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
him or equal to him or partaker in any part of the Sovereignty with him he cannot be said to be the only supreme Governour of this Realm and of all other his Dominions and Countries as by the Act of Vniformity those of the Kings Subjects that are to teach all the rest of their fellow Subjects are obliged not only to say but swear he is nor is it so much as to be imagined that the King Lords and Commons would have obliged any to take such an Oath if they themselves had not believed the whole subject matter of it to be true CHAP. XI The Oath of Supremacy further explained The Kings being declared the sole supreme Governor cuts off all pretence at home as well as foreign claim I say the whole subject matter of it for there be evidently two several distinct parts of that Oath both of which every one of them that takes it is equally obliged to swear unto of which the first is Assertory and the second Promissory In the former he that swears asserts the Kings Sovereignty affirmatively affirming him to have the sole supreme power over all Persons in all Causes within his Realms and Dominions and then negatively by denying any foreign Power or any without his Dominions to have any Jurisdiction over any of his Subjects or to have any thing to do within his Dominions And it is in regard of the latter of these two clauses only that this Oath can be said to be enacted and imposed for the discovery and conviction of Papists and that not of all Papists neither but such Papists only as believe the Pope to have the supreme Power over all Christians in Spirituals at least if not in Temporals whose Subjects soever they may be in Temporals But as to the former of these two Clauses in the Assertory part of this Oath which affirms the King to be sole Sovereign or that he is the Only supreme Governour in this Realm it seems principally if not wholly to be intended to assert the Government of this Kingdom to be Monarchical and to make it be acknowledged to be so For by swearing that the King is the only supreme Governour of this Realm c. they do virtually and by necessary consequence swear also that all other Governours within the Realm as they do severally and joyntly derive their Power of governing from him so they are joyntly as well as severally subordinate unto him and therefore none of them either severally or joyntly co-ordinate with him Because if any of them or all of them in any capacity were so or believed by the Parliament to be so the Parliament by enjoyning men to swear the King is the only supreme Governour of this Realm must needs be chargeable with enjoyning Perjury or which is worse with compelling others to swear that to be truth which they themselves do not believe to be so which cannot be avoided but by concluding that the Injunction of the Oath of Supremacy by Parliament is a Declaration of Parliament that this Kingdom is a Monarchy properly so called because the Sovereignty or supreme Power is in one Person only namely in the King and if in him only then in him wholly also And that this was the Parliaments meaning in prescribing and enjoyning that Oath of Supremacy may farther and if it be possible more undeniably and demonstratively be made to appear it is very observable that in the Rubrick prefixed before the Administration of that Oath which Rubrick is a part of the Act of Parliament as well as the Oath it self it is said the Bishop shall cause The Oath of the Kings Supremacy And against the Power and Authority of all Foreign Potentates c. to be administred c. It is observable I say that in the aforesaid Rubrick there is a clear and a very notable distinction made betwixt the two first Clauses of the Assertory part of the Oath namely betwixt the Clause affirming the King to be the only supreme Governor of this Realm and the Clause denying any foreign Prince Person Prelate or Potentate to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm The distinction I say by the Rubrick made betwixt the two Clauses is very notable for it is the first of them only that is called by the Rubrick the Oath of the Kings Supremacy whereas the latter is said to be against the Power and Authority of all Foreign Potentates and therefore is more properly to be called an Abjuration than an Oath And yet it is this Abjuration only that Mr. Baxter will have to be meant by the Oath of Supremacy whereas this abjuration is not the Oath of Supremacy it self but a Deduction only from the Oath of Supremacy For because the King is the only supreme Governour of this Realm therefore neither Pope nor any other foreign Prince Prelate or Potentate can claim or pretend to any Supremacy or part of Supremacy here in this Kingdom So that he that can truly swear the one may safely per modum sequelae by way of consequence swear the other also But though the truth of the former doth necessarily infer the truth of the latter yet the truth of the latter doth not necessarily infer the truth of the former For though it be never so true and never so undoubtedly acknowledged to be so that no Foreigner or none without the Realm of what quality or denomination soever doth or can justly pretend to the supreme or any part of the supreme Power either Civil or Ecclesiastical here in England yet supposing the supreme Power to be divided as Grotius supposeth it may be in some Kingdoms and Mr. Baxter saith it is here in this Kingdom it will not follow I confess that the King is or that the Parliament that made this Act and enjoyned this Oath to be taken did thereby acknowledg the King to be the only supreme Governour of this Realm But the Parliament by injoyning the Oath to be taken and those that take it not only abjurare to abjure or for swear all foreign jurisdiction but jurare to swear positively and plainly That the King is the only supreme Governour of this Realm over all Persons in all Cases and Capacities do evidently declare that They themselves believe and acknowledg the King to be so and consequently whatsoever division there may be of the supreme Power in other Kingdoms yet in this there is none For the first the most immediate and most natural deduction from this Proposition viz. The King is the only supreme Governour of this Realm is the excluding all others in this Realm from having any thing to do with the supreme Government of it And therefore the swearing to this Proposition alone is called by the Rubrick the taking of the Oath of the Kings Supremacy the following abjuration of all foreign Authorities being but a deduction and that not a primary but
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
follow as well that any man might commit Murther and the most barbarous and the most unnatural of all murthers I mean the murther of his own and onely Son because Abraham was not onely permitted but commanded by God to doe so nay and commended by God for being so ready and so willing as he was to doe it And would it not follow as well likewise that any man might rob and spoil their Neighbours because the Israelites did so to the Egyptians and were blameiess because God who is Lord Paramount of all mens lives and fortunes and to whom all men have forfeited themselves and all that they have by their sins had given them a special and particular Commission to doe so Whereunto I might add the killing of Zimri and Cozbi by Phineas which was done no doubt by God's special inspiration because God was so well pleased with it that the Plague in the heat and height of it presently ceased and Phineas was by God himself highly commended and rewarded for it And yet I believe that if any man were indicted and arraigned either for Robbery or Murther though those that he robbed were Egyptians that is never so much his own or God's enemies or if those that he killed were actually committing never so great a sin I believe I say that one's pleading the Israelites robbing of the Egyptians to justifie his theft or the other's pleading of Phineas his killing of Zimri and Cozbi to justifie his murther would not save either of them from the Gallows so neither will the pleading of what was done by Jeroboam and the ten Tribes supposing it done by God's special Command or Approbation justifie or excuse any other for doing what they did unless they could make it appear they have the same Warrant that they had for the doing of it which I am sure is not now to be expected no more than it is to be expected that the Sun should stand still as it did once at the command of Joshua or go backward as it did another time at the entreaty of Hezekiah We are to be governed and to govern our selves by those Laws and Rules which God hath given to all mankind in general and not by such extraordinary dispensations as God hath been pleased to give some men at some times in particular and much less by any pretended or fancied Enthusiasms or inspirations of our own so that supposing this revolting of the ten Tribes from Rehoboam and the setting up of Jeroboam to have been lawfull it will not prove it to be lawfull for any other Subjects to doe so too upon the same pretence viz. upon the pretence of being never so grievously oppressed unless they have the same special Warrant of God for it But 2dly I affirm that what was done by Jeroboam and the ten Tribes was an unlawfull and a sinfull action I mean their revolting from Rehoboam their lawfull Sovereign notwithstanding his Fathers or his own oppression of them because it was a transgression of an everlasting Statute or Ordinance of God I mean the fifth Commandment of the Moral Law whereby all mankind is obliged to honour and obey not onely their natural Parents but all their lawfull Superiours and especially him that is Supreme who is Pater Patrioe the Father as well as the Ruler of all his Subjects and set over them by God to be so And therefore as a Father doth not lose or forfeit the authority of a Father by being not so good so carefull and so kind a Father as he ought to be nor are his Children thereby discharged from paying him that duty and obedience which they owe unto him no not although they be never so harshly or hardly dealt with or used by him so neither do Kings or Supreme Governours lose the Authority they have over their Subjects or cease to be their Kings because they govern them otherwise than they ought to do nor are their Subjects upon that account disobliged from their Allegeance and Obedience they owe unto them For if Servants as St. Peter saith are to obey their Masters and not onely such as are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 good and gentle but such as are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 too such as are froward and perverse that is such as are not onely hard to be pleased but severe in commanding and cruel in chastising them also much more are Subjects to obey and to continue in obedience to their Sovereigns though they be never so severely dealt with by them and therefore the revolting of the ten Tribes from Rehoboam being their lawfull Sovereign upon the account of their having been oppressed by his Father and upon his threatning them to be more oppressed by himself was not lawfull unless they had had a special Command or Commission from God for it which it doth not appear they had either by any express words of the Text or by any necessary consequence that can be inferred from it either in relation to what was done by Jeroboam or what was done by the ten Tribes CHAP. VIII Jeroboam 's Case stated and his pretence enquired into The Revolt called Rebellion by God himself ANd first as to what was done by Jeroboam though it may seem to be justifiable as if it had been done by a special Commission from God because God had told him by the Prophet Ahijah that he was to be King over the ten Tribes after they were rent off from the other two Tribes yet did he not thereby give Jeroboam either Commission or permission to rend them off or to doe any thing towards the rending them off himself For the words which God spake by Ahijah the Prophet to Jeroboam were not Thou shalt rend but I will rend the Kingdom out of the hand of Solomon and I will give ten Tribes to thee and not Thou shalt take ten Tribes unto thy self by using either force or fraud or any other sinister seditious or unlawfull means either for the getting or the keeping of the Kingdom which God had promised to give him But Jeroboam did both For first whether out of a distrust of God's performance of his promise or out of an impatience to stay God's own time for it no sooner was Solomon dead but home comes Jeroboam out of Egypt not called by God but by a discontented party of the People to whom after in all probability he had aggravated their grievances and thereby incensed them as much as he could against the present Government he offered himself to be their Head and as such marched with them to expostulate and capitulate with their King hoping they would receive an unsatisfactory answer as they did and thereupon would presently make him their King as they did also So that he had it not from God who onely had power to dispose of it for by him as he himself tells us Kings reign but from the People the
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
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
an intire Parliament I mean the Act of Vniformity wherein the Parliament doth not only declare its own sense and judgment concerning the Kings sole Supremacy but prescribes an Oath to be taken by all that are to be admitted to teach the People what they are to think of the King I mean all that are to be admitted into holy Orders whereby they are injoyned to testifie and declare in their Conscience that the King is the only Supreme Governour of this Realm and I hope Mr. Baxter hath more reverence for Parliaments than to say or think that the Parliament did injoyn men to swear that which they did not themselves believe to be true especially those of the House of Commons who I think do all of them take the Oath of Supremacy And yet this so clear so evident and so irrefragable a proof of the Parliaments acknowledgment of the Kings sole Supremacy Mr. Baxter is pleas'd to slight as if it signified nothing calling it a sandy foundation for though he be pinched to the quick with this Argument yet he makes as if he felt it not and perceiving there was no help for him in Logick or Metaphysicks he makes use of a figure in Rhetorick which is either not to take notice of what they cannot answer or if they cannot chuse but take notice of it to slight or scoff at it as if it were not worth the answering or taking notice of And yet that he may not seem absque omni ratione insanire to have no pretence or show of reason for his slighting or rejecting of it he tells us that this Oath was made in relation to Papists only and was injoyned to be taken for the discovery of those that were suspected to be so Surely if we look to the first enacting of that Oath and the primary or original cause of it it was not for the distinguishing of Papists from Protestants for they were Papists in Henry the VIII's time and as great Persecutors of the Protestants as any were in those times that compiled and consented to the enacting and enjoyning of that Oath but it was to distinguish Papists from Papists Papists that would from Papists that would not acknowledg the Kings Supremacy And for the same end and purpose the same Oath was renewed in Queen ELIZABETHS time in the beginning of her Reign for the distinguishing of loyal from disloyal Papists as appears by the reasons she gave why She did not impose that Oath upon any of the Barons or House of Lords though many of them were then Papists because she did not as she said make any doubt of their loyalty but she caused it to be administred to the Popish Prelates and other Ecclesiasticks who had almost all of them plerisque omnibus saith Cambden taken it in her Father's time but refusing it then were deprived of their spiritual promotions for so doing lest they might teach the People to do so also and perhaps do more than so that is from denying her Supremacy in Spirituals to proceed to the denying of it in Temporals also which we see they are now come to not by their Popish but Presbyterian Teachers For preventing whereof and for obviating the scandalous interpretations that were made of it as that thereby she the Queen arrogated a Power unto her self sacrâ in Ecclesiâ celebrandi of performing divine Offices in the Church Illa edito scripto saith Cambden she published a Declaration wherein she affirms se nihil aliud arrogare quà m quod ad coronam Angliae jam olim jure spectavit that she arrogated nothing to her self but what anciently belonged of right to the Crown of England Scilicet se sub Deo summam supremam gubernationem potestatem in omnes Regni Anglici Ordines sive illi sunt Ecclesiastici sive Laici habere quodque nulla extranea potestas ullam in eos jurisdictionem vel authoritatem habeat aut habere debeat Namely that she under God had the supreme Government and Power over all orders of men in England whether Ecclesiasticks or Laicks and withal that no foreign Power had or ought to have any Jurisdiction or Authority over any of them From which Declaration published by that pious and prudent Prince it is observable First That the aforesaid Oath of Supremacy was intended by Her as well for the asserting of her own Supremacy over all Orders of men in her own Kingdom in all their capacities as it was for the disclaiming and renouncing any foreign Jurisdiction that was or could be pretended or claimed over all or any of her Subjects in any capacity whatsoever Secondly From this Declaration of Hers it is farther to be observed that she will have her own Sovereignty and Supremacy in omnes Ordines Regni over all Orders and Estates of men here at home to be asserted and sworn to before they shall swear to disclaim and renounce all foreign Authority and Jurisdiction And with very good reason because it would have done her and will do her Successors very little or rather no good at all for their Subjects to renounce all Sovereignty from abroad as long as they are taught or suffered to be taught that there are any other Sovereign or any other invested with any part of the Sovereignty here at home but their Kings only Lastly From the aforesaid Declaration we may observe also that the Queen by the Injunction of the Oath of Supremacy professeth to claim nothing to be acknowledged or sworn to but what de jure and jam olim what anciently and of right did belong to the Crown of England and consequently that the Supremacy or Sovereignty over all Estates or Orders of men in England was from all Antiquity that is as I conceive from the beginning of Monarchy or ever since there were Kings in England and that not ex dono Populi by gift of the People or compact with the People but jure by right and by what Right not jure Electionis but Hereditatis not by right of Election but of Succession and jure Coronae by right of the Crown as being inseparably annexed to the Crown or rather inherent in the Crown there being none as I have already proved that can properly be called a King or Crowned Head whether by Succession or Election but he must be the supreme and sole Sovereign over all in his own Kingdom Which as to our Kings here in England as it was acknowledged by those Parliaments that enacted the Oath of Supremacy before the War so is it by the Act of Vniformity since the War or since the Kings return and consequently since the Crowns restauration to those Prerogatives that are of right belonging to it of which the Supremacy or Sovereignty over all in the Kingdom inclusively as well as in relation to all without the Kingdom exclusively is the chiefest For if there be any either within or without the Kingdom either superior over
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
nor admonitions could prevail with Philip to reduce him to a better mind that is to make him to be content with the same Power which his Predecessors as Graves had under the States then saith he Foederatorum Populorum Ordines the States of the United Provinces Pronunciarunt Philippum ob violatas Imperii leges ipso jure Principatu excidisse did pronounce or declare that Philip for violating the Laws of the Government had legally forfeited his Right to the Principality or Graveship which he formerly had under the respective States of those Provinces So that all that can be gathered out of this passage or indeed out of this whole Book of Grotius is but this that he who invades the Sovereign Power whereunto he hath no Right may not only be resisted by those that have the Sovereign Power but may forfeit the Right which he had before to any Office or Authority under them Which though perhaps it may be enough to excuse the Vnited Provinces from being Rebels against the King of Spain and to justifie the War they made against him as likewise for their taking away the Hereditary Lands which he held of them and under them it being indeed as much and all that can be said to that purpose yet by Grotius his favour it is not enough to justifie what he saith in that before quoted place in his Book de jure Belli Pacis which was the occasion of this digression namely that either there may be such a division of the Sovereignty betwixt the King and Senate or betwixt the King and the States of his Kingdom as he there asserts or that the States that are under the King may not only defend their part of the Power they derive from the King against the King but that the King may forfeit his part of the Sovereignty to Them by his invading of Theirs For first in this Narrative of his for the justifying of the War made by the States of the Vnited Provinces against the King of Spain there is not a word of any division of the Sovereignty of any of those Provinces betwixt him and the States but the Sovereignty or supreme Power is asserted to have always been and always is de jure by right in the States Secondly That by the Sovereignty or supreme Power he meant the whole Sovereignty or whole supreme Power and not a part or the chief part of it only it is evident because he saith it was always the same that it was when he writ that Tract which was when Grave Maurice was their General in whose Fathers time when the Confederate States began to make War against the Spaniards Grotius tells us that ex eo tempore summa Ordinum Potestas quam postremorum Principum licentia non parum obscuraverat luci reddita palà m effulsit from that time forward saith he the supreme Power or Sovereignty of the States which by Licence taken by the later of their Princes he means the Burgundians and the Spaniards had been much obscured he doth not say wholly extinguished being restored to its former lustre did openly shine forth especially after the Spaniard had treated with them as Sovereign and free Estates and acknowledged them to be so and that he claimed no right to them or authority over them which though de facto he did de jure according to Grotius he ought not to have done before because though he was King of Spain he was no more King of those Provinces than their Duces or first Generals were who though they were then called Kings yet nihil manifestius est saith Grotius quà m Reges illos fuisse vel Laconicos nomine solo reverâ ipsâ nihil nisi optimatium primos There is nothing more manifest saith he than that those Kings were just such Kings as those of the Lacedaemonians that is Kings in name only but really and indeed no more than the chief of the Optimates or the Nobility as he that was called Princeps Senatûs was in Rome whilst it was an Aristocracy or as the Duke of Venice or the Prince of Orange now is So that if a People who in chusing of a King whom they may chuse whether They will chuse or no reserve to themselves but a part of the Sovereignty may justly resist their King if he invade that part which they have reserved to themselves and in case they prove too hard for him take away that part of the Sovereignty from him which they had before given him as Grotius supposeth they may then à fortiori with much more reason those that reserve the whole Sovereignty to themselves as Grotius tells us the States did may justly do what they can to maintain it or to recover it from any that shall attempt to take it from them especially from any one that is employed by them and under them how great soever his employment may be or by what name or title soever they be dignified or distinguished from the rest of their ordinary Subjects And this saith Grotius was the case betwixt the States of the Vnited Provinces and the King of Spain as he stood related to those Provinces when they first took up Arms against him to regain what was their own before when it was usurped by him and when afterwards to secure it for the future they took away from him that to which before he had by inheritance a just right and title to I mean the Prerogative of being their Grave or their chief Magistrate though not their Sovereign And consequently the Premisses quorum penes sit Authorem fides let our Author answer for that being supposed to be true that War of the Hollanders against the Spaniard upon that account could be no Rebellion Be it so Non equidem invideo nec repugno I for my part am not sorry for it nor do I gain-say it but rather I am glad there is so much to be said for any of the reformed Religion to justifie their taking up Arms and I wish there were as much to be said for the Protestants in France and for all other both Lutherans and Calvinists in all other places namely that the Reformation in Religion had been made in every one of the several Countries and Cities by those that had the Sovereignty as Grotius saith it was in the Vnited Provinces and as we are sure it was in England and where we are sure the Sovereignty is all of it in the King as it is in all Kings that are Kings indeed and not in title or name only as all those Kings are saith Grotius qui subsunt Populo who are under the People From which one saying of Grotius I think we may conclude that there neither is nor can be any division of the Sovereignty betwixt the King and the People as he supposeth there may be for in all Kingdoms whatsoever whether properly or improperly so called the King doth either subesse populo is
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