and consequently to act thereupon as afterwards they did and yet good man he was in the mean time far from being guilty of any hurt to the Kings Person or destruction of his Power But why was he or the rest of the People obliged to believe either that Remonstrance or his Declaration of the House of Commons were they infallible that they could not be deceived themselves or were they impeccable that they could not deceive others neither the one nor the other For Mr. Baxter himself tells us it is well known that Parliaments quà tales as such are not divine religious Protestant or just That sometimes the major part in either or both Houses may be the worst And therefore I should think not always to be believed in what they declare nor always to be complied with by the People whose Trustees they are in whatsoever they command or undertake For if They be such as Mr. Baxter saith They may be may They not betray their trust and act contrary to the Interest of those that trust them Yes saith Mr. Baxter they may and consequently may saith he forfeit their power as well as Kings nay in some cases saith Mr. Baxter We are all that is the whole Nation to take part with the King against the Parliament as First If they would depose the King unjustly or change the Government or Secondly If they notoriously betray their trust in fundamentals or in points that the Common good depends on as if ever any Parliament did That we are now speaking of did and did it most notoriously there saith he the Peoples duty is to forsake them and to cleave to the King against them But who shall be Judg whether they do so or no or if there be a division betwixt those between whom the Sovereignty is divided as Mr. Baxter supposeth it is betwixt King and Parliament here in England and the one usurps or is pretended to usurp upon the other What then why then saith Mr. Baxter it belongs to the People to judg whose cause is best and to resist the usurping party But the People as he tells us in another place cannot themselves judg for themselves and therefore saith he the Constitution of the Government having made the Parliament the Trustees of our Liberties hath made them our Eyes by which We must discern our dangers And therefore as he saith a little before in the same page We are obliged to believe them as the most competent Witnesses and Judges and the chosen Trustees of our Liberties So that if there be a difference betwixt the King and the House of Commons and the House of Commons would depose the King never so unjustly or change the Government never so notoriously or betray their trust never so perfidiously yet if the House of Commons themselves will not say they do so but declare the contrary the People are to believe them and to side with them against the King yea and against the House of Lords too if they joyn with the King which how it can consist with the Doctrine of Co-ordination or with his own aforesaid Assertion that in some cases the People are to cleave to the King against the Parliament he were best to consider In the mean time thanks be to God We have a better and a more certain Rule of right and wrong and to be guided in what We are to believe and do than an arbitrary Vote of the major part of the House of Commons and that is the known Law of the Land For verissimum illud saith Grotius ubi semel à jure recessum est incerta esse omnia when we are once out of the road and rule of the Law we know not whither We are a going nor what we are a doing If therefore the question be Whether the late War was made against the King or no it is not a Declaration of the House of Commons or of both Houses either pro or con that will decide the question but Ad legem ad legem it is the Law that must do it and the Law hath done it For when the Earl of Essex in Queen Elizabeths time at his Arraignment for Treason and Rebellion against the Queen because he took up Arms without her Commission pleaded that he did it for the Queen and not against her because his meaning was only to remove Cecill and Cobham and Raleigh and other evil Councellors that were about her and were hers and the States Enemies as well as his protesting then as Mr. Baxter does now that he meant not any the least hurt to the Queens Person or diminution of her Power upon which often reiterated protestation of the Earls especially that of his meaning no hurt to the Queens Person the Sages of the Law that were Assessors to the Lords that were his Judges being askt by the Lords what was the Judgment of the Law in that Case
immediately from God I wonder by what right or authority they can pretend to take that from him which not they but God hath given to him Surely they will not say they may do it whether God will or no and of Gods Will that they should do so or may do so They can have no declaration or signification but either from some plain positive standing Rule in Scripture or from special extraordinary and immediate Revelation such as Abraham had for the sacrificing his Son Isaac or as Jehu had for the destroying the House of Ahab But as to this latter as I hope Mr. Baxter is not yet Fanatick enough to pretend so I am sure he can find no such declaration or signification of Gods Will for the former I mean in the Scriptures either of the Old or New Testament as They were always and universally understood by the first and best Christians It is true indeed that in the Scripture God hath commanded Kings or Sovereign Princes to govern according to his and their own Laws too that are conformable unto his and threatned them if they do not and punished them when they have not But where or in what place of the Old or New Testament hath God appointed or permitted all or any of the People to do so I mean to punish their Kings by Deposing them or by taking any part of the Kingly Power he had given them away from them Surely God did not only foresee but foretell that many of the Kings of his own People the Jews would be some of them Idolaters and some of them Murtherers and Adulterers and some of them Tyrants and great oppressers of their Subjects as appears by Samuels Speech unto them at the Election of Saul their first King but he doth not give them or any order of Men among them there or any where else any either commission or permission authoritatively to enquire into their Kings Actions or to call them to an account for them And therefore the Kings of Juda and Israel were Kings indeed and so are those Kings whether Despoticall or Politicall whether Successive or Elective which have no ordinary standing legal Power or Judicatory above them whereunto they are Subject and accountable as the Lacedaemonian Kings were unto the Ephori and therefore were no Kings indeed but in name and in title only But there is no such legal ordinary standing Power or Judicatory here in England above our King for Rex in regno suo non habet superiorem imò nec parem the King in his own Kingdom hath none above him no nor equal to him is a Maxim of our Law and therefore our King must needs be a Sovereign and a sole Sovereign according to Mr. Baxters own Principles and Concessions For this is one of Mr. Baxters own Principles that every Commonwealth or Body Politick must have a Sovereign the form of a Commonwealth saith he being the relation of Sovereign and Subjects to each other as likewise this is another of his Aphorisms or Principles that the Sovereign of one Common-wealth must be one and but one and by but one he must needs mean but one Person or but one Caetus or Company of men and consequently in which soever of them it is it must be solely and wholly so that to be Sovereign and not to be sole Sovereign seems to be a contradiction in adjecto From whence I argue that if there must be a Sovereign or Supreme Power in every State or Body Politick and that be the Sovereign or Supreme Power which by the Legal Constitution hath no Superior Power above it then the Regal is the Sovereign or Supreme Power in England because according to the Legal Constitution of this Kingdom there is no Power Superior to it or Predominant over it but all other Powers are derived from it and Subordinate and Subject and Subservient to it Again if the Sovereign of one Commonwealth State or Kingdom must be One and but One only then if the King of England be a Sovereign as having no Superior he must needs be he must be a sole Sovereign also Neither do I see how either of these Conclusions can with any colour of reason be denyed but by assigning some Power in some Person or Persons which by the Legal and Fundamental Constitution of this Kingdom is above the King or at least equal to him But as it is a Maxim of our Law as I said before that Rex in regno suo non habet superiorem the King in his own Kingdom hath none above him so it is a Maxim too that he hath not parem neither none equal to him so that according to our Law as there is none to judg him because he hath no Superior so there is no Way of trying him because he hath no Peers those whom We call Peers being his Subjects though They are Pares or Peers in relation to one another CHAP. V. The English Monarchy asserted against Mr. B. who would have the Kingdom of England to be a mixt Commonwealth My Lord Chief Justice Cook 's judgment on the point THIS one would think were enough to prove the King of England not only to be our Sovereign but our sole Sovereign and consequently the Kingdom of England to be properly and indeed as it hath always been accounted both at home and abroad a Monarchy or a Government in chief by one and by one only No saith Mr. Baxter it hath not always been accounted to be so For it hath been a Controversie saith he having spoken before of Monarchy Aristocracy and Democracy to which of these forms our English Commonwealth was and is to be reckon'd and the uncertainty of this saith he was one cause of our Wars Whereunto I answer that I never heard nor I verily believe ever any body else did hear of any such Controversie here in England at least as to the Civil Government As to the Ecclesiastical Government indeed of the Church there hath been a Controversie betwixt us and the Church of Rome whether the King or the Pope be the Governor in chief of it as likewise betwixt us and the Presbyterians whether the King or a National Synod ought to have the Supreme managery of it But as to the Civil Government of the State there was never any question made for ought I ever heard by any of the otherwise Dissenting Parties but that it was Monarchicall and that the King was the sole Sovereign of it and in it before that Rebellious Parliament set up for a share in the Sovereignty which they did not at first neither but did in all their Addresses to him acknowledg him to be their Sovereign and that not as they were particular Persons only but as they were the representative Body of all the Commons of England neither did the House of Peers ever make the least doubt of doing so also nor of taking the Oath of Allegiance as to their
the worst it is more tolerable to have one ill Governour in chief than many and the worst of Monarchies is better than the best of Oligarchyes because it is easier to satisfie the lust the cruelty the avarice or any other inordinate appetite of one than of many especially of many that have no body to controll them as the Ephori had not And such it seems Calvin supposeth there are or ought to be in all Kingdoms at least those that are his followers believe that to have been his meaning namely that though it be unlawful and damnable for private Subjects to resist the King or supreme Governour yet it is not only lawful but laudable for such Magistrates as are supposed to be Guardians of the Peoples Liberties redigere Reges in ordinem to reduce their Kings and that by force if it cannot be done otherwise and to keep them within the bounds of Law and Equity according to their discretion And no doubt they were the followers of Calvin whom Grotius speaks of when he says Inventi sunt nostro saeculo viri eruditi quidem illi sed temporibus locis nimiùm servientes qui sibi primùm ita enim credo deinde aliis persuaderent ea quae jam dict a sunt locum habere in privatis non etiam in magistratibus inferioribus quibus jus esse putant resistendi injuriis ejus cujus summum est imperium imò peccare eos ni id faciant Quae opinio admittenda non est There are men saith he in this age of ours which was next to that of Calvins learned indeed but too much serving the times and places wherein they live who having first been perswaded themselves for so I charitably believe did afterwards perswade others that what I have before spoken of meaning the unlawfulness of resisting of Sovereigns by their Subjects is to be understood of private men and not of inferior Magistrates also whose Right they think it is to resist the injuries of him that hath the supreme Power nay that they sin if they do not Which opinion saith he is not to be admitted he might have said is to be detested as being such a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such a root of bitterness as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it springs up will 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 turn all up-side down wheresoever it is admitted But what was Grotius his reason why this opinion was not to be admitted Why because saith he though those Magistrates are in relation to their Inferiors publick Officers yet in relation to their Superiors they are but private Persons especially in relation to the Supreme from whom all inferior Magistrates derive their Power And yet they were such Magistrates who drove their Bishop out of Geneva who was their Prince their Sovereign Prince as well as their Bishop before Calvin came thither indeed but I do not find that ever he blamed them for it But doth not Grotius himself allow of the resisting of Kings by their Subjects in several Cases Yes he doth so but not without contradicting himself and the Apostolical Doctrine and Practise in one of them as I have already observed and as to the rest I have spoken already also excepting the last but one of them only And that is when the King hath but a part of the Sovereignty and the People or the Senate hath a part of it also for then saith he if the King invade that part which is not his or which doth not belong to him he may justly be resisted because as to that his Power doth not extend which saith he I do think may be truly affirmed though the Power of the Sword or of making War be said to be in the King for that is to be understood in relation to a foreign War only Whereas otherwise whosoever hath a part of the Sovereignty cannot but have a right to defend his part of the Sovereignty whereby it may so happen that the King may by the Law of Arms lose that which was his own part of the Sovereignty I have set down this passage of Grotius both in his own words and mine at the full length because it is upon Grotius's supposition and resolution in this case that Mr. Baxter grounds the justice of the Parliaments War against the King and the injustice of the Kings against the Parliament and that with so great a confidence that he saith he is willing to forfeit his head if he be disproved in either We will therefore First Examin whether there can be such a Case as Grotius supposeth or no Secondly If there be such a Case Whether that be the case in England as Mr. Baxter saith it is CHAP. VII The Case which Grotius supposeth not possible The Sovereignty not to be divided Instances in the Roman Empire A King conditionally elected no King indeed but in Title only In all the changes of the Roman State no division of the Sovereignty AND first as to the first of these Particulars I mean the Supposition it self namely the division of the Sovereignty or Supreme Power the very possibility whereof that there should be such a thing in any Body Politick whatsoever seems to be a contradiction in terminis in down-right terms to what Grotius himself affirms to be an inseparable property of Sovereignty namely that it is quid per se indivisum a thing of it self undivided and by quid per se indivisum a thing of it self undivided he must needs mean id quod suâ naturâ est indivisible that which in its own nature is indivisible or something that cannot be divided because otherwise to say that Sovereignty or Supreme Power est quid per se indivisum is a thing of it self undivided should not distinguish it from any other subordinate Power which may be actu or per accidens indivisum actually or by accident undivided though potentiâ and per se potentially or of it self it may be divisible into never so many parts or particles Now if Sovereignty be as according to Grotius it is per se indivisum quid a thing of it self undivided or suâ naturâ indivisibile that which in its own nature is indivisible I cannot see with what congruity of reason it can be said to be divided as Grotius in the very same period saith it may be sivè per partes potentiales sive subjectivas either by its potential or its subjective parts For as for that division of the Roman Empire per partes subjectivas by its subjective parts when the Eastern part of it was governed by one and the Western by another and the Northern perhaps by a third as it was by the three Sons of Constantine there was indeed a division of the Empire and a fatal one it was but there was no division of Sovereignty for every one of the three was a Sovereign in his own part or portion of the Empire just so as during the Heptarchy
of the Saxon Kings here in England the Island was divided into seven several Governments but every one of the seven was a Monarchy and had a Sovereign of its own independent upon any of the other so that there was then no more a division of Sovereignty than there was afterwards when Edgar became Monarch of the whole Island or than there is now by the addition of the Kingdom of Scotland and Ireland to it I know the Roman Emperors did sometimes assumere sibi socios in imperio take to themselves partners or companions in the Empire but then the Sovereignty was either wholly and jointly in both of them as it was in the two Consuls after the expulsion of the Kings or as it is in the whole Venetian Senate at this day or else he whom the Emperor assum'd as his companion in the Empire was thereby designed only to be his Successor as the King of the Romans is now in Germany but continued a Subject and subordinate to him that assumed or adopted him as long as he lived So that in this case there was no division of the Sovereignty it self no more than in the former And much less can there be said to be a division of the Sovereignty per partes potentiales by its potential parts as Grotius saith they are called when a People that is sui juris Regem eligens quosdam actus scilicet potentiae sibi servet alios autem Regi deferat that is when a free People in chusing themselves a King reserve some Acts of Power to themselves as well as they give others to their King neque tamen id fit quotiescunque Rex promissis quibusdamque obligatur but I would not have this saith he to be understood to be the case when Kings are obliged or oblige themselves by certain promises only mark that Mr. Baxter sed tunc id fieri intelligendum est si quid Populus adhuc liber futuro Regi imperet per modum manentis Praecepti aut si quid sit additum Regem cogi aut puniri posse But this saith he that is this division of Sovereignty per partes potentiales by its potential parts or acts of Power is to be understood when the People being as yet free enjoyn their King that shall be and that by a standing Law or Precept which they will have always to be continued in force to do or not to do this or that or if any thing be added to imply that the King may be or is to be compelled or punished if he do otherwise Then or in this Case Grotius seems to think there is a division of the Sovereignty it self betwixt the King so conditionally elected and the People so magisterially electing him And upon this not only false but pace tanti viri dixerim let me speak it by favour and with leave of so great a man as he was in my opinion absurd supposition he adds that in this case the People may not only defend by force their own part of the Sovereignty if the King invade it but jure belli by right of War take away his part also if they overcome him in the Contest Which perhaps may be true upon the supposition of such a division of the Sovereign Power or rather to say the truth upon supposition of such a conditional Election made by the People of such a Magistrate as shall have the title of King and be entrusted with the managery of some part of the publick affairs either of War or Peace but so as to be accountable to the People or to some judicatory appointed by the People whether he hath kept or exceeded the bounds and limits of his delegated Power and Authority or no and if he have to be liable not only to the forfeiture of it but to be punished for it also And what is this but to be such a King as those of Sparta were who as Grotius himself tells us were not Kings indeed but in name and title only because indeed as he tells us also they were subject to the People or to the Judicatory of the Ephori appointed by the People by whom si peccarent Reges illi in leges ac Rempublicam non tantum vi repelli poterant sed si opus sit puniri morte quod Pausaniae Lacedemoniorum Regi contigit and therefore saith he those Kings and consequently say I all such Kings as those if they offended against the Laws or against the Commonwealth they might not only be resisted by force but if need were punished by death as Pausanias one of their Kings was And this he affirms to be the case of omnium Principum qui sub Populo sunt of all Princes who are under the People and if they be under the People they cannot be over the People too but the People must needs be over and above or superior unto them And then how can Grotius rationally or consistingly with himself say there is a division of the Sovereignty or of the supreme Power betwixt such a People and such Kings as these are He might as well have said that the Sovereignty is divided betwixt the King and the General of his Army by Land or the Admiral of his Fleet by Sea or the Vice-Roy of any of his Provinces for as the King reserves the whole Sovereignty or supreme Power unto himself how great soever the Title or Power is which he delegates unto others so in the aforesaid case put by Grotius the People retained the whole Sovereignty unto themselves notwithstanding any Power or Title they are pleased to give to him whom they chuse to be their King And this Grotius knew well enough as appears by the inconsistency of what he saith in this place with what he saith in others and especially by the inconsistency of his supposing that to be actually divided which he had formerly affirmed to be per se indivisum or in its own nature indivisible I mean Sovereignty or the supreme Power in every Body Politick of what kind or denomination soever whether it be in personâ in a single Person or in Caetu in a Company or Assembly of men for it cannot be partly in the one and partly in the other nor ever was no not in the Roman State it self which had many Changes Indeed but never any Division of the Sovereignty betwixt the governing and the governed party in any one of them For as when the Kings governed the Sovereignty was all of it in them and none of it either in the Senate or in the People so was it afterwards 〈…〉 Consuls and after that in the Consulls and the Senate then for a short time in the Decemviri and in none besides them and often when they were in very great danger and extremity the Sovereignty was wholly in one man only whom though they did not call a King yet never any King was more or perhaps so much a Sovereign as he was or
under the People and then the Sovereignty is wholly in the People and none of it in the King what Power or Authority soever is delegated unto him by the People especially if it be delegated sub conditione paenâ conditionally and upon penalty of forfeiture or any other punishment or else the Populus that is all or the whole body of the People doth subesse Regi is under the King and then the Sovereignty is wholly in the King what priviledges or immunities soever he may grant to all or any of his Subjects or however he may oblige himself by promise or oath to govern them according to the Laws of his own or Predecessors making So that the Sovereignty must either be Wholly in the People and then he that is called a King is indeed no King or it must be Wholly in the King and then the People have nothing to do with it or with any part of it Sovereignty being such a thing in the Body Politick as the Soul is in the Body Natural For as the Soul animates or enlivens the whole Body Natural not by being some of it or some part of it in one member and some part of it in another but by being as the Philosopher saith it is tota in toto tota in quâlibet parie by being all of it in all and in every one of the members according to their several capacities of receiving the several influences and operations of it in order to the preservation of the whole Body Natural so Sovereignty or the supreme Power wheresoever or in whomsoever it is it is that which animates and enlivens and actuates the whole Body Politick but not by being it self divided but by dividing and deriving its influences into all and every part of the whole Body Politick as the Sun doth its light by the dispersing of its beams or heat into and over the whole World and all the several parts of it though it self in the mean time remains wholly and entirely in its own Orb. CHAP. IX Grotius his Case hath no place in the English Monarchy where the King is sole Sovereign The Parliament never declared otherwise as Mr. B. saith they did but owned him ever to be so in their Addresses Sovereignty intitles to Majesty BUT supposing though not granting there may be and hath been somewhere or other such a division of the Sovereignty betwixt King and People as Grotius supposeth yet it is certain there is none such here in England for if ENGLAND be a Monarchy then saith Mr. Baxter himself the whole Sovereignty must be but in One only and if but in one I hope by that One he means the King and not the Pope though some of his Parasites will have him to be the Monarch of the whole Christian World in general and though he lays claim to the Monarchy of England in particular as held in Fee of him ever since King John surrendred the Sovereignty thereof to his Holiness But Mr. Baxter I am sure is not so much a Papist though in some especially of their Political opinions he doth symbolize with them as to acknowledg the Pope to be his Sovereign for then neither he nor his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those that are like-minded could be as they fain would be every one a Pope in his own Parish neither do I think he is yet so far gone in Fanaticism as that by the King whom he grants to be the sole Sovereign in a Monarchy he meaneth no other King but King Jesus as the fifth Monarchy-men do here in England and the Presbyterian Whigs do in Scotland No I do willingly absolve Mr. Baxter from being guilty of either of these extravagant absurdities but that which I charge Mr. Baxter with is this that he denies England to be a Monarchy and consequently that the whole Sovereignty thereof is in the King though he himself hath sworn it is so when he took the Oath of Supremacy as I am sure he did or ought to have done when he was Episcopally Ordained as he saith he was but it seems he hath better studied the point since or is more enlightned than he was then Or perhaps the Parliament had not then or he had not heard they had declared this Government of ours to be no Monarchy but a mixed Government because the Sovereignty was not in the King alone but in the King and Parliament that is partly in the King and partly in themselves But when and what these Parliaments were or how and when and to whom they made such a Declaration he doth not vouchsafe to tell us which is an uncivil neglect of his Readers if he can and an impudent slandering of the King and both Houses of Parliament if he cannot I say of the King and both Houses of Parliament because it is the King and both Houses that constitutea Parliament the King as the Head and the two Houses as the representative Body of the People and he may as well and as properly call that Corpus integrum or a compleat Body that hath no Head as call either or both of the Houses a Parliament without the King Now I would fain learn of Mr. Baxter when any Parliament properly so called that is the King Lords and Commons did ever declare this Kingdom to be no Monarchy or that the Sovereignty or supreme Power was not wholly in the King Nay taking the two Houses without the King or a Commissioner for the King to be a Parliament as after the King left them or rather after they had driven the King away from them they falsly pretended themselves to be taking I say the Parliament in this notion for the two Houses only without the King did ever the two Houses declare the Government of England according to the legal constitution of it to be no Monarchy or that the Sovereignty or supreme Power was not in the King I confess I never heard they did so I mean by any conjunct Declaration or by any concurring Vote of both Houses no nor so much as by the single Vote of the House of Commons which being but one and the lower of the two Houses and who are always uncovered at their Conferences with the Lords are very often by Mr. Baxter called the Parliament because as he saith they are the Representatives or Trustees of the People of England whereas indeed they are the Representatives and Trustees not of the People but of the Commons of England only unless he will say that the Nobility and Clergy or at least the Lords Spiritual and Temporal are none of the People of England for surely they are not represented by the House of Commons And therefore if Mr. Baxter were to speak of it in Latin I think he would not I am sure he should not call it by the name of Domus Populi the House of the People but Domus Plebis the House of the Commonalty or as I think
a secondary deduction from it And therefore 't is a vain and senceless shift of Mr. Baxter's for the avoiding of the dint of this Argument which doth jugulum causae ferire cut the very throat of his cause to say as he doth that the end of imposing and taking of this Oath was only for the excluding of all pretence to the Supremacy or to any part of the Supremacy here from abroad and not for the acknowledging the Kings sole Supremacy here at home Whereas it is indeed the Kings sole Supremacy here at home that is as it is called by the Rubrick the Oath of the Kings Supremacy and not the excluding of all foreign claim or pretence to it which to speak properly as Mr. Baxter saith he loves to do is as I said before an abjuration rather than an Oath or at most but the negative and consequent part of the Oath the affirmative and antecedent part thereof being the assertion of the whole supreme Power in the Government of this Kingdom to be in the King and King only and consequently exclusive of any pretence to it or to any participation of it by any either at home or abroad especially by any at home But why then will Mr. Baxter perhaps say was there not annexed to the positive part of this Oath an abjuration or express disowning the supreme Power or any part of the supreme Power to be in any here at home besides the King as well as there is an abjuration or an express disowning of it to be in any abroad I answer because there was no need at all of it First because he that hath sworn the Supremacy or supreme Power to be in the King only hath eo ipso in that very thing or by so swearing forsworn the being of it or any part of it in any other besides the King If it be replyed that upon this account there needed not have been any abjuration or disowning of any foreign Authority annexed to the other part of it neither I answer Secondly That although really there was no need of an express or explicit disowning or renouncing of the one more than the other because the swearing to the positive part of the Oath is implicitly and virtually a disowning or renouncing of them both yet because there had been antiently and was then and was like to be still a claim to the Supremacy here in England at least in matters Spiritual and Ecclesiastical by some that were abroad I mean by the Pope for himself and his Successors therefore the Parliament thought it meet and prudent and in some respects necessary to add or annex to the Assertion of the Kings sole Supremacy here at home an express and explicit Renuntiation of all the Right that was or could be pretended to it from abroad but did not think it to be at all necessary to add or annex the like express or explicit renuntiation of any such Power to be in any here at home because there was none then here at home so impudent as openly and avowedly to pretend to it or to any part of it For here are no Ephori no Overseers or Guardians of the State as there were in Lacedaemon nor no such Senate as there is in Venice nor no such High and Mighty States as there are in Holland For we have but One high and mighty and he is so high and mighty that there is none but the Almighty that is above him and all others in his own Dominions how much higher and mightier they may seem to be in relation to one another are equally below him and subject to him CHAP. XII From the two Houses Petitioning the King and his being free to grant or deny is proved that there is no Co-ordination beside the inconsistence of it with the Government I know there was in the beginning of the late Rebellious times a Discourse written and published to make the foolish part of the World believe for with wise and considering men I am sure it could have no weight that the two Houses of Parliament were Co-ordinate with the King and consequently not Subordinate to the King in relation to the making and repealing of Laws and the determining of all things of publick concernment for the Government of the Kingdom and consequently that according to the nature of Co-ordinates where all three could not or would not or did not agree the two that did agree were to over-rule the third that did not An excellent project or expedient as the deviser of it thought to make a Triumvirate of a Monarchy or a Republick of a Kingdom but he did not consider that it was liable to one little inconvenience namely that it was utterly and absolutely unpracticable being altogether inconsistent with the fundamental Constitution of our Government which is not to have the two Houses of Parliament always in being as the Senate of Rome was and the Senate of Venice is or to assemble and meet when and where they will and to continue as long together as they will as Grotius tells us the Ordines or States of Holland of right did even whilst They had a King But our Parliaments here in England are so far from having always an actual setled and constant being that they have no being at all but what the King gives them by his Writ of Summons neither can they assemble or meet but when he calls them nor either depart sooner or continue longer together than he will have them neither while they do by his leave and command continue together have they any Power to make any new Law or to repeal any old Law but only to pray propose or advise the making of the one or the repealing of the other by the King And this being so as undeniably it is so by the legal and fundamental Constitution of the Government I wonder when and by what Authority it came to be alter'd For supposing but not granting that a Parliament truly so called may make such a change in the fundamental Constitution of the Government as to make an Aristocracy or a Democracy of a Monarchy by the Monarchs own consent to it which I for my part think they cannot the Monarch himself in an Hereditary Monarchy being but a Trustee for his Successors but supposing I say such a change could be made by a Parliament properly so called I demand when and by what Parliament such a Change was made and whether the King did ever consent to it if not we are still where we were whatsoever Power a legal or compleat Parliament may be said or imagined to have and consequently there is not as yet at least any such Co-ordination of King Lords and Commons as the Author of the aforesaid discourse pretended there is It is true indeed that the two Houses of Parliament in the year 42 did Petition the King that he would be pleased to grant such things as they proposed unto him
and by usurpation of the Kings Authority without any Commission or leave from him for the doing of it they make it one of the 19 Propositions they sent to the King when he was at York in the year 42. That his Majesty would be pleased to rest satisfied with that course that the Lords and the House of Commons have appointed for the ordering of the Militia until the same shall be farther setled by a Bill by which Proposition they do plainly confess First That they had taken the Sword by having ordered the Militia of the Kingdom Secondly That they had no Commission or leave from the King for it by saying it was done by their own appointment Thirdly That they knew they had intrenched upon his Authority by so doing Why else should they desire his Majesty would be pleased to rest satisfied with what they had done in that particular at least pro tempore at the present until the same that is the ordering of the Militia should be farther setled by Bill Whereby Fourthly They confess that the Power of setling it and consequently of making any use of it was not in them as yet by Law until by a Bill consented to by the King it were made a Law and consequently that the Ordinances of both Houses as they call'd them did not nor could not make any thing they ordered to be done legal or obligatory to the whole Nation And hence or from this consciousness of the insufficiency of their own Authority to justifie either before God or the World the lawfulness of doing what they had done and meant to do it was that they so earnestly and so often press'd the King to pass their Ordinances into Acts. For though they did what they could to make the poor deluded People believe that their Ordinances were as legal as valid and as obligatory as Acts for the draining of their Purses and exposing of their Persons yet by their being so desirous as they were even after their victory and when the King was their Prisoner to legitimate their spurious Ordinances by turning them into Acts it is evident they did not themselves believe what they and their Preachers made the People to believe concerning the validity of any of those Ordinances especially that for taking up of Arms as if the Power of the Sword and ordering of the Militia of the Kingdom to fight for whom and against whom they pleased and upon what account they pleased had been in them which by what I have said it doth not only appear it was not but that they knew it was not but was and always had been in the Crown as the King tells them in his answer to the aforesaid Proposition of the two Houses telling them that he will no more part with his Right in the Militia than with his Crown and indeed when he parts with the one he doth in effect part with the other also for as the Crown upon his head is the Emblem of his Sovereignty so the Sword and the Scepter that are always when he appears as a King carried before him are the Emblems of the two supporters of his Crown or of his Sovereignty the Sword the Emblem of his supreme Military and the Scepter the Emblem of his supreme Civil or judiciary Power and both of them signifie that he is the fountain of all Power and that there is no Power that can be legally exercised within any of his Realms and Dominions but what is derived from him and exercised immediately or mediately by him and for him And that this is true in Divinity as well as by the Law of the Land in relation to our King I will cite the Authority of a Casuist whom Mr. Baxter seems to have a great reverence for and esteem of though he were a Bishop and more than a Bishop I mean Arch-Bishop Vsher whose Reduction of Episcopacy Mr. Baxter seems to approve though the Arch-Bishop himself as I have been informed would not own it to be his This Great and Good man I say preaching before the last King at the Treaty in the Isle of Wight did in that Sermon of his positively and in plain terms more than once or twice affirm the King our King to be the fountain of Power under God within his own Dominions and that therefore no Power could lawfully be assumed or made use of by any upon any pretence whatsoever but as it was derived by Commission from the King These were his very words whereunto he added This is true Doctrine were the King a Papist or a Pagan and much more when he is as our King is a Christian King an Orthodox Christian King and that not in profession only but in practice also And then having somewhat inlarged himself in speaking of the Kings personal Vertues and Graces both moral and spiritual Now said he some that hear me may think I flatter him indeed I do not but I confess that what I have said of him I have said to comfort him for never any man of his quality had more need of it both in regard of the unworthy usage he hath had and the unworthy condition he is now in which I hope said he will last no longer For this as he then added is the 49th year of his Age and at the end of the 49th year began the year of Jubilee among the Jews and then every bondman was made free and every Prisoner was set at liberty and every one that had been kept out of possession was restored to it And if said he We be not worse than Jews it will be so with us now also Haec audivimus magnum illum virum non magis verè quà m fortiter animosè disserentem these things we heard that Great man discoursing of with no less courage and resolution than with truth And I have repeated it so often upon several occasions both at home and abroad for his honour that I verily believe these for the most part were the very same words or very near the very same numerical words as well as the identical sence of that passage of his Sermon which I have repeated And although I cannot produce many Witnesses to attest the truth of what I have here said as to this particular there being but one besides my self at least that I can remember now living that heard that Sermon yet that One is one of that credit and reputation with the generality of good men that he is multorum instar as good as a great many to make any thing he attests upon his own knowledge to be believed and this was so notable a passage to be delivered at such a time and in such a place by One that was nominated not by the King but by the Commissioners for the Parliament to be sent for thither that I am sure Sir Philip Warwick could not chuse but take special notice of it as I think every body did that heard it and
therefore I am sure he cannot forget it or at least will remember it assoon as he is put in mind of it And to him I appeal for the verifying of what I have said as to this particular But if any man shall notwithstanding Sir Philip Warwick's attestation think it to be incredible that the two Houses of Parliament being then in their Zenith should indure any such thing to be said so much to their reproach and condemnation of their cause and of all their proceedings without any animadversion upon him that said it I answer it was partly because they were then in their Zenith so high advanced and so highly elevated with the success God had for our sins and for their obduration permitted them to have that they despised what any man did or could say against them and partly because they could not have taken notice of it without inflicting some punishment or other upon him for it which they could not have done he being a man of such eminency not only in regard of his quality but much more in regard of his learning and sanctity and in regard of the very great reputation he had thereby acquired both at home and abroad without exposing themselves to the envy and hatred of the whole World and without doing themselves any good by it and therefore all things considered they thought it best to take no notice at all of it as for ought I ever heard they did not Howsoever what I affirm that pious and learned Arch-Bishop said whether he said it or no is true namely that the Power of the Sword or the Power of making War though for their own defence only or for never so good an end was not in the two Houses but in the King and in the King only as they did themselves acknowledg because at that very time and at that very Treaty one of the prime Articles which they mainly insisted on was to have the Sword for so many years to be put into their hands by the Kings passing of an Act of Parliament to that purpose and for their raising of mony during that time for the support and exercise of that Power in what proportion they thought or should think fit upon their Fellow-Subjects all which they had done before by virtue of their Ordinances only which either they did or did not think to be a legal and sufficient Authority for their taking of the Sword and using it as they did If they did think so why might not the same authority have been sufficient for the continuance of it and if so what need was there of an Act for the trusting them with it but for a time only But if they did not think their own Ordinances to be a legal and sufficient Authority for their taking of the Sword and taxing of the People and the exercising all those other Acts of Arbitrary Power which they did for so many years together by vertue of their own Ordinances only why then habemus confitentes reos We have their own confession not only that they took the Sword which neither the Law nor the King had put into their hands and therefore were Vsurpers of the Regal Authority but had made use of it against the King or which is all one against those that were commissioned by the King and therefore were Traytors and Rebels as likewise that their own Ordinances were not legally sufficient to justifie their so doing and consequently that they have not such a Legislative Power as Mr. Baxter saith they have and which he is so confident of as that he offers his head to the Block if the reasons he gives for the proof of it be disproved which I am now in the last place to try whether I can do or not The end of the third Section SECT IV. England a Monarchy and the Soveraignty solely in the KING prov'd against Mr. Baxter as also that neither the Parliaments concurrence as the Peoples Representatives to the making Laws nor their being Trustees for the Peoples Rights gives them any share in the Soveraignty CHAP. I. The mischief of Schismatical Books Mr. Baxter 's Anti-episcopal and Anti-monarchical Aphorisms The Soveraignty not divided as Mr. B. saith betwixt KING and Parliament Prov'd by the Parliaments acknowledgments and by the Oath of Supremacy AND first thanks be to God and the King that Mr. Baxter is not Lugdunensem causam dicturus ad aram that he is not to plead his cause at the Kings-Bench Barr. For God knows that all the hurt I wish him is that no more hurt may be done by Him and for this end and for this end only it was that I silenced him from preaching and for this end and for this end only it is that I would have him prohibited from writing or at least from publishing what he writes until he is licensed by Authority to do so For when he hath published such pernicious Principles against the legal constitution of the Church and State as he hath done in divers of his Books especially in that of the Holy Commonwealth it is too late and to very little purpose to say as he doth say of some of them that he would have them taken pro non scriptis as if they had not been written For Serò medicina paratur Cùm mala per long as invaluêre moras that is Physick comes too late when ill humors through long delays have got too great a head An Arch-Heretick may by Gods mercy be himself reconcil'd to the Truth and become Orthodox and an Arch-Schismatick may by the same mercy be reconciled to the Church and become Conformable and yet that Heresie that was broached by the one and that Schism that was introduced by the other may be propagated and perpetuated by their Books and by their Disciples from Generation to Generation to the Worlds end and if Master Baxter will needs have a secondary Original sin I think this is that which may most properly be so called Our Countryman Brown who would needs have our Church of England to be no Church was himself convinced of this error so that he not only became a Member but a Minister of the Church of England and as I have been informed died Parson of a Parish called A-Church in Northamptonshire But did Brownism dye with him No there are Brownists still and will be God knows how long perhaps till Doom's day put an end to the World and all the Divisions that have been are or shall be in it So that as nothing can be more criminal than to be the Author of a Schism Sect or Heresie so nothing can be more dangerous than to suffer the spreading and growth of them especially of such of them as are destructive in their natural tendency whatsoever the intention of the Authors and Abettors may be to the peace and welfare of the established Government either in Church or State And such say I are Mr. Baxter's Anti-episcopal Aphorisms in
themselves as Mr. Baxter calls it as either they are more venerable for Antiquity or considerable for Plurality the King and none but the King must be acknowledged to be the Enacter or the maker of them And truly one would think that those Laws that are most ancient and consequently nearest in time to the first Institution of Parliaments though they were not the most in number were most to be credited for speaking most properly of who they were that made them then and consequently who it is that makes them now Unless Mr. Baxter will say it was the King and King alone indeed that made the Laws in Parliament then but it is the King Lords and Commons or the King and Parliament that makes them now and consequently that the King is not so much a King now as He was then and that the constitution of the Kingdom it self is changed from Monarchical to Aristocratical But then I must ask him by whom and when this great change was made Was it by him that brought in this new stile of Be it enacted by the King Lords and Commons c. That was Hen. the VIII who was not a Man likely to give away any of his Authority or to part with any part of his Soveraignty to his own Subjects who rescued it from the Popes incroachments And yet perhaps even He meaning to make use of the Parliament for the countenancing whatever he had a mind to do though never so extravagant in it self though never so offensive to Foreign Princes his Allies or never so injurious to his own Children because he thought it would be serviceable to his own ends after he had forced the two Houses to consent to what he listed to enact to joyn them with himself in the enacting of it as well as by assenting to it to make it so much the more plausible or at least so much the less grievous unto the People Otherwise it is most certain that never any King of England after the making of Magna Charta reigned so despotically and arbitrarily as he did or whom the two Houses of Parliament stood so much in awe of as they did of Him as appears by his making them consent to the doing and undoing to the enacting and repealing of whatsoever he would have to be done or undone to be enacted or repealed And therefore it is not to be imagined that such a King as he was did mean by changing of the stile to lessen the Legislative Power it self which was in his Predecessors by admitting those whom he used as he did the two Houses of Parliament to a participation of any the least degree of Soveraignty And as he never meant to do so so they the two Houses of Parliament did not then or ever since for ought I ever heard understand that to be the meaning of the Alteration from Be it enacted by the King with the consent of the Lords and Commons to Be it enacted by the King Lords and Commons to signifie that either the Kings power as to the making of Laws was less or the Parliaments greater than it was before this alteration of stile For if it had been understood either by the King or Parliament to signifie any such thing as the King especially such a King as Hen. VIII was would never have suffered the alteration of the former to the latter So the two Houses who are jealous enough of their Power and Priviledges would never have suffered the alteration of the latter to the former again as it was altered by King Edward Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth King Henry's three immediate Successors and as it is altered by our present King in the Act of Vniformity For as the alteration of the former to the latter could not have been made without the Kings so the alteration of the latter to the former could not have been made without the consent of the two Houses neither And therefore I verily believe that if any thing at all was meant by the alteration of the former stile to the latter it was only ad faciendum Populum to gain the People that the People might more willingly receive and submit to the Laws when they were made especially such of them as might seem to pinch them in their Purses when they were said to be enacted by the Lords and Commons or by the Lords and their Representatives and consequently by themselves as well as by the King for Volentibus non fit injuria where there is consent there is no injury And yet again lest by this alteration of stile and misinterpretation of it the Kings Prerogative of being the sole Soveraign and consequently the sole Law giver might be thought to be diminished by being communicated to either or both Houses of Parliament therefore the first most ancient and withal the longest continued stile of Be it enacted by our Soveraign Lord the King by the advice and with the consent of the Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled was presently after the first alteration of it resumed by the three next succeeding Princes as it hath been also now of late by our present Soveraign and by all of them with the consent of the Lords and Commons thereunto CHAP. VII The Laws enacted by the Authority of Parliament in what sense Why called Acts of Parliament They provide the Matter of the Laws the King gives the Form BUT withal will Mr. Baxter perhaps say with this Addition and by the Authority of the same that is by the Authority of the Parliament so that according to this former stile our Laws are said to be made and enacted by the Authority of the Parliament and consequently by the Authority of the two Houses of Lords and Commons as well as by the Kings For answer whereunto I might say in the first place that it was not till after 200. Years from the first Parliament that we read of in our Book of Statutes namely not until the Raign of Henry the VI. who owed his Title such as it was to the Parliament and to the Parliament as it signifies the two Houses only without the King for by the Authority of such a Parliament it was that is of a Body without a Head that Henry Bullingbrook was made King Richard the Second's surrender being neither voluntary nor lawful if it had been voluntary as was acknowledged by the two Houses themselves when Richard Duke of York claimed the Crown as the right Heir to it thereby acknowledging likewise that although they had de facto yet they could not de jure exclude the right Heir Howsoever their Authority being the only Title which the then present King had and held the Crown by as having not the courage either of his Grandfather or his Father to claim it by Conquest and hold it by force as they did He was willing to acknowledge he held it by Authority of Parliament as the word Parliament is taken for the two
Houses of Parliament without a King And this perhaps might be the reason why at first in that weak King's time to Be it enacted by the King with the consent of Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled was added and by the Authority of the same But this is not the Answer I rely on because this addition hath been continued ever since whereas the alteration I before spoke of did not as I have already showed And therefore 2dly to this Objection that when it is said Be it enacted by our Soveraign Lord the King by the advice and with the consent of the King Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled it is said also and by Authority of the same My Answer is that by the word Parliament is not meant the two Houses or the Lords and Commons only that is the Body without a Head but the Body with the Head to direct and govern it as the natural Head doth the Body natural and more than so for the natural Head though it directs and governs yet it doth not give its Being to the Body natural but the Parliamentary Head gives its very Being it self to the Parliamentary body as being made what it is by his Call and dissolved into what it was at his pleasure that is into so many single and private Persons as they were before as I have already shewed And truly if we mark the words well By the Authority of the same cannot be meant the Authority of those that are assembled in Parliament but of the Parliament it self wherein they are assembled which is as it is commonly truly and properly called the Kings great Council or the Kings High Court of Parliament It is by the Authority therefore of that great Council or by the Authority of that High Court that our Laws are said to be enacted But whence is it that this great Council or this High Court hath its Authority Is it not from the King Is it not from Him that makes them to be such a Council and makes them to be such a Court by his calling and assembling them together So that to say Be it enacted by the Authority of the Parliament is no more in effect than to say Be it enacted by the King in Parliament or Be it enacted by the Kings Authority in his great Council or in his High Court of Parliament For as all Inferiour Courts are and Act by the Kings Authority so is and doth the High Court of Parliament it self also for as it doth not nor cannot make it self no more than the Inferiour Courts do or can for if it did or could it might meet as often and subsist as long as they listed themselves so their acting when they are a Court is as the Actings of other Courts are if they Act as they ought to Act in and by the same Authority from whence they have their Being for Agere sequitur esse acting follows upon being as Mr. Baxter often but sometimes very impertinently tells us And therefore as in all other Courts because they are the Kings Courts the Judgments that are there given and the Decrees that are there decreed for interpreting applying and moderating of Laws already made are the Kings Decrees and the Kings Judgments because they are made by his Authority or by an Authority derived from him and delegated by Him and might if he pleased be executed by him in Person as some of them have been by some of his Predecessors so in the High Court of Parliament where Laws are to be made the Laws that are there made are the Kings Laws and that not only as being made in one of his Courts but made in a formal and solemn manner either by himself personally and immediately or by special Commission granted and authoriz'd by him to do it for him For it is the Le Roy le veult whether pronounced by himself or by any other authoriz'd by him that makes the Law So that it is the Kings Will and the King 's will only to have it a Law that makes it a Law and not any Act antecedent or subsequent of either or both the Houses of Parliament But why then are our Laws called Acts of Parliament Because as I said before they are made by the King in Parliament Yea but they are said to be Enacted by Authority of Parliament that is say I by the King's Authority in Parliament But they are said to be enacted by the Lords and Commons as well as by the King but it is not said they are enacted by the Authority of the Lords and Commons as well as by the Kings So that by enacting by Lords and Commons is meant by the Lords and Commons advising or consenting to the matter of them as appears by the indifferent use sometimes of one of the forms and sometimes of the other as I observed before Whereunto may be added that it is not unusual to ascribe the doing of a thing to Him or them that are but the advisers of it or consenters to it Thus we call that an Order of Council which is ordered by the King in Council or by the advice of his Council And thus St. Paul saith The Saints shall judge the World and Christ himself saith that his twelve Apostles shall sit upon twelve Thrones judging the twelve Tribes of Israel Yet it is certain as Christ tells us in another place that the Father hath committed all judgment to the Son and hath joyned none in Commission with him So that it is Christ and Christ done that shall absolve those that shall be absolved and shall condemn those that shall be condemned which are the proper Acts of a Judge quatenus as he is a Judge and therefore of none but him that is a Judge How then can the Saints be said to judge the World or the twelve Apostles be said to judge the twelve Tribes Why they do it by consenting to and approving of the judgment which shall be given by Christ whether it be the sentence of absolution or condemnation upon whomsoever it is pronounced So though it be the King and the King only that properly speaking doth make the Laws yet because he never makes any Laws but such as are agreed on and consented to by both Houses of Parliament therefore the two Houses of Parliament may in the same sence that the Saints are said to judge the World be said to make our Laws that is by consenting to the King 's making of them to be Laws But yet with this difference which is indeed no small one that Christ's judging of the World needs not the approbation or consent to it antecedently or consequently either of Saints or Angels but the King according to the legally established constitution of our Government cannot make a Law but the matter of it must be antecedently agreed on by both Houses of Parliament as a fit subject for the King to make a
as appears by what I have already said not only of Paternal but of Regal Government and that not only under the first Kings quorum Arbitria pro Legibus erant whose wills and pleasures past for Laws but under all Kings that have ever since and do now govern arbitrarily and despotically as many do in all parts of the World none of which can be imagined to have made any such contract with their People or their People with them as Mr. Baxter speaks of The like may be said of Conquerors and the People subdued by them If Mr. Baxter replies that it is of such a People as are free and sui Juris at their own disposal only that he speaks when he saith that there is no such People that do absolutely subject themselves unto their Soveraign without reserving any Rights or Liberties to themselves I say this is false also whether he mean that no such People can do so or that no such People have done so For first if a Man that is free may make himself a Servant to whomsoever he will and such a Servant as shall be wholly at the disposing of his Master without reserving any thing of Liberty or Propriety unto himself as we see it was ordinary for Men to do not only among the Gentiles but among the Jews themselves insomuch that some of them chose to continue Bondmen when by the Jubilee they might have been made free And why may not any number of Men whether they be a City or a Nation being free and sui Juris or at their own disposing give themselves up if they will and think it to be best for them to be arbitrarily governed by some other more powerful State or Prince without any antecedent compact condition or reservation 2dly That any free People may do so it is evident because some free People have done so for example the People of Campania a Province of Italy being then a free State subjected themselves to the People of Rome in this form of words Populum Campanum Vrbemque Capuam Agros Delubra Deûm Divina Humanaque omnia in vestram Patres Conscripti ditionem dedimus We surrender and give up into your power Lords of the Senate the whole People of Campania and the City Capua our Lands the Temples of our Gods in a word all whatever concerns either Church or State God or Man Et quid obstat saith Grotius what hinders why any other People may not subject themselves and all that they have to any one powerful Man or Prince in the same manner Certainly saith he there were many Nations that did so and lived very happily under such a Government so that if Mr. Baxter thinks that there never was any Government submitted unto by any free People but upon an antecedent contract and a reserve of some Liberties and Priviledges to themselves to be always exempted from the Jurisdiction of Him or them to whom they became Subjects He is much mistaken But if by Government he means the Government of this Nation of ours in particular when he saith he takes it for undeniable that it was constituted by Contract and that in the Contract the People have not absolutely subjected themselves unto the Soveraign without reserving any Rights and Liberties unto themselves exempted from the Princes power for the securing of which the Parliament are their Trustees If this be his meaning I say I demand of Him first when was this Nation of ours a free People and when was it under any Government but that of Kings surely never since that of the Romans who governed them as a Province arbitrarily and despotically by their Lieutenants whom they sent hither and so did their British Saxon and Danish Princes for the most part for ought appears in any of our Historians to the contrary or if some of them governed by Laws as Ina Alfred and some others of the Saxon Kings and Canutus the Dane did yet the Laws whereby they governed were all of them made by themselves after they were Kings and not by way of compact with their Subjects No more were the Laws of Edward the Confessor himself which were the Subject matter of Magna Charta or the great Charter containing all the Rights Immunities and Liberties of the People but not as bargained for by them before their admitting of any of their Kings to be Kings but indulged unto them and conferr'd upon them by the Donation and Concession of their Kings who partly of their own accord and partly by the Advice of the Lords and Bishops of their Council did make those Laws in favour of the People not only without being aforehand obliged by Compact or Contract with the People to do so but without so much as advising with them or any Representatives of theirs when they did so there being no such Parliaments and consequently no such Representatives of the People as there are now until the Raign as I said before of Henry the First after the Conquest for He was the first of our Kings say our Chronicles that instituted the form now in use of the High Court of Parliament for before his time only certain of the Nobility and Prelates of the Realm were called to consultation about the most important affairs of the State but he caused the Commons also to be Represented by Knights and Burgesses of their own choosing and made that Court saith the Historian to consist of three parts the Nobility the Clergy and the Common People representing the whole Body of the Realm So that before this there were no Representatives of the Peoplé of their own choosing to be their Trustees for the securing to them their pretended reserved Rights and Exemptions by an antecedent contract or compact made betwixt them and him that was to govern them whilst they were yet free and before he was their Governour and therefore this supposition of such a compact or contract betwixt the King before He was King and the People before they were his Subjects here in this Kingdom which Mr. Baxter saith he takes for undeniable is undeniably a meer fiction of his own Imagination and Invention and consequently whatsoever is by him grounded upon this supposition is not only fallacious but altogether false and fictitious also CHAP. XI Mr. B. 's Justification of the late Rebellion from this Compact c. The King's Coronation-Oath doth not prove any such Compact c. nor can it be proved by any authentick Record The state of affairs during the Vsurpation BUT true and undeniably indeed true it is that the People of England have now and have had long for many Generations even from Henry the First 's time such Priviledges Liberties and Immunities as are contained and specified in Magna Charta and such Representatives in Parliament for the asserting of those Priviledges and to see that no Laws should be made for them without their consent to them but that they
have or ever had them by an antecedent compact with the King before they were his Subjects is that which I affirm to be false and consequently that Mr. Baxter's distinction of the Peoples being represented in Parliament in a double capacity namely either as they are now that is as they are Subjects or as they were as first that is as they were before they were Subjects is frivolous and fictitious for they never were nor are now represented in Parliament any otherwise than as Subjects only And as such Mr. Baxter confesseth that neither they nor their Representatives can do more than complain if they be grieved and humbly Petition the King that they may be relieved But as their Representatives in Parliament are the Peoples Trustees they do represent them saith Mr. Baxter not as Subjects but as they were before they were Subjects when as Freemen they did contract for the reservation of such Priviledges and Immunities unto themselves which the King was not to violate or take away from them or if he did attempt to do so those Representatives of theirs as Trustees were to do what they could even by force if they could not by fair means to maintain and preserve or to vindicate and recover those aforesaid reserved Priviledges and Immunities and that the People were obliged to assist them against the King in so doing And upon this undeniable supposition as he calls it he endeavours to justifie the late Rebellion insomuch that he saith he thought he should have been a Traytor to the Parliament if he had not taken part with them This supposition therefore being of so very great importance as that upon the truth or falsity thereof the justification or condemnation of the late War and consequently of the Bodies and Souls of all those that were engaged in it doth by Mr. Baxter's own confession wholly depend he ought to have been very sure that it had been indeed undeniably true in point of Fact and that it could by undeniable Records be demonstrably evidenced to be so For it is not his taking it to be undeniable as he saith he doth can prove it is so or will make it believed to be so neither are the Oaths of Kings nor the Charters and Laws in which they have expressed their consent to govern according to those Charters and Laws together with the antient Customs of the Nation that can prove there was either at first or at any time since any such compact or contract as Mr. Baxter supposeth to have been betwixt the People before they were Subjects and the King before he was King and that there were such reserves of such and such Rights and Priviledges antecedently conditioned for by one of the Parties and consented to by the other upon penalty of forfeiture of the Crown upon breaking of the Covenant to such or such a degree and that the Parliament were to be the Peoples Trustees for the securing of the performance of the antecedent Covenant or Contract and might make War with the King for the breach of it and that the People were obliged to assist them in it All which Particulars Mr. Baxter supposeth to be the subject matter of his supposed antecedent Compact or Contract betwixt the Kings of England and their People and thinks he hath proved it because our Kings swear at their Coronation that they will govern according to the Laws already made by the Kings their Predecessors and that shall be made afterwards by themselves in Parliament But first as I have observed already Are not our Kings Kings before the taking of the Oath Was not out present King so de jure by right many years before he came home and was he not so de facto in fact as well as de jure by possession as well as by title two years before he was crowned after he came home and consequently before his taking of the Oath 2dly Is there any thing in the Oath obliging him to the keeping of it upon penalty of forfeiture of his Regal Power and Dignity or for the discharging of his Subjects from their Allegiance to him if he do not keep it 3dly Is there any mention or Intimation in that Oath of the Parliaments or any other Trustees for the People to judge betwixt them and the King whether he keeps the contract or no and to question and punish him if he do not as the Ephori might do and did punish the Kings of Sparta because indeed they were no Kings but in name only and no more than so would our Kings be neither if there were any such antecedent contract as Mr. Baxter supposeth there is or if the Parliament were such Trustees for the People as he supposeth them to be But it is not his supposing will serve the turn for the proof either of the one or of the other but he must produce authentick and undeniable Records to verifie and evidence the truth and certainty of both For example he must in the first place produce some such authentick undeniable Record wherein it is averred that at such a time the People being then free did stipulate and contract with him whom they meant to choose to be their King saying as he supposeth them to say We choose You and your Family successively to rule us on these and no other terms Accept these terms or We accept not you Upon which Terms consented to by him and so being chosen by them he obligeth Himself saith Mr. Baxter and all his Successors that will rule that is if they will not be deposed to rule upon that foundation And upon some such formal contract as this it is that he takes it for undeniable that the Government of this Kingdom of ours was at first constituted which if he could make it appear by any authentick Record as I am sure he cannot yet that would be but one half of the work he hath to do For supposing but not granting that once upon a time no Man knows when there was such a contract betwixt the People whilst they were free and their King that was to be that they should have such or such Rights Priviledges and Immunities reserved to them and that the King upon breach of his part of the Covenant should forfeit his Right to them supposing I say but not granting all this to be true yet if he cannot produce some other as Authentick a Record to prove that the Parliament were by that antecedent supposed compact or contract agreed upon by both Parties to be Trustees and such Trustees for the reserved Rights and Liberties of the People as might in case they were to such or such a degree violated by the King or his Ministers legally do what the late Parliament did namely make Laws without the King and make War against the King or those that were commissioned by the King he shall never be able to excuse them from being in the highest degree guilty of
a most illegal and insolent and impudent Invasion and Vsurpation of the Kings authority in the one nor of a most Trayterous avowed and bold-faced Rebellion against the Person as well as the Soveraignty of the King in the other and consequently that all that assisted them whether it were with their hands or with their tongues with their Swords or with their Pens with their prayers or with their Purses were as arrant Traytors and Rebels as they were Whereas if Mr. Baxter can make it evidently to appear that there was such an Original constitution of Government by such a compact or contract betwixt the People on the one part and the King and his Successors on the other part and that by virtue of the said Original constitution the Parliament was appointed and agreed on by both Parties to be such Trustees for the People as he saith the Parliament was we are now speaking of and that they might legally do what that Parliament did for the discharging of their Trust If he can make this I say evidently appear from any authentick Record I must and will confess that the Government here with us is indeed no Monarchy and that not only for the reason given by Mr. Baxter because the whole Soveraignty is not in one Person namely in the King but partly in the King and partly in the Parliament but also because according to Mr. Baxter's supposition the Soveraignty is not at all in the King but wholly in the Parliament as it was in the Ephori in Sparta and as it is now in the Senate of Venice But thanks be to God it is not come to that yet though it were once very near coming to it when they had gotten an Act to sit as long as they listed and took upon them to make Laws to raise Mony and to make War and consequently to play REX as we say by exercising all the Acts of Soveraignty and by pressing the King to devest himself of them by making another Act not only to justifie what they had done but to enable them to do the same things for one and twenty Years more And by that time the Monarchy would have been like an old Almanack worn out of date and either an Aristocracy or rather a Democracy not only set up but setled instead of it as we saw it was assoon as the Monarchy by the Murder of the then Monarch seemed to be quite down the House of Commons assuming and usurping to themselves the whole Government of the Kingdom without King or Lords which the Lords as well as the King ought to remember calling themselves a free State and behaving themselves as such both at home and abroad for the short time of their Raign which was until their Servant made himself their Master by making use of that Army for the pulling of them down which they were forced to keep in pay at the excessive charge of the People for the keeping of themselves up And then They and the People too saw and felt the difference between a legitimate and legal Monarchy and the despotical Arbitrary Government of an Vsurped Tyranny which made them wish and pray and long for the Return of the right Heir and the restoring of the right Government having found by woful experience that every change they had made was first from good to bad and then from bad to worse and lastly from worse to worst of all I mean the Rump-Parliament that so having made tryal of them all they might be the more careful to hold fast the best if God should be pleased to restore it to them again which in his infinite goodness and mercy he hath done and that in a strange and almost miraculous manner by making the Thieves fall out amongst themselves in dividing of the spoyl that so the true Owner might have what they robb'd him of again The End of the Fourth Section SECT V. An Expedient proposed for the preservation of our Government and Religion as now by Law Established from Arbitrary Power and Popery or Presbytery c. without Exclusion of the Right Heir CHAP. I. People bugbear'd with Popery and Arbitrary Government The Priviledges of English Subjects by the Favour and Grants of their KINGS Their Representatives in Parliament Grotius thwarts Mr. B. in his main Principle AND now one would have thought that being so lately delivered from so base and shameful as well as heavy and grievous a Bondage we should not so soon have forgotten what we suffered under a Succession of various Tyrannies nor so soon have been weary of our Quails and Manna as to be so desirous as many of us seem to be to return to the same or perhaps if it be possible to a worse Bondage than that they were under before and to that end there be some that do as good as say one to another as that rebellious backsliding and ever-murmuring Generation of the Jews did Let us us make us a Captain and let us return into Egypt And why so why so soon so weary of well-being Is there any Nation under heaven in a better nay in so good a condition as we are Are not we the only People of Europe that are in Peace when all our Neighbours are in War with one another Doth not every one of us from the highest to the lowest enjoy the Liberty of his person the Propriety of his gooods and the fruit of his Industry without having any of it without his own consent taken away from him So that if ever it might be said of any it may now most emphatically be said of us Happy are the people that are in such a case Yes may some men say if we were sure to continue always as we are but we are afraid we shall not we are afraid of Popery we are afraid of Arbitrary Government which may take away all we have from us that is or ought to be dear to us But why should we fear where no fear is Is not our Religion our Liberty and our Properties secured unto us by the Laws and by such Laws as can never be repealed but by our own consents Did not such a needless fear as this make us rebell against our late Gracious Soveraign Lord the King and by that Rebellion make our fellow Subjects nay the basest and vilest and meanest of our fellow Subjects to be Lords over us And if ever we come into such a slavery or any slavery at all again it must be by such a Rebellion produced by such a pretended fear or by a Foreign Invasion invited by our divisions amongst our selves that must be the cause of it Never was there a better Constitution of a Government than ours is nor ever was there better security for the keeping of it as it is than we have Never were there Subjects that had more and greater or so many and great Priviledges as the Subjects of England have neither do our Kings
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
to lie against our late experience to the contrary when Tyranny and Tyranny in the highest degree and under many several sorts of Tyrants was brought in without Popery and the Protestà nt Religion of the Church of England was not only suppressed and persecuted but endeavoured to be quite extirpated and for ever to be abolished by the greatest pretenders of enmity to Popery though indeed the greatest of its Friends and the most likely to be a most effectual means to bring it in by their then endeavouring to overthrow and by their now endeavouring to undermine the strongest Bulwark the Protestant Religion truly so called hath in the World against Popery I mean the Protestant Religion of the Church of England And as this Church of ours according to the present legal constitution of it both as to Doctrine and Government is the best fenced of any Church in the World not only against Popery but all other Heresies and Schisms some of them as bad if not worse both in their speculative and practical opinions than Popery it self is So the legal constitution of our civil Government also is I verily believe the best Government now extant in the World or perhaps ever was or can be for the keeping out of Tyranny or arbitrary Government of what disposition or religion soever the Prince or Governour in chief for the time shall happen to be of so the legal established constitution of the Government be not altered CHAP. VIII The Scotch Test an Assurance that there can no change be in Government either of Church or State The case of Protestants in Queen Maries time much different from what it is now FOR preventing whereof the best and as I verily believe the only effectual means that can be devised and put in practice is as I said before the making of such an Act of Parliament here in England as is lately made in Scotland viz. That for the future no Man shall be capable of any place power trust or profit Military Civil or Ecclesiastical or to choose or be chosen a Parliament man but he that will take such a Test as is there specified viz. That he will never give his consent for the alteration either of the Religion or the Government by Law established in the Church and State Which being once enacted I for my part cannot foresee how either Popery or Arbitrary I might add or any other Government or Religion prejudicial to the rights either of King or Subject can be brought in amongst us but by an absolute conquest of the whole Nation For as for Popery and Arbitrary Government the pretended Objects of our present fears that they will be brought in by a Popish Successor supposing there be any such if he be not excluded the aforesaid Act after it is enacted will make it impossible for him to effect it though he have never so strong an Inclination or desire to do it For if he endeavour to do it it must be either by force or fair means if by force it must be either by an Army of his own Subjects or of Foreigners if by an Army of his own Subjects it must be an Army of Papists only which being not one to 500. in proportion to the rest of the Nation and all of them excluded by the aforesaid Act from all places of Power or Trust will make but a very inconsiderable handful of Men to attempt and much less to effect any thing by force against the Body of the Nation whom we are to suppose to be obliged by the aforesaid Act not to consent to and much less to assist the bringing in either of Popery or Arbitrary Government So that if it be by force it must be by an Army of Foreigners and such an Army as shall be able to subdue the whole Nation and then he that brings them in cannot choose but fear they will subdue us for themselves and not for him and therefore will take heed of running such a hazard for any consideration whatsoever We are not therefore to fear it will be attempted to be done by force Nor that it can be effected if it should be attempted to be done by fair means neither that is by Law or by making any Act of Parliament for the introducing of Popery when there shall be an Act before in force to prevent any Man's choosing or being chosen a Member of the House of Commons that is not obliged by Oath never to give his consent to the passing of such an Act and all Popish Lords are already excluded from voting in the House of Lords But why may not a Popish Successor cause both these Acts to be repealed as Queen MARY did for the Reducing of Popery those that were made by Her Brother Edward the Sixth for the Excluding of Popery I answer because of the vast difference between those times and these Then the Protestant Religion was but begun to be planted in this Kingdom and had not taken root enough for the setling and growth and continuance of it much the major part of the People being still Popishly affected in their Hearts though they were by the Laws then in force restrain'd from the open profession of it as appear'd by their so readily and so gladly returning as most of them did to it and by their not only accepting but desiring and purchasing the Pape's Absolution for revolting from it So that it was very easie for Queen Mary to make that Alteration which she did by repealing such Acts and Laws as she found in favour of the Protestant Religion and to re-enact or restore such as were for the establishment of Popery which she found to have been repealed by Her Predecessor And to make this work of hers the more easie she did and could without any legal impediment to the contrary bestow all places of Trust Power and Profit Civil Military and Ecclesiastical upon such as were as zealous as she her self was for the suppressing of the Protestant and setting up of the Roman Religion instead of it Whereas now the Protestant Religion has been setled here in England for above fourscore years before the Rebellion and above twenty years since and the Popish suppress'd for twenty years longer even during all the time of the Rebellion it self whilst the Sectaries usurped the Supreme Power and whilst the Protestant Religion of the Church of England was suppress'd and persecuted also But all that while Popery was kept down and Presbytery was set up and spread it self so much in and over all parts of the whole Kingdom that we have much more reason to fear the alteration of Government both in Church and State by setting up of Presbytery instead of Episcopacy in the one and of a Commonwealth instead of Monarchy in the other than Popery or Arbitrary Government under a King in either as long as the Laws we have already against both are in force whereby all Papists are made uncapable
of having any thing to do in the Government as it now is and of doing any thing towards the alteration of it by repealing or giving their votes for repealing any of those Laws that are in force against Popery or for the making of any new Laws in favour of it being as I said before excluded from sitting in either of the Houses without the consent of the major part of which Houses the King himself though he be the sole Law-giver or sole maker of our Laws properly speaking as I have proved at large already can neither make nor repeal Laws but is according to the legal constitution of this Kingdom oblig'd and has obliged himself neither to make any New Laws nor to repeal any Old ones nor to Govern any otherways than by such Laws as are in force and have been or shall be so made that is with the consent of both Houses of Parliament either by himself or by His Predecessors So that there wants nothing to perpetuate our happiness under the best Government that ever any People did or can live under but to be assured that never any change as to the species and essentials of it shall be made in it And such an assurance as far as any thing in this world can be assured the making of such an Act here for the taking of such a Test as is already made and taken in Scotland will give us of what Perswasion soever in point of Religion or of what Inclination soever in point of Government the Successor to the Crown at any time may chance to be especially after he hath taken the Coronation Oath to Govern no otherwise than by Laws made and to be made by Act of Parliament CHAP. IX The Coronation-Oath alike dispensable whether the Successor be a Papist or a Presbyterian Mr. B. 's judgment of our Government and his wish for better order in choice of Parliament-men with the Bishops judgment what ought to be their main Qualification IF it be objected that if the Successor be a Papist there is no Oath he can take but he may be and will be by the Pope easily and willingly absolved from the Sin in taking it and from the Obligation to keep it I answer first that the same Objection will be as valid against a Presbyterian as against a Popish Successor for that the Classis as well as the Conclave can dispense with the obligation of Oaths we have seen and felt too For what was the imposing of the Solemn League and Covenant but a discharging of those that took it by those that perswaded them to take it from being any longer obliged by the Oāths of Allegiance and Supremacy which they had formerly taken But Secondly my answer is that I do not ground the Assurance of the continuance of our present Government either in Church or State either wholly or chiefly upon the Successors keeping of his Coronation Oath of what perswasion soever he is or may be but upon the a version which 99. parts at least of an 100. of the whole Nation have from Popery and Arbitrary Government and upon the Laws already in force against both and upon the supposition of such a new Law to be made here as there is in Scotland for the preserving and securing of the old ones viz. That no man be capacitated to choose or be chosen to be a Parliament-man before He hath taken that or such another Oath as that which by the aforesaid Act of Parliament in Scotland is prescribed and enjoyned to be taken Which Oath why those that fear the bringing in of Popery and Arbitrary Government should not be very willing to take I can see no reason unless they would bring in something else as destructive to the present Government as Popery it self and then I see no reason neither why they should not be excluded from choosing and being chosen members of Parliament as well as the Papists are For why should any that are Enemies to the Government one way or other be put in a capacity either to undermine the foundation or to weaken the props and the Pillars of it or to make any substantial alteration in it considering as Mr. Baxter himself confesseth That for ought he sees the Government of this Commonwealth I presume he takes the word Commonwealth not as a specifical but a generical Notion as it signifies any body Politick is already ballanced with as much prudence caution and equality as the curiousest of the models that self conceited men would obtrude with so much ostentation And that by Government of this Common-wealth he means the Government of this Kingdom not as it was governed by a State before the Usurpation of Cromwel the Father or by the Army and Rump-Parliament after the deposing of Cromwel the Son but as it was to be Govern'd according to the Legal constitution by King Lords and Commons that is by a King Governing by Laws made with the consent of the Lords and Commons in Parliament I take this I say to be Mr. Baxter's meaning by that which he calls the Government of this Common-wealth because in other places he seems not only to dislike but abhor the Government of a Common-wealth in a specifical Notion that is as it signifies a Democratical or popular Government for no fewer than 20. several reasons at the end of which he saith I conclude therefore that this Ignorant impious mutable cruel violent rout shall never have my consent for the Soveraignty and in another place as I have already observed he saith that although the two Houses of Parliament as having he thinks a part of the Soveraignty may lawfully in defence of that part of theirs make War against the King or those commissioned by the King yet though in that contest they get the victory they do not thereby gain the whole Soveraignty to themselves nor cannot alter the former constitution but must have the same or some other King in his stead whereby it plainly appears that by the aforesaid Government of this Common-wealth as he cannot mean a Democratical or popular so he cannot mean an Aristocratical or a Parliamentary Government without a King And therefore if he will sibi constare hold to what he saith and not contradict Himself as he does in many other things by that Government of this Common-wealth which he saith is already ballanced with so much prudence and caution he must needs mean this political regulated Monarchy of ours which we now enjoy and consequently that it ought not to be chang'd for any other form frame or model of Government which the curiosity of self conceited men saith Mr. Baxter he might have said or the Ambition of Proud or the greediness of Covetous or the malice of Discontented or the Bigotry of Hereticks or the peevishness of Schismaticks may endeavour to obtrude upon us instead of it For preventing whereof I could wish as he doth in the same place that some
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
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
But is there the same Reason Mr. Baxter or the same necessity for your preaching now supposing you would preach nothing but what you should preach as there was for their preaching then when Paganism had taken and kept possession of the World for 4000 years together and Christianity was to be planted instead of it when the Harvest was so very great and the Labourers so very few Whereas Christianity and Orthodox Christianity as you your self witness is thanks be to God for it already planted here and though every Parish be not so well provided for either with maintenance for a Minister or with so able a Minister as I wish they were and hope they will be without need of your assistance yet there is none or very few if any but such as can reade divine Service wherein are all David's Psalms read once a month and all the rest of the Holy Scripture once a year and the Creed and the Decalogue twice or thrice a week besides the teaching of the Church-Catechism wherein is the Churches own Exposition of the Creed the Decalogue the Lords-Prayer and of the Nature Use and Ends of both the Sacraments together with how we are to be prepared for the receiving of them and the benefits we are to receive with them and by them And I demand of Mr. Baxter whether this if there were no more than this be not enough by God's blessing upon it for the conversion and saving of Souls But over and besides all this there are or may be without their help as good Sermons as any they can make read or preached every Sunday even by those that cannot make Sermons themselves and Sermons upon such Subjects or Heads or Common places as are most fundamental and most necessary and profitable for the People to be instructed in both for their belief and practice in order to the making of them good Men good Christians good Subjects and every way such as they ought to be in all their Relations and that in so plain so perspicuous and so familiar a way of Expression as that none that have any degree of common understanding but may understand them and if it be not their own fault be edified by them And all this without any danger of being led into any doctrinal or practical Errour without being in danger of being made Hereticks or Schismaticks or Rebels by hearing of them This being the peculiar excellency of those Sermons I mean the Domilies above all other Sermons that all men may be edified and made better and no man can be corrupted or made worse by them for they are all of them clean corn without any mixture either of tares or of chaff either of noxious and hurtfull or of vain and unprofitable Ingredients with it which no man can be sure of from any other Sermons but these or such as these are onely which can have nothing of the frailty nor the folly or the malice of him that delivers them in them which all other Sermons of every Man 's own Composition have or may have in a greater or less degree and none had in a greater than those that were preached in the late times by them whose preaching again Mr. Baxter doth so earnestly plead for But the reading of a Homily will Mr. Baxter say is not preaching or if it may be called preaching it is such kind of preaching as hath no Life nor Efficacy in it to work upon Mens Minds and Affections that hear it Not so much perhaps Mr. Baxter as if it were delivered vivâ voce by word of Mouth by him that was the Composer of it but to say it hath not nor cannot have any efficacy at all is durus sermo a very hard saying and such as doth not consist with their own practice I mean their Repetitions which they seem to think to be as necessary after a Sermon as contracting or betrothing before Marriage And do they think those Repetitions of other mens Sermons to be of no Efficacy to make them that hear them the better for them If they do think so why do they place so much of Religion in the use of them If they do not let them for shame grant as much efficacy to the repetition of the Church Sermons I mean the Homilies or if not to the repetition of them yet at least to the repetition of the Prophets Sermons in the Old Testament and of Christ and his Apostles in the New as they do to the repetition of those Sermons that are preached by themselves which though they may think to be better than our Homilies yet I hope they will not prefer them before or compare them with Christ's Sermon on the Mount or with those Sermons of the Prophets and Apostles which were dictated by the Holy Ghost and are daily read or repeated in all and every one of our Churches how meanly soever they are provided for otherwise So that I do not see how so many thousand Souls as Mr. Baxter speaks of must needs be starved for want of spiritual food if the 2000 silenced Ministers that he pleads for be not restored to the liberty of Preaching and much less how any of those that are silenced should be guilty of Murther for not preaching though there were much more need of preaching than there is for it is not for want of more Labourers but for want of more maintenance for our Labourers that our Churches are not so well supplied with Preachers as they might be without taking in of those that are shut out or if our Churches are too few or our Parishes too great either of those inconveniences might easily be remedied by building more Churches and dividing those Parishes and so might the maintenance of the Orthodox and Conformable Ministry be likewise if the Parliament would give but as much to indigent Churches as it did to indigent Officers and then if they were not supplied by able and industrious and unblameable Incumbents let us that are the Bishops be blamed for it CHAP. IX Whatever need there may be of preaching both Popish Priests and Nonconformists ought to be restrained from preaching BUt why in the mean time untill that can be effected should we not make use of their assistance which they offer us for nothing For as for maintenance saith Mr. Baxter we expect not any Speak for your self Mr. Baxter I remember the time when an eminent Man of your Party that is for the Parliament against the King had more than twice as many Spiritual Cures at once and some of them of greater value than any conformable man hath or can have by Law and his Apology for it in Print was that he had but one Living of his own and the rest he did but keep untill good and godly Pastours could be provided for them but he kept the Profits of them also though he was not resident upon any one of them no not so much as upon that which was his
and particularly such as are against Princes safety and honour or whose Principles tend to overthrow the honour and safety of Governours and to kindle the fire of contention and enmity or such as draw their hearers Souls into any damnable errour or sin or that perswade men against any precept of the Decalogue and consequently against any of the precepts of the second Table as well as of the first all such as these saith Mr. Baxter are to be restrained from preaching For far be it saith Mr. Baxter from any sober man to think that the Magistrate must let all men doe the evil that they will but pretend to God and Conscience for Which one saying of his makes all that he said before to justifie the preaching of his Nonconformists to signifie nothing if they be silenced or forbidden to preach for any of the aforesaid causes by him specified and acknowledged to be such as Preachers ought to be silenced for notwithstanding any pretence of conscience to the contrary So this being agreed on betwixt us the next thing in question betwixt us is whether those that are silenced are such as Mr. Baxter confesseth ought to be silenced or no for if they be he confesseth likewise that no pretence of conscience can warrant their preaching and much less oblige them to preach For the deciding of this question therefore whether those that are silenced are justly silenced or no there remains one and but one question more and that is who shall judge and finally determine whether they that are silenced be or be not such as ought to be silenced or restrained from preaching Surely they themselves must not be their own judges but who must then why who but the Magistrate saith Mr. Baxter who in Church cases and religion hath the onely publick judgment whom he shall countenance maintain or tolerate or whom he shall punish or not tolerate nor maintain but with this caution so he be not the executioner of the Clergy's sentence without or against his own conscience and judgment Where by the Magistrate I hope he means the supreme Magistrate and by his judgment he means his judgment according to Law For the Law and nothing but the Law is the declaration of the supreme Magistrate's publick judgment in giving whereof he neither is nor can be the executioner of any other man's sentence but all subordinate Magistrates whether Civil or Ecclesiastical are the executioners of the supreme Magistrate's judgment or sentence and are no farther binding or to be obeyed than they are so Now that the supreme Magistrate with the advice and consent of his great Council hath given his judgment not onely who are and who are not to be tolerated to preach in publick or in Churches appears by the Act of Vniformity as likewise that he hath given his judgment also that those who are not to be tolerated to preach in publick or in Churches are not to be tolerated to preach in private nor in Conventicles neither appears by those other Acts of Parliament whereby such preaching is forbidden and such penalties as are therein specified are to be inflicted upon the transgressours of them Lastly as those Acts of Parliament are undeniable evidences who are and who are not to be tolerated to preach either publickly or privately according to the publick judgment of the State so the reasons why such preaching and such Preachers are prohibited are declared in the Titles and Prefaces of the aforesaid Acts for example the Title to one of those Acts namely that of decimo tertio of our present King is this An Act for the safety and preservation of his Majesty's person and Government against treasonable and seditious practices and attempts and in the Preface to the said Act it is said that the Lords and Commons assembled in that Parliament deeply weighing and considering the miseries and calamities of well nigh 20 years before his Majesty's happy return and withall reflecting upon the causes and occasions of so great and deplorable confusions the growth and increase of which they say did in a very great measure proceed from a multitude of seditious Sermons Pamphlets and Speeches published with a transcendent boldness from which kind of distemper say they as the present age is not wholly free so posterity may be apt to relapse into them if a timely remedy be not provided Therefore say they We the Lords and Commons having duly considered the Premisses do most humbly beseech your Majesty that it may be enacted c. By which Title and preface it plainly appears that the Lords and Commons did believe that neither the safety of the King's person nor of the Government could be secured if such kind of Preaching and Preachers as had in the late times been the stirrers up of the People to rebellion were not restrained from preaching for the future unless they would give some such security as the Parliament should think fit to require which was their renouncing the Covenant and their subscription to the Act of Vniformity which was enacted by the King by the advice and with the consent of the Lords and Commons the year following And it was for their not conforming to this Act of Vniformity that is for their not giving that security which the Law required that they would not preach schismatically and factiously and seditiously as they had done formerly for which they were some of them deprived and all of them disabled to preach publickly in Churches and consecrated places But this Act not proving effectual enough to prevent the danger for preventing whereof it was enacted because those that were forbid to preach publickly and in Churches did preach the same doctrines in Conventicles and in corners confirming their old and making more and more new Proselytes and being more and more followed because they were forbidden to preach in publick Therefore two years after this there was another Act made by the same Authority the Title whereof is An Act to prevent and suppress seditious Conventicles and the Preface or Preamble thereof is That for the providing of farther and more speedy remedies against the growing and dangerous practices of seditious Sectaries and other disloyal Persons who under pretence of tender Consciences do at their meetings contrive Insurrections as late experience hath shewed Be it enacted c. And then tells us first what shall be taken for a seditious Conventicle namely any meeting or Assembly in any place under colour or pretence of any exercise of Religion in other manner than is allowed by the Liturgy or practice of the Church of England where there shall be five Persons or more over and above those of the same house Secondly What are to be the Penalties for the first second and third Offence and lastly who are to be the Executioners and Inflicters of these Penalties Where you see that it is the Highest secular Magistrate whom Mr. Baxter will have
last yet that which both of them agree in to be done first is the pulling down of us in order to the setting up of themselves afterwards And hence it is that the Papists who are much the cunninger Gamesters do make the Sectaries to play their Game for them by making as many divisions as they can amongst us to the end that dum singuli pugnant universi vincantur while we fight in single parties we may all the whole body of us be beaten and worsted And I pray God it prove not to be so at last In the mean time the aid and assistance which Mr. Baxter thinks we of the Church of England have from the Nonconformists for the inabling us to defend our selves against the common Enemy the Papists puts me in mind of what the ingenious Boccalini saith of Spain that when it was weighed by it self the weight that is the power wealth and strength thereof was very considerable but when they put the Kingdom of Naples first and then the Dutchy of Millain into the Scale thinking thereby to add much to the weightiness of the Spanish Monarchy they found it to be much lighter and the less considerable both in strength power and wealth than it was before And so no doubt the Church of England of it self alone would be more healthfull more strong more vigorous and every way more able than it is to preserve the Protestant Religion and to defend it self against Popery and all other heretical opposition or invasion from without if there were neither Presbyterians nor Independents nor Baxterians or any other Dissenters from it lurking in it who whilst they seem to be zealous to keep out Popery do effectually though not intentionally make way for the bringing of it in And therefore as a great Statesman in Queen Elizabeth's time was wont to say That England would be the best Island in the World if Scotland and Ireland were drown'd in the bottom of the Sea speaking I suppose of Scotland and Ireland as they then were the one at enmity with us and the other in rebellion against us and therefore that it would be better for us that they were not at all than to be so near in place to us and so far off in affection from us so may I say of the Church of England That as it is the best so it would be the happiest of all Churches in the Christian world if there were not so many tam propè tam procúlque nobis That are so near to us and so far off from us I mean so many among us that are not of us who have been and are and will be always thorns in our Eyes and goads in our Sides unless they be either wholly as the Irish Rebels were suppressed by us or of Enemies become our Friends as the Scotch are by being united to us and that not onely as the Scots are by becoming Subjects to the same King but Subject to the same Laws also The End of the Sixth Section THE CONCLUSION Wherein two possible Objections against the whole Design of this Writing are Answered Mr. Baxter 's Recantation examined his professions of Loyalty censured and his Way of Concord disapproved AND now having sufficiently and as I hope satisfactorily to all indifferent and impartial Readers justified what I have truly said of Mr. BAXTER in that Letter of mine with the Appendices thereunto so long ago Printed and vindicated my self from all those false and injurious reflections which in diverse passages of several of his Books he hath either plainly and directly or obscurely and obliquely made on me which was all I intended to do I should here make an end of giving my self or the World any more trouble did I not foresee that there might one or two Objections more de novo anew be made against me which I think I ought to prevent The former of which is That supposing I have sufficiently proved that Mr. Baxter did at the Conference at the Savoy assert and maintain what I in my long ago Printed and now reprinted Letter do affirm he did assert and maintain concerning things sinful by Accident yet seeing that since then he hath in a Treatise purposely written upon that subject declared himself to be otherwise minded than I say he was at that Conference I ought in Charity to have forborn upbraiding him with what he said then Whereunto I answer that the difference betwixt me and Mr. Baxter as to that particular being whether I had falsly charged him or no with what he had said at the aforesaid Conference as he in an Address to his Parishioners at Kidderminster pretends I had I was necessitated in mine own defence to prove I had not charged him falsly but that howsoever his mind be changed since he did then assert and maintain what I in my Sermon at Kidderminster did affirm he had asserted and maintained at that Conference as it was presently after that Conference attested in Print by the subscriptions of the now Bishops of Ely and Chester who were two of the three Disputants on our part and are yet God be thanked alive to confirm and justifie the truth of their Attestation if need be which hath never yet though it was Printed above 20 years ago been excepted against either by Mr. Baxter himself or by any of his Party and consequently is as good as acknowledged and confessed to be true And if that Attestation of theirs be true all that I affirm to have been asserted by Mr. Baxter of things sinful by Accident at that Conference must needs be true also whatsoever he hath said and published in any of his Books since to the contrary Which I take for a sufficient answer to the former of the aforesaid objections if any such shall be made by Mr. Baxter or by any other in his behalf hereafter Now as to the latter of the aforesaid Objections which I foresee may be made against me also and which is of much more moment than the former namely that it was uncharitably done of me to publish such a Collection of Mr. Baxter's Aphorisms against all Monarchies in general and this Monarchy of ours in particular as I did at first with that Letter of mine above 20 years since and much more uncharitably done of me now not only to reprint and publish those Aphorisms again with some others of the same kind out of the same forge but to aggravate the hainousness and dangerousness of them in relation to Kingly Government as I have done in this Book of mine to make him more and more odious to those that are in Power at present as one that is not only not to be suffered to Preach or Write but to Live in a Monarchy and all this after he hath disclaimed and recanted what he writ before and what I except against in those Aphorisms of his My answer therefore hereunto is 1. That Mr. Baxter having been silenced by me when I was
according to the legal establishment thereof of so sound so healthful so orderly and so well compacted a constitution as it is and which by long experience we have found so agreeable to the established Government of the State that we cannot make any alteration in the one without great disordering of the other Let us not give ear to any of those Church and State Mountebanks or Empericks who if we let them alone a little longer will never leave mending till they have marr'd all Mr. BAXTER'S Recantation referred to page of the Conclusion Printed 1670. at the end of a Book of His called The Life of Faith after a Catalogue of Books Written and Published by the same Author LET the Reader know that whereas the Bookseller hath in the Catalogue of my Books named my Holy-Commonwealth or Political Aphorisms I do hereby recall the said Book and profess my Repentance that ever I published it and that not only for some by-passages but in respect of the secondary part of the very scope Though the first Part of it which is the defence of God and Reason I recant not But this Revocation I make with these Proviso's 1. That I reverse not all the Matter of that Book nor all that more than ONE have accused As e. g. the Assertion that all Humane Powers are limited by God And if I may not be pardoned for not defying DEITY and HUMANITY I shall prefer that ignominy before their present Fastus and Triumph who defie them 2. That I make not this Recantation to the Military fury and rebellious pride and tumult against which I wrote it nor would have them hence take any encouragement for impenitence 3. That though I dislike the Roman Clergies writing so much of Politicks and detest Ministers medling in State matters without necessity or a certain call yet I hold it not simply unbeseeming a Divine to expound the fifth Commandment nor to shew the dependance of humane Powers on the Divine nor to instruct Subjects to obey with judgment and for Conscience sake 4. That I protest against the judgment of Posterity and all others that were not of the same TIME and PLACE as to the mental censure either of the BOOK or the REVOCATION as being ignorant of the true reasons of them both Which things Provided I hereby under my hand as much as in me lyeth reverse the Book and desire the World to take it as non Scriptum April 15. 1670. R. B. ACT Anent Religion and the TEST August 31. 1681. Made in the Third PARLIAMENT of Our Most High and Dread Sovereign CHARLES the Second Holden at EDINBURGH the 28 day of July 1681. By his Royal Highness JAMES Duke of Albany and York c. His MAJESTIES High Commissioner for holding the same Referred to Section V. OUR SOVERAIGNE LORD With His Estates of Parliament Considering That albeit by many wholsom Laws made by his Royall Grand-father and Father of glorious memory and by himself in this and His other Parliaments since His happy Restauration the Protestant Religion is carefully asserted established and secured against Popery and Phanaticism Yet the restless Adversaries of our Religion doe not cease to propagat their errours and to seduce His Majesties Subjects from their duty to God and Loyalty to his Vice-gerent and to overturn the established Religion by introducing their Superstions and delusions into this Church and Kingdom And knowing that nothing can more encrease the numbers and confidence of Papists and Schismatical dissenters from the Established Church than the supine neglect of putting in Execution the good Laws provided against them together with their hopes to infinuat themselves into Offices and places of trust and publick Imployment THEREFORE His Majesty from His Princely and pious zeal to maintain and preserve the true Protestant Religion contained in the Confession of Faith recorded in the first Parliament of King James the Sixth which is founded on and agreeable to the written word of GOD DOETH with advise and consent of His Estates of Parliament Require and Command all his Officers Judges and Magistrats to put the Laws made against Popery and Papists Priests Jesuits and all persons of any other Order in the Popish Church especially against sayers and hearers of Mass Venders and dispersers of forbidden Books And Ressetters of Popish Priests and excommunicat Papists As also against all Phanatick Separatists from this National Church Against Preachers at House or Field-Conventicles and the Ressetters and harbourers of Preachers who are Intercommuned Against disorderly Baptisms and Marriages and irregular Ordinations and all other Schismaticall disorders To full and vigorous execution according to the Tenour of the Respective Acts of Parliament thereanent provided And that his Majesties Princely care to have these Laws put in Execution against those Enemies of the Protestant Religion may the more clearly appear HE DOETH with advise and consent foresaid STATUT and ORDAIN That the Ministers of each Paroch give up in October Yearly to their respective Ordinaries true and exact Lists of all Papists and Schismatical-withdrawers from the publick Worship in their respective Paroches which Lists are to be subscribed by them and that the Bishops give in a double of the saids Lists Subscribed by them to the respective Sheriffs Stewards Bailies of Royalty and Regalitie and Magistrats of Burghs To the effect the said Judges may proceed against them according to Law As also the Sheriffs and other Magistrats foresaids are hereby ordained to give an account to his Majesties Privy-Council in December yearly of their proceedings against those Papists and Phanatical Separatists as they will be answerable at their highest peril And that the diligences done by the Sheriffs Bailies of Regalities and other Magistrats foresaids may be the better enquired into by the Council the Bishops of the respective Diocesses are to send exact doubles of the Lists of the Papists and Phanaticks to the Clerks of Privy Council whereby the diligences of the Sheriffs and other Judges foresaids may be controlled and examined And to cut of all hopes from Papists and Phanaticks of their being imployed in Offices and Places of publick Trust. IT IS HEREBY STATUT and ORDAINED that the following Oath shall be taken by all Persons in Offices and places of publick Trust Civil Ecclesiastical and Military especially by all Members of Parliament and all Electors of Members of Parliament all Privy-Counsellors Lords of Session Members of the Exchequer Lords of Justiciary and all other Members of these Courts all Officers of the Crown and State all Arch-Bishops and Bishops and all Preachers and Ministers of the Gospel whatsoever all Persons of this Kingdom named or to be named Commissioners for the Borders all Members of the Commission for Church Affairs all Sheriffs Stewards Bailies of Royalties and Regalities Justices of the Peace Officers of the Mint Commissars and their Deputs their Clerks and Fiscals all Advocats and Procurators before any of these Courts all Writters to the Signet all Publick Nottars and
other Persons imployed in Writing or Agenting The Lyon King at Arms Heraulds Pursevants and Messengers at Arms all Collectours Sub-collectours and Farmourers of His Majesties Customs and Excise all Magistrats Deans of Gild Counsellers and Clerks of Burghs Royall and Regality all Deacons of Trades and Deacon-Conveeners in the said Burghs all Masters and Doctors in Universities Colledges or Schools all Chaiplains in Families Pedagogues to Children and all Officers and Souldiers in Armies Forts or Militia and all other Persons in publick Trust or Office within this Kingdom Who shall publickly swear and subscribe the said Oath as follows viz. The Arch-Bishops Chief Commander of the Forces and Officers of the Crown and State and Counsellers before the Secret Council All the Lords of Session and all Members of the Colledge of Justice and others depending upon them before the Session The Lords of Justiciary and those depending upon that Court in the Justice Court The Lords and other Members of Exchequer before the Exchequer All Bishops before the Arch-Bishops All the inferior Clergy Commissars Masters and Doctors of Universities and Schools Chaiplains and Pedagogues before the Bishops of the respective Diocesses Sheriffs Stewards Bailies of Royalty and Regality and those depending on these Jurisdictions before these respective Courts And Provests Bailies and others of the Burgh before the Town Councill All Collectors and Farmourers of the King's Customs and Excise before the Exchequer The Commissioners of the Borders before the Privy Council All Justices of Peace before their Conveener And the Officers of the Mint before the General of the Mint And the Officers of the Forces before the Commander in Chief and common Souldiers before their respective Officers The Lyon before the Privy Council and Heraulds Pursevants and Messengers at Arms before the Lyon And His Majesty with consent foresaid STATUTS and ORDAINS that all those who presently possess or enjoy any of the foresaids Offices publick Trusts or Imployments shall take and subscribe the following Oath in one of the foresaids Offices in manner before prescribed betwixt and the first of January next which is to be recorded in the Registers of the respective Courts and Extracts thereof under the Clerks hands to be reported to His Majesties Privy Council betwixt and the first of March next One thousand six hundred eighty two and thereafter in any other Courts whereof they are Judges or Members the first time they shall sit or exerce in any of these respective Courts AND ORDAINS that all who shall hereafter be promoted to or imployed in any of the foresaids Offices Trusts or Imployments shall at their entry into and before their exercing thereof take and subscribe the said Oath in manner foresaid to be recorded in the Registers of the respective Courts and reported to His Majesties Privy Council within the space of forty dayes after their taking the same And if any shall presume to exercise any of the saids Offices or Imployments or any publick Office or Trust within this Kingdom the King 's lawful Brothers and Sons only excepted until they take the Oath foresaid and subscribe it to be recorded in the Registers of the respective Courts They shall be declared incapable of all publick Trust thereafter and be further punished with the loss of their Moveables and Liferent-Escheat the one half whereof to be given to the Informer and the other half to belong to His Majesty And His Majesty with Advice foresaid recommends to His Privy Council to see this Act put to due and vigorous Execution Follows the Tenour of the OATH to be taken by all Persons in Publick Trust. I A. B. Solemnly swear in presence of the Eternal God whom I invocat as Judge and Witness of my sincere intention of this my Oath That I own and sincerely profess the true Protestant Religion contained in the Confession of Faith recorded in the first Parliament of King James the Sixth and that I believe the same to be founded on and agreeable to the Written Word of God And I promise and swear that I shall adhere thereto during all the dayes of my lifetime and shall endeavour to educat my Children therein and shall never consent to any change or alteration contrary thereto And that I disown and renounce all such Principles Doctrines or Practises whether Popish or Phanatical which are contrary unto and inconsistent with the said Protestant Religion and Confession of Faith And for testification of my Obedience to my most Gracious Soveraign CHARLES the Second I do affirm and swear by this my solemn Oath That the King's Majesty is the only Supreme Governour of this Realm over all Persons and in all Causes as well Ecclesiastical as Civil And that no forraign Prince Person Pope Prelate State or Potentat hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superioritie Preheminencie or Authoritie Ecclesiastical or Civil within this Realm And therefore I do utterly renounce and forsake all Forraign Jurisdictions Powers Superiorities and Authorities And do promise that from henceforth I shall bear Faith and true Allegiance to the King's Majesty His Heirs and Lawful Successours And to my Power shall assist and defend all Rights Jurisdictions Prerogatives Priviledges Prehemineneies and Authorities belonging to the King's Majesty His Heirs and Lawful Successours And I farther affirm and swear by this my solemn Oath That I Judge it unlawful for Subjects upon pretence of Reformation or any other pretence whatsoever To enter into Covenants or Leagues or to convocat conveen or assemble in any Councils Conventions or Assemblies to treat consult or determine in any matter of State Civil or Ecclesiastick without His Majestie 's special command or express licence had thereto or to take up arms against the King or those commissionated by Him And that I shall never so rise in Arms or enter into such Covenant or Assemblies And that there lies no Obligation on me from the National Covenant or the Solemn League and Covenant so commonly called or any other manner of way whatsoever to endeavour any change or alteration in the Government either in Church or State as it is now established by the Laws of this Kingdom And I promise and swear that I shall with my utmost power defend assist and maintain His Majestie 's Jurisdiction foresaid against all deadly And I shall never decline His Majestie 's Power and Jurisdictions As I shall answer to God And finally I affirm and swear that this my solemn Oath is given in the plain genuine sense and meaning of the words without any equivocation mental reservation or any manner of evasion whatsoever And that I shall not accept or use any dispensation from any Creature whatsoever So help me God FINIS THere are several Treatises of the same Right Reverend Author written upon several occasions concerning the Church of Rome and most of the Doctrines in Controversie betwixt us Printed for Joanna Brome * April 3. 1683. He might have referr'd them to himself pag. 460. where he gives the same
Microscope We are not to be judged by consequences No such consequence in the case An unlimited lawfull Monarchy in what sense Mr. B 's Governours some limited some unlimited If he means limited by men the consequence is avoided If he means limited by God The consequence falls upon himself All Governours limited by God de facto as well as de jure An expedient to help Mr. B. out of his own pit His Governours de facto unlimited what His self contradiction set home if he means limited by God If he mean limited by men his charge against the Bishop falls Mr. B 's Ingenuity in shuffling in one Proposition instead of another His design to make the Bishop odious His strange Logick His calumny cleared An address to the main Question The Aphorism in question This Aphorism the foundation of his Holy Common-wealth This Aphorism of his charged with falshood Three things premised Of Paternal Government * Vide His Apology for the Nonconformists Ministry p. 138. Adam the first Governour unlimited Cain the first Rebel Noah the first Monarch after the floud An account of Government after the confusion of languages Vnlimited Monarchy most ancient Political Monarchy as ours is better than Despotical Mr. B 's opinion of unlimited Governours false and dangerous Vnlimited Governours not Tyrants because unlimited Two sorts of Tyrants Cromwell in both senses a Tyrant Several unlimited Monarchs no Tyrants in either sense Mr. B 's meaning perhaps that all Governours ought de jure to be limited No obligation that all Government should be so limited by any law 1. Not by the positive law of God 2 Not by the law of nature 3. Not by the law of Nations The King never dies how to be understood The consequence driven home Conquerours in a just war unlimited Instances out of Scripture The like Case supposed betwixt our King and the Algerines Whether aconquered people may after submission free themselves by force Mr. B. saith I. The prophet Jeremy of another judgment 2 Chron. 3. 13. Jerem. 5. 2. Zedekiah 's casting off the yoke of the king of Babylon called Rebellion and punished as such Witnessed by the prophet Ezekiel Their deliverance at last from the Babylonish captivity was not by force of Arms. As neither was that from the Egyptian bondage The reason of this to give no countenance to rebellion What a Tyrant is in Mr. B 's notion A Governour 's being unlimited no hindrance to his Right A lawfull Governour 's being a Tyrant doth not forfeit his Right The Proposition to be proved Several arguments to prove it The 1. Argument The 2. Argument from Scripture Affirmatively Obedience to Nero himself strictly commanded And that when Christians under his actual persecution Why S. Peter and S. Paul made choice of to preach up obedience The 3. Argument from the practice of the Primitive Christians Whilst under Heathen and Tyrant Princes Their non-resistance not for want of power c. But cut of conscience to God The ten Tribes revolt from Rehoboam examined * 1 Kings 12. 24 Suppose what they did might be by special Commission The like cases of Abraham Of the Israelites Of Phineas Those cases applied No warrant hence for us to do the like The Revolt sinfull against the fifth Commandment The case betwixt a King and his Subjects the same as betwixt a father and his children Or betwixt a Master and his servants 1 Pet. a. 18. No such special commission for the Revolt as won supposed Jeroboam 's case stated 1 Kings 11. 31. His distrust and impatience How he made Israel to sin David 's case alike and his different behaviour * 1 Sam. 26. 8 9 c. The ground of Jeroboam 's pretence His artifice to discontent the people Absalom 's rebellion raised by the same artifice Psalm 78. 73. Jeroboam 's pretence inquired into No mention of a yoke in Solomon ' s. reign The great Tribute was a Levy of men And that not of the children of Israel People apt to grow weary of their happiness In what sense some men and works are called good The Revolt is called Rebellion 1 Kings 12. 19. 2 Chron. 10 19. Two arguments to justifie the revolt 1 Kings 12. 24. 2 Chro. 11. 4. The Answer in general God's foretelling a thing to be done is not the cause of doing it The like case of Hazael c. The evil of sin from God onely by permission The evil of punishment is from God The case of Jehu and Jeroboam unlike 2 Kings 9. 6 7. The general rule to be followed unless there be a special dispensation To obey actively and passively what Papists and Presbyterians agree in the doctrine of resisting Kings The objection From the law of Nature From their inability to resist And that the precepts of not resisting were temporary The Answer That to think so is no less than blasphemy Christians because Christians to be the best of Subjects The Blasphemy made out Subjects obliged in Conscience A not able saying of Grotius The judgment of the Church of England in the case Where the Churches judgment to be found Her judgment subscribed to by all that are ordained Mr. Calamy 's frank subscription Why the judgment of our Church quoted What Mr. B 's meaning that Tyrants have no right to their governments It is not that they have no right to govern tyrannically Vid. his Tract of obedience to rulers and howfar resistance is unlawfull à pag 346. ad pag. 375. of his holy common-wealth Vid. ibidem à p. 375. ad p. 456. But that they have no right to govern at all Mr. Hobb 's opinion and Mr. Baxter 's alike exploded by the Bishop Lawfull Sovereigns not to be resisted According to the first institution of Kings by Samuel Samuel and St. Paul c. blasphemed as defiers of God and man Mr. B 's Jugling Some Instances of it Nero 's cruelties Pone Tigellinum tadi lucebis in illâ Quâ stantes ardent qui fixo gutture fumant Juven Satyr St. Paul under the same charge of Mr. B. with the Bishop The primitive Christians fools in Mr. B 's opinion Mr. B 's kindness to the Novatians â—â—â—ence and yet they for Bishops The Doctrine of non-resistance no flattery to Kings as Mr. B. calls it Kings accountable to God and punished by him Mr. B 's absurd conclusion set forth by a like instance Subjects advantage from wrongfull sufferings The Hobbists censured on the one hand The Papists and Sectaries on the other As Enemies to God Enemies to Kings And enemies to all subjects The Bishop's justification of his exception against Mr. B 's Aphorism And his Vindication of himself from being a defier c. and an enemy to God c. Rom. 13. for the unlawfulness of resisting rescued The Senate of Rome had part of the Sovereignty with Nero. H. C. p. 353. Mr. B 's exception against our Translation H. C. p. 352. Our Translation vindicated Mr. B. no great Critick in the Greek *
inconsistent History and Experience have taught us the inconvenience of the one and the other No fear of either's Return A just commendation of our Church-Government What duty we owe to such a Constitution * Rom. c. 16. v. 17. A mark to be set upon Dividers The Character of Separatists Ep. Jude v. 16. V. 19. They are sensual * 1 Cor. 3. 4. What Spirit it is guides them The ill Consequence if that Spirit be not restrained The late example of the Scots recommended Their Test. Vid. the Acts and Laws made in Scotland when the Duke of York was the Kings Commissioner there An. 1681. The Heir of the Crown being a Presbyterian c. all one case as his being a Papist Just Reflections upon the Presbyterian Covenant General Monks conduct prais'd The Sectaries will not indure Vs nor one another They and the Papists much alike as to cruelty Their Principles much what the same And practices too upon occasion The Tryers a kind of Inquisition An Instance from the Anabaptists The like may be judg'd of the other Sects The danger if the Heir of the Crown be of any other Religion alike as if he be a Papist What Means to be used to prevent this danger The Exclusion of the right Heir against the practice of all Nations And consequently against the Law of Nature Jacob 's three eldest Sons forfeited their Birth-right Gen c. 49. v. 3 4. Two Cases of disherison The Right of Inheritance according to Gods positive Law The like in succession of Kingdoms 1 Kings c. 2. v. 22. A donijah his Case and why Solomon preferr'd to the Throne 1 Kings c. 1. v. 6. Ibid. Granting that the Judicial Law obligeth none but Jews The Exclusion of the right Heir is contrary to the Law of the Land No such Law now in being Nor can be made without the Kings consent Nor were it made would be just in the present Case The dangerous consequence of such a Law Such a Law if made and executed would not be effectual against future Heirs Arbitrary Government may be brought in by other ways as well as by Popery A brief commendation of the Church of England and the Civil Government The Scotch Test proposed to keep out Popery and Arbitrary Government Which upon the supposition of such a Law cannot be brought in Neither by force Nor by fair means An Objection from what Queen Mary did The Case much different then from what it is now Prebytery more likely to alter the Government than Popery Such a Test will be an assurance of no change to be An Objection that a Popish Successor will be absolv'd from his Oath The thing the same if a Presbyterian The full ground of that Assurance of no Change to be in the Government Mr. B. 's own commendation of our Government Vid. H. Com. p. 207. What he means by the Government of this Common-wealth Vid. H Com. from 89. to the 104 page His wish for better order in Election of Parliament-men H. Com. W. Page 27. 208. Wherein the Bishop agrees with him Whom Mr B. perhaps thinks worhty to choose or be chosen Whom the Bishop thinks such The main qualification of a Parliament-man An Objection against the Test. A threefold Answer A reinforcement of the Test * Which if consented to by the Successor no reason to believe but it will be kept A Recital of some of Mr. B 's Principles by which he justifies the late Rebellion and by which upon the like occasion Rebellion is incouraged for the time to come The Parliament how the Peoples Representatives and Trustees in Mr. B. 's sense The Peoples Rights and Priviledges H. Com. W. p 471. The Priviledge of Parliament An Instance of an unhappy difference betwixt the two Houses concerning Priviledge In what sense the King sole Law-giver The blessed frame of English government A caution against seditious Preachers and Scriblers Several ways to prove it lawful to take up Arms against the King Calvin 's way Herl 's way Mr. Baxter 's way Vpon such Principles the King in continual danger of Rebellion Some of Mr. B. 's Principles peculiarly such What the late King meant by saying The Laws are jointly made by King Lords and Commons How Christ alone will judge the World and yet the Saints shall judge it too How the Laws made by the King alone and yet jointly by the King Lords and Commons Some Instances ad hominem to convince Mr. B of this meaning Vid. M B 's second Def. of meer Nonconf p. 127. A brief Rebearsal of our Law-making How Laws made in the Roman Common-wealth How in our Monarchy The ancient stile of our Laws Our King not an absolute but a legal Monarch The three Estates Whence Mr. B. 's errour of dividing the Soveraignty The Soveraignty how in its streams divided and in its acts limited The King 's Negative voice necessary to preserve Monarchy Who Enemies to Monarchy A Caveat to Soveraigns The Conclusion of this and the three foregoing Sections Mr. B 's insincerity of dealing The true account of the Bishop's advising him to read thâ—se 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 s. Mr. B 's fallacious intent in giving the account as he does Mr. Hooker 's judgment of Kingly power whether he be King by choice Vid Hooker 's Eccl. Pol. lib. 8. p. 456. Or by Conquest Vid. Hooker 's Eccl. Pol. lib. 8. p 454. This of Conquest our case at first Vid. Hooker p. 454. Our Kings since have restrained themselves What it is that Mr. B. doth not approve Mr Hooker 's judgment of the descent of the Crown More than Mr. B. approves pag. 184. Of the King's Supremacy Over all persons This again more than Mr. B. approves Of the King's Supremacy as to things Eccles. Pol. p. 457. lib. 8. Lib. 8. p. 469. Of his Negative voice p. 471. Of his making of Laws p. 472. This against Mr. B. And therefore not approved by him Bishop Bilson in an errour about resistance The ground of his errour The censure of it A Remark upon our late Rebellion Religion true or false inspirits men alike Not safe nor lawfull for one Prince to assist another's Rebel-Subjects How we are to help those who are persecuted for Religion Mr. B 's design in this reflexion defeated Whom he means by Vs He disowns himself to be a Presbyterian And takes it for an affront to be thought so Why called their Antesignanus Mr. B. an Apologist for all the Nonconformists What his Nonconformist Ministers are What he means by bringing them under Independents and Presbyterians like Caesar and Pompey Vnder whom they are brought viz. the King How Mr. B. and his party brought in the King An account of Ministers silenced by the Bishop Intruders as well as Non-conforming Ministers put out The silencing of the Nonconformists a just and equitable punishment Mr. B 's own case the same as he makes Abiathar 's to be The silencing of them prudent and necessary also by way of caution No thanks to
such Magistrates if there were any such This opinion of Calvin and his Followers taxed by Grotius Heb 12. 15. His reason for it Nam Magistratus illi inferiorum quidem ratione habità sunt publicae personae at superiores si considerentur privati sunt Grotius de jure Belli Pacis l. 1. cap. 4. sect 6. Another passage of Grotius wherein he allows resistance of Kings Si Rex habeat partem summi Imperii partem alteram populus aut senatus Regi in partem non suam involanti vi justè opponi poterit quia catenus imperium non habet quod locum habere censeo etlamsi dictum sit belli potestatem penes Regem fore id enim de Bello externo intelligendum est cùm alioqui quisquis Imperii summi partem habeat non possit non habere eam partem tuendi potestatem quod ubl fit potest Rex suam Imperii partem belli jure amittere Grot. Ibid. This passage the ground of Mr. B's justifying the late War No such Case possible as Grotius supposeth Sovereignty indivisible The division of the Roman Empire no division of Sovereignty Our English Heptarchy such Partners in the Empire upon what account The Case when a King is conditionally elected A King thus Elected a King in title only No division of the Sovereignty in this Case as being wholly in the People Grotius inconsistent with himself An account of the changes in the Roman States in none of which ever any Division of the Sovereignty The changes of Government in that State but three properly speaking The Sovereignty not divided all the while The Senate not Co-partners in it with the Emperor as Mr. B. would have it Grotius his design in his supposed Division of the Sovereignty to justifie the Netherlands war against the King of Spain A Book of his wherein he states the Case He lodges the Sovereignty all along in the States and makes K. Philip an Vsurper os it Lib. de Antiquitate Reipub Baravicae cap. 7. page 49. This however it may perhaps justifie his Countrymen doth not reach the Case in hand This further made out The whole Sovereignty he saith was always in the States De Antiquitate Relpub Batav p. 52. Ib. p. 49. Their Kings but Titular The States according to Grotius in their war with the King of Spain did but recover what was their own before upon these grounds if true that War no Rebellion The Sovereignty of necessity either wholly in the People or wholly in the King Sovereignty or the supreme Power is that in the Body Politick which the Soul is in the natural Body No such division of the Sovereignty in England If England a Monarchy as it is the King sole Sovereign Both which Mr. B. denies though sworn by him at his Ordination The Parliaments pretended Declaration about it inquired after No such Declaration to be heard of from any Parliament The House of Commons which with Mr. B. goes for the Parliament how Representatives of the People Of Representatives at last they made themselves Lords and Masters In their Addresses they always acknowledged the King their Sovereign If the two Houses either or both have a share in the Sovereignty they would have a title to Majesty also The King declared to be the only Supreme Governour by an Act of Parliament To wit by the Act of Vniformity H. C. 460. Mr. B. slights what he cannot answer Ibid. The Oath of Supremacy not made against Papists only as he saith The use Q. Elizabeth made of that Oath She justified her self in it by a publick Declaration Camd. Eliz. p. 39 40. Three things observed from that Declaration of Hers. The Supremacy the chief Prerogative of the Crown Two parts in the Oath of Supremacy the one Assertory the other Promissory In the Assertory part two Clauses one Affirmative the other Negative The later Clause discovers Papists The former Clause asserts the Monarchy What intended by swearing the King to be the only supreme Governour The distinction which the Rubrick makes betwixt those two Clauses Vid. The form and manner of making of Deacons The first Clause is called the Oath The second is rather an Abjuration The former Clause infers the later the later not the former The Kings being the only supreme Governor excludes all pretence to the Supremacy from any other as well at home as abroad Why not an express abjuration of the Supremacies being in any at home beside the King as of its being in any abroad The 1 Reason The 2 Reason There is a claim to the Supremacy from abroad no such pretence at home A Pamphlet in the late times taxed which makes the two Houses Co-ordinate with the King The project of Co-ordination utterly inconsistent with our Government The constitution the same now as ever The two Houses Petitioning the King a proof that there is no Co-ordination The King free to grant or deny as he pleaseth An Ordinance of both Houses with Mr. B. equivalent to an Act of Parliament No legal Authority for the late War against the King Nor can any pretence justifie it Mr. B. himself appealed to Holy Com. w. p. 441. The two Houses themselves acknowledged the power of the Sword to be in the King Some Remarks upon that acknowledgment The invalidity of their Ordinances made out The King asserts the Militia Vid. the Kings Answer from York to the 19 Propositions A remarkable passage in a Sermon of Arch-Bishop Usher at the Treaty in the Isle of Wight Sir Phil. Warwick a witness to that passage An objection against its credibility answered The Parliaments own acknowledgment further made out Tâ—e mischievousness of some of Mr. B. 's writings Heresie and Schism propagated by Books though the Authors themselves repent their errors An Instance of Brown the Father of the Brownists Mr. Baxter the Founder of the Baxterian Sect. His Anti-episcopal Aphorisms past by His Anti-monarchical Aphorisms justly excepted against The Soveraignty he saith divided betwixt King and Parliament and his Reasons to prove it Of his first Proof The Parliament hath always acknowledg'd the King their Soveraign The Oath of Supremacy proves it His second Proof from the Legislative power The Legislative power solely in the King By Parliament is meant not King Lords Commons but Lords and Commons that is the two Houses Mr. B. by Parliament often understands the House of Commons and in effect lodges the whole Legislative power in them How the two Houses come to be a Parliament The Lords summoned by the King The Commons chosen by the People with the King's leave The King gives the Parliament its being and continuance as he pleaseth The two Houses therefore not co-ordinate nor sharers in the Soveraignty with the King Vid. Grotium de Antiquitate Reipub. Batavicae What hurts the Crown hurts the People The Legislative power a branch of Soveraignty How far the two Houses concerned in that They only propose Bills The Royal Assent makes