Mr. Baxter by his denial of the aforesaid Proposition is obliged to prove to be unlawfull and therefore the more of such Instances as these he doth or may alledge the more he seems to prevaricate in his own cause and to argue against himself just as I have heard a Pleader at the Barr did in Westminster Hall when the Judge interrupting him said to him You such a one if you love your Client or his cause speak no more for you are all this while speaking against him though you think you speak for him The like may I say of Mr. Baxter and of his Instances because they do not onely not disprove but prove and confirm the truth of my Charge against him For if it be the Commander's foreseeing and being obliged to prevent such an evil or mischief as his Command will be though but per Accidens the occasion of that makes his command to be unlawfull then if the Commander do not foresee it or be not obliged to prevent it the Command is not unlawfull as Mr. Baxter by his denying of the aforesaid Proposition must needs conclude it was so that all his aforesaid Instances are as I said before frivolous and impertinent as to the disproving of my Charge against him or to the proving of it to be a gross mistaking Charge as he saith it is CHAP. X. His other Instance of Kneeling at the Sacrament as imposed by an unjust Penalty were it true reacheth not his Case ANd so is the other Instance of his likewise which makes the two reasons which in his aforesaid Answer he did severally insist upon to be but one namely Supposing saith he to kneel at the Sacrament to be never so lawfull in it self if it be imposed by a penalty incomparably beyond the proportion of the offence that Penalty is an accident of the Command and maketh it by Accident sinfull in the Commander This instance I say of his though he speaks of it as very pertinent and argumentative yet is it as frivolous and impertinent as any of the former I mean as to the discharging him from the Charge I charge him with and which his denying of the aforesaid Proposition proves him to be guilty of For supposing all that he supposeth in this Instance to be never so true namely that the penalty for not receiving the Sacrament is an accident to the command of Kneeling and supposing too that penalty to be incomparably beyond the proportion of the offence and consequently must needs make the command it self to be Sinfull in the Commander of it under such a penalty supposing all this I say to be true what then Doth this prove the Command of a thing lawfull in it self and commanded under no unjust penalty to be sinfull in the Commander of it For this it must prove or it proves nothing at all as to the discharging Mr. Baxter from what his denial of the aforesaid proposition proves against him For doth not that proposition say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or in express words that The command which it affirms to be a lawfull command must first command an act in it self lawfull and secondly no other Act whereby an unjust penalty is injoyned nor thirdly any circumstance whence directly or per Accidens any Sin is consequent which the Commander ought to provide against And yet such a Command so qualified did Mr. Baxter then deny to be lawfull as appears by the aforesaid subscribed Attestation And now what he then denied to be lawfull though it were not commanded under an unjust penalty he would by this instance prove to be unlawfull because it is commanded or rather because he supposeth it to be commanded under an unjust penalty Quo te constringam Protea nodo What tye can hold one who so Proteus like shifts his shape For whether it be or be not commanded under an unjust penalty the command it seems must be alike unlawfull if Mr. Baxter and his Disciples list not to obey it that is if they themselves are not the Commanders of it Again supposing but not granting Mr. Baxter's supposed unjust penalty for not kneeling at the receiving of the Sacrament to be an Accident to the command of kneeling I ask him whether it be such an accident as the Commander ought to provide against or no If not how can it be sinfull in the Commander to command it or how can it make his commanding of it to be unlawfull But if it be such an Accident as the Commander ought to provide against as indeed every unjust penalty is then this instance of his is altogether as frivolous and impertinent as any of his former For that command which we affirmed and he denied to be lawfull and consequently asserted to be unlawfull was to be such a Command as commanded an Act lawfull in it self and no other Act whence directly or per Accidens any Sin is consequent which the Commander ought to provide against But this instance of his is of such a Command as is per accidens at least the cause or occasion of some such evil or sin as the Commander ought or is obliged to provide against Whereas if he had meant to speak pertinently in order to the discharging himself from my charge against him he should have given us an Instance of the unlawfulness of a lawfull command by lawfull Authority where no evil which the Commander ought to provide against was any way consequent either directly or by Accident onely But this he hath not done yet nor I dare say ever will doe or can doe though the Metaphysical Limbeck of his brain sweat never so much for it CHAP. XI Those Instances of his as they are Impertinent so they are Fraudulently design'd ANd thus having as I suppose made it appear that all Mr. Baxter's Instances are frivolous and impertinent as to the proving what I charge him with to be a gross mistake or indeed any mistake at all I am now to make it appear also that those before specified Instances of his are not onely frivolous and impertinent but fraudulent scandalous and injurious and I am afraid malicious also as to the intention and design of them And first they are fraudulent and fraudulently alledged by Mr. Baxter because by all and every of those Instances he would make his Readers to believe that all that he had asserted at the Conference in the Savoy was onely the unlawfulness of such commands as the Commander of them foresaw would by accident at least be the cause or occasion of some such evil or mischief as the Commander ought or was obliged to hinder or provide against or of such Commands as were commanded under an unjust penalty For as to make his Readers believe the former he produceth the instances of commanding a Navy to Sea by him that foresees it would fall into the enemies hands and the selling of Poyson by him that foresees it will be used to kill the buyer
or some body else with it and of setting Fire on Straw foreknowing that by another's negligence or wilfulness it is likely to set fire on the City or the Parliament-House as by these and the like instances I say he would make his Parishioners at Kidderminster and others of his Readers believe the former namely that when he asserted that the command of a thing lawfull in it self was unlawfull if it might by accident be the cause or occasion of sin he meant it onely of such commands where the evil or sin which by accident they would or probably might be the cause of was foreseen or ought to have been hindred by the Commander So by the last of his instances namely supposing to kneel at the receiving of the Communion to be lawfull yet the enjoining of it under an unjust penalty makes the Command it self to be unlawfull he would make it to be believed that he did not deny the command of a lawfull thing by lawfull authority to be lawfull unless it were injoined or commanded under an unjust penalty such as he supposeth the penalty for not receiving the Sacrament kneeling to be So that adding this last instance to the former and considering them one with another or all of them together his design in alledging of them must needs be this to make it to be believed that whereas Bishop Morley chargeth him with having affirmed the Command of a lawfull Act by lawfull Authority to be unlawfull if by accident it might be the cause of sin all that he said or at least all that he meant was this that such a Command was unlawfull if the evil it might by accident be the cause of was foreseen and ought to have been prevented by him that commanded it or if it were commanded under an unjust penalty and consequently that Bishop Morley's charge of him was a gross mistake Whereunto Bishop Morley replies by referring himself to Mr. Baxter's aforesaid answers to our Disputants aforesaid Propositions especially to the third or last of them which affirming such a command of a thing lawfull in it self under no unjust penalty and neither directly nor by accident the cause of any such evil or mischief as the Commander of it did foresee and ought to prevent was a lawfull command Mr. Baxter by denying this proposition to be true and consequently such a command to be lawfull because it might be evil by accident cannot be imagined to mean such an accident as the Commander did foresee and ought to prevent nor the enjoining what he commanded under an unjust penalty both which kinds of accidents the proposition he denyed had in terminis excluded and therefore he must needs mean such an accident as the Commander did not foresee or was not obliged to prevent and such a Command as had no unjust penalty annexed to it and consequently some such accident as either the peevishness or perverseness or some fault or other in those to whom such a command is given and who ought and will not submit to it is the cause of That therefore which I did then and do still charge Master Baxter withall is that he did then at the aforesaid Conference assert the Command of a thing lawfull in it self to be unlawfull if by accident it might be the occasion of Sin now that by accident he did not nor could not mean either the injoyning of it under an unjust penalty or any other accidental evil which the Commander was obliged to prevent or provide against is evident from his denying the Proposition to be true which affirmed such and no other but such a command of a thing lawfull in it self to be lawfull as was neither commanded under an unjust penalty nor could by accident be the occasion of any either evil or mischief which the Commander was answerable for or ought to prevent From Mr. Baxter's denying of this Proposition I say and from his giving no other reason for his denying of it but that such a command as the Proposition affirmed to be lawfull might by accident be unlawfull it is undenyably evident he must needs mean such an accident or accidental evil as the Commandee not the Commander may be guilty of and if no Command be lawfull that may be the occasion of such an evil then as Mr. Baxter truly tells his Kidderminster Friends Bishop Morley did infer that no Command either of God or man could be lawfull or as he is pleased to word it That neither God nor man can enjoyn any thing without Sin if the sinfulness it may by accident be the occasion of in those to whom the Command is given be to be imputed either to the Command or to the Commander which I think is little less than blasphemy to affirm and therefore Mr. Baxter had reason to disguise the Assertion I charge him with by giving such instances of it as are nothing a kin to it for all his aforesaid instances are instances of the unlawfulness of such Commands as are or may be the cause or occasion of some such evil or mischief as the Commander foresees and is obliged to prevent or of such as are commanded under an unjust penalty Whereas if he would have dealt ingenuously and pertinently he should have given us one instance at least if not more of the unlawfulness of such a Command as he asserted at the Conference to be unlawfull namely of the unlawfulness of such a Command as was neither commanded under an unjust penalty nor was the occasion or cause of any such evil mischief or sin as the Commander did not foresee or was not bound to prevent For how does the unlawfulness of selling of Poyson by an Apothecary to one whom he knows or suspects will poyson himself or some body else with it prove the unlawfulness of selling of poyson by him that doth not know or suspect any such use will be made of it because it may fall out that some body or other may be poysoned with it Or how doth the unlawfulness of commanding a Navy to Sea when the Commander foresees it will fall into the Enemies hands prove the unlawfulness of such a Command because by such a chance as the Commander did not nor could not foresee it did fall into the Enemies hands or lastly how doth the unlawfulness of commanding to kneel at the receiving of the Sacrament if it were commanded under an unjust penalty as he supposeth but did not nor cannot prove it is prove the unlawfulness of the same command if it be not commanded under an unjust penalty as We and all other Protestant Churches in the World as well as ours say it is not for proof whereof I refer the Reader to what I have said long ago in my printed Letter CHAP. XII Further those Instances are scandalously Injurious His disingenuous humour of Calumny taken notice of AND now having shewed what in truth it was that I charged Mr. Baxter withall and that I charged him
of all men living Mr. Baxter should reproach us so frequently so loudly and so groundlesly as he does with what he knows himself and his party may most justly and undeniably be reproached with unless he thinks the calling of an honest Woman Whore first will make her that calls her so to be thought an honest Woman And indeed men are apt to believe that one would not for shame accuse another of what he knows himself to be more guilty but experience proves the contrary And I hope I have proved it too partly by confirming my Charge against Mr. Baxter and partly by confuting his Calumny against me But the truth is when Mr. Baxter is in his fit of raving against Bishops and the Episcopal party he cares not whether what he saith be true or false pertinent or impertinent so it be virulent and scandalous enough having amongst many other of their speculative and practical Maxims learned of the Popish Puritans the Jesuits calumniari audacter to charge boldly as hoping that aliquid hoerebit something will stick though it be never so improbable or incredible at least that those of their own Party will believe any thing of or against us which is perhaps all they care for of which practice that Mr. Baxter is often and very much guilty in his treating of me I have given some Instances already and shall give more hereafter CHAP. XIII The Charge of the forementioned Assertion renewed and made good against Mr. B. notwithstanding that late Treatise of his which he pretends was purposely written in answer to it IF it be objected that I have said nothing yet in answer to the Creatise which Mr. Baxter saith he writ on purpose to prove my Charge against him to be a gross mistake I confess I have not because in truth I do not see how I am concerned in it or how any thing I charge Mr. Baxter withall is disproved or so much as offered to be disproved by it Insomuch that as I said before if Mr. Baxter had set out that Treatise by it self and had not in the Preface to another of his Treatises told me himself it was purposely written against me I should not have taken any notice of it at all neither do I yet after the reading of it over and over again and again see any reason why I should put my self to the trouble of writing or any body else to the trouble of reading any thing in reply to it because if all and every one of his sixty three Metaphysical Propositions of which that Treatise of his doth consist were all of them so many Mathematical Demonstrations as perhaps he thinks they are yet my Charge of Mr. Baxter would still stand in full force against him being not so much as touched much less overthrown by any of those Propositions For what was that I charged Mr. Baxter withall was it not this That he at the Conference in the Savoy denyed the command of a thing lawfull in it self and commanded by lawfull authority to be a lawfull command if by accident it might be the cause or occasion of Sin Yes will Mr. Baxter say but then by accident I meant not every accident but such an accident as the Commander might and ought to prevent as for example the commanding it under an unjust penalty for that he will have to be an accident or the commanding of it though the Commander knows or foresees it will by accident be the cause or occasion of some such evil or mischief as he can and ought to provide against And in the one or the other of these two notions of an accident would Mr. Baxter have his Assertion of the unlawfulness of a Command of a lawfull thing by lawfull Authority if by accident it may be the occasion of Sin to be understood and I cannot blame him for Secundoe cogitationes sunt meliores Second thoughts are likely wiser and better than the first But that he did not then by such an accident as made a lawfull command unlawfull mean an accident in either of those notions is evident by his frequently and finally denying the command of a thing lawfull in it self to be lawfull if by accident it may be the cause of Sin though it be not injoyned under an unjust penalty and though the accidental evil or mischief it may be cause or occasion of be such as the Commander either cannot or ought not to provide against Now he that denies such a command as this to be lawfull or which is all one asserts such a command as this to be unlawfull because by accident it may be the cause of Sin cannot either Grammatically or Logically be understood to mean such an accident or accidental Sin as the Commander ought to provide against and consequently if he mean any thing he must needs mean such an accident or accidental evil as not the Commanding but the Commanded party is to answer for And therefore as I said then so I say now That to assert the lawfull command of a lawfull thing to be unlawfull upon such an account or because it may by such an accident as Mr. Baxter must needs be understood to mean be the cause or occasion of Sin is destructive of all Legislative power Divine as well as Humane And therefore Bishop Morley was not grosly mistaken either in charging Mr. Baxter with such an assertion or in charging such an assertion with such impious and pernicious consequences as he affirms and I confess I did But Mr. Baxter doth grosly abuse me and his Reader too by substituting a true Assertion instead of a false one for himself and a false one instead of a true one for the Bishop and his party As if that which he asserted was The unlawfulness of the command of a lawfull thing if either it were commanded under an unjust penalty or the Commander of it did foresee it would be the cause of some such great evil or sin as he was obliged to prevent and that which we had asserted was The lawfulness of a Command of a thing lawfull in it self though it were commanded under never so unjust a penalty or though the Commander of it foresaw it would be the cause of such an evil or mischief as he might and ought to prevent And as to make the latter of these two Assertions to be believed to be ours he brings in the aforesaid Suppositions and fraudulent instances of selling of poyson c. So to make the former to be believed to have been his Assertion then he asserts that and none but that now hoping his friendly or unwary Readers will believe it was the very same which he asserted then And this indeed he might have reason to hope for from his Friends at Kidderminster who he knew would believe whatsoever he told them to be as he said it was especially telling it them in print and before there was any thing in print to the contrary but
the Lawyers call it by the name of Domus Communium the House of Commons I am sure Livy who knew how to call things in Latin by their proper names as well as any man does now tells us that in a contest betwixt a Consul and a Tribune the Tribune bearing himself high upon the account of his Office the Consul said Scias te non Populi sed Plebis Romanae Magistratum esse You must know Sir that you are an Officer not of the People but of the Commonalty of Rome And yet this may be said in excuse of Mr. Baxter's mistake when he calls them the Representatives of the People that he saith no more of them than the House of Commons which he means said of it self for to the four first that Preached before them of whom I my self was one they gave each of them a piece of Plate with this Inscription Donum Populi Anglicani the Gift of the People of England by order of the House no doubt ingraven on it which perhaps they meant not to be Grammatically but Prophetically understood that is to be understood of them not as they were then but what they meant to be before they left sitting and as we saw they were after they had put down the Lords as well as the King and made themselves the High and Mighty States of England and Ireland and instead of Representatives and Trustees made themselves Lords and Masters of those that trusted them until He whom they had trusted with their Forces made himself Lord and Master of them also the People in the mean time the Free-born People of England having been made or rather having made themselves as arrant Slaves and Vassals as ever any People were unto them both But to return to what I was speaking of I do not find I say that any Parliament properly so called that is the King Lords and Commons or that both or either of the two Houses joyntly or severally did ever declare or vote the Kingdom of England to be no Monarchy or that the King of England was not the Sovereign and sole Sovereign of and in this and all other his Kingdoms and Dominions On the contrary I find that in all the Addresses made to the King as well by both Houses jointly as by either of them severally from the beginning of the War to the end of it they always acknowledged the King to be their Sovereign and themselves even in their publick and Parliamentary capacity to be his Subjects And if in their Parliamentary notion and capacity they were his Subjects I wonder in what notion or capacity they can be said to be Partners or partakers with him in the Sovereignty Besides he that will have either or both of the Houses to have a part of the Sovereignty must allow them a Title to Majesty also For Majesty and Sovereignty are Termini Convertibiles convertible terms as the Houses themselves confess when they treat the King sometimes with the title of Sovereign and sometimes with the title of Majesty as signifying by both these Words but one and the same thing namely the Supremacy of Power in the King Now I would fain know of Mr. Baxter whether if he were to Petition the House of Lords or the House of Commons or both of them he would address it to their Majesty the House of Lords or to their Majesty the House of Commons or to their Majesty the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament if he did I believe he would be laught at for his folly by them and perhaps punisht for his presumption by the King And yet if the Sovereignty be divided betwixt Them and the King as he saith it is I see no reason why the title of Majesty may not be given to Them as well as to the King or at least partly to them and partly to him though but proportionably to the division of the Sovereignty betwixt them of which if the Kings part be greater than that of the House of Lords and that of the House of Lords be greater than that of the House of Commons which I am afraid Mr. Baxter will hardly allow then if Majesty be the proper attribute of Sovereignty and Excellent a proper Epithet to Majesty then according to Mr. Baxter's distinctness of notion and expression the style of the House of Commons should be Their Excellent Majesty and the style of the House of Lords Their More Excellent Majesty as well as the Kings style is His Most Excellent Majesty and then there may be Treason against the House of Lords or against the House of Commons as well as against the King if laesa Majestas the offending or injuring of Majesty be Treason nay then we have three Sovereigns and not one only for whosoever hath any share in the Sovereignty is a Sovereign and then I wonder why we do not take an Oath of Allegiance to the two Houses as well as to the King nay I wonder much more why they of both Houses do all of them take an Oath of Allegiance to the King and cannot sit in either House till they do so Surely one Sovereign doth not owe Allegiance to another no not the least of Sovereigns to the greatest for as all Sovereigns the greatest as well as the least are equally under God so the least as well as the greatest are equally under none but God at least quatenùs so far forth as they are Sovereigns or in those things and places where and when they have a right to Sovereignty or to any part thereof CHAP. X. The King declared by an Act of Parliament injoyning the Oath of Supremacy to be the only Supreme Governour Mr. B 's sorry evasion of this Oath and Queen Elizabeths Declaration concerning it BUT what need is there of making such Collections or Inferences from the Addresses made to the King from either or both Houses of Parliament with their full subscriptions thereunto to prove that they acknowledg the King to be their Sovereign their fole Sovereign and themselves to be his Subjects his humble and loyal Subjects even in their Parliamentary capacity for in that capacity it was that they addressed themselves to him What need is there I say of insisting upon such more remote though very pregnant and concluding proofs when several Parliaments properly so called that is Parliaments consisting of the head the King and all the integral members that is of the Lords Spiritual as well as Temporal together with the House of Commons have in positive and express words and that not by a Vote Order or Ordinance but by an Act declared the King not only to be the Supreme but the only Supreme Governour of this Realm and of all other his Highnesses Dominions and Countries and that as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things and causes as temporal These I say are the very words of an Act of Parliament properly so called that is of a full and free of a compleat and
Law of in their Opinions if he please and if it be so in his opinion also So that the King is finally the only and sole Judge whether what is agreed on and propos'd by them as fit to be made a Law be fit to be made a Law or no and if he thinks it fit to be so it is he and none but he that by his Le veult makes it Law So that to conclude this Point the thing proposed whether by King or either of the Houses is the Matter or material cause ex quâ or out of which the Law is made the Efficient or the causa à qua whereby or by whom the matter of the Law is made to be a Law is the King and the King only the Formal cause or the cause per quam res est quod est by which a thing is that thing which it is or that whereby it actually becomes and is effectually made to be a Law is the Kings declaration of his Assent or Will to make it a Law by those Nomothetical or Legislative words pronounced by himself or in his Name Le Roy le veult the Final cause or the cause propter quam Res est for which or for the sake whereof a thing is is Bonum Publicum the Publick good So that the consent of the two Houses to what is proposed to be made a Law is but that which we call Causa sine quâ non a Cause without which a thing is not to be which indeed is a condition rather than a cause but such a condition as is so necessary for disposing of the matter to receive the form that the efficient cannot introduce the form without it though he be not necessitated to introduce the form by it that is it is such a condition as without which the King cannot make what is so conditioned to be a Law though it do not necessitate him to make that to be a Law which is so conditioned so that as I said before it is but Causa sine quâ non only which is indeed no cause at all And this I think enough to prove the Legislative power to be in the King and in the King only and consequently that the Soveraignty upon this account is not divided betwixt the King and the two Houses either equally or unequally or that they have any part of it or share in it And yet upon this Supposition and upon this supposition only Mr. Baxter concludes first that the Kingdom of England is no Monarchy And Secondly that the Parliament's defending of their own part of the Soveraignty against the Kings Invasion of it was a just War and no Rebellion By the first of which Conclusions he seems to think that there is no Monarchy but where the Government is Despotical and Arbitrary ubi Arbitria Principum as Justin saith pro Legibus sunt where the Will of the Soveraign is the Law of the Subject And such indeed were the first especially the Eastern Monarchies of the World and yet not altogether so neither as appears from the 7th compared with the 15th Verse of the 6th Chapter of the Prophecy of Daniel for as in the former of those Verses we find there was a consultation by a Senate or Parliament of all the Presidents Governours Counsellors and Captains of the Kingdom of Persia for the making of a Decree or Law by the King which he did by his signing of it so in the latter of those Verses we find also that it was a standing Law of or amongst the Medes and Persians that no Decree or Statute made by the King with the advice of an Assembly of the chief Men of his Kingdom could be changed or repealed without the consent as I presume they meant of those that advised the King to make it So that there were or might be some fundamental unchangable Laws or Rules even in the most absolute and most despotical Monarchies for such was the Persian if ever there were any and yet you see there was a Law by which the King himself was obliged And probably the like was in the former or first Monarchy that of the Chaldeans or Assyrians also For as Darius here so Nebuchadnezzar there called all his Princes and great Men when he made a Decree that all that would not fall down and worship the Image he had set up should be cast into the fiery Furnace Dan. 3. 12 c. CHAP. VIII The English Monarchy asserted The King under no Judicatory Accountable to God alone That Laws are not to be made without the Peoples consent in Parliament was from the favour of the Kings THE Truth is that it is not the Governing by Law or without Law that makes the Government to be Monarchical but the governing of One over all whether his way of Governing be Arbitrary Despotical or Legal and Political Ours indeed is Legal and Political but for all that it is Monarchical because it is but One that governs us all He governs indeed and is obliged and hath obliged himself by his Coronation Oath to govern by Law but it was not his Coronation Oath that made him King for all our Kings are as much Kings before they take the Oath as they are after the taking of it Neither is it their governing by Law that gives them their Right nor their not governing by Law that can take away their Right they have unto their Crowns for then there must be some Judicatory above them to judge betwixt them and their People whether they have forfeited their Right or no and if they have to take the forfeiture of it And if there be such a Judicatory it is indeed no Monarchy though it may be called a Kingdom as that of Sparta was as I have proved at large already Mr. Baxter therefore if he will prove this Kingdom of ours to be no Monarchy he must prove there is some such standing Judicatory here amongst us as the Ephori were in Sparta If he saith the Parliament is such a Judicatory He must prove it to be a Court or Judicatory always in being as that of the Ephori was and as the Senate of Venice is and not such a one as must not meet but when the King calls them and must be gone when he bids them and such a Judicatory is our Parliament according to the Legal Constitution of this Kingdom And how such a King as ours can be liable or obnoxious to such a Judicatory as this which he may make or unmake as he pleaseth so as to be question'd or tried or judged or condemned by it as the Spartan Kings might be and were by the Ephori and as the Dukes of Venice may be and have been by their Senate let Mr. Baxter tell us if he can For my part I cannot imagine the Practicability of it I mean the practicability of it de jure as to right in any Case or upon any Provocation whatsoever
out of them that seem to be possessed with him which is above all things to be wished and prayed for or those that are so possest be kept from infecting others by teaching and printing with that intolerable licence as they do and have done for so many years together we are not to expect to be long without another Civil War and whether the effects of that will not be as bad or worse than the former no man can tell I am sure we are not always to expect miracles I mean such a miraculous deliverance as we have once had from so many several sorts of arbitrary and Tyrannical Governments as that War brought us to or rather as we our selves brought our selves to by that Rebellion and as such a rebellion as that was may and nothing but such a rebellion as that was can probably and humanely speaking bring us to again CHAP. IV. An Expedient proposed to secure the Government both in Church and State viz. some such Law as the Scotch Test. The Heir of the Crown 's being a Papist or a Presbyterian c. comes much to the same pass FOR the preventing whereof why should not we follow the example of the Scots in that which is good as well as we did follow their example in that which was evil We took such a Covenant as they did in order to the making and helping us to make such a War against our King and theirs as they did and for the alteration of the Government and Religion established by Law in both Kingdoms And why should not we make such a Law as they have now made for the preservation of their Government and Religion as it is now by Law established amongst them why should not we I say make such a Law for the maintenance and preservation of the Government and Religion established by Law amongst Vs also I mean such a Law whereby all Men are disabled and made uncapable of any Office or Place of Power and Trust either Military or Civil or Ecclesiastical as likewise of being chosen themselves or of choosing others to be Members of Parliament as will not take such a Test and Oath as they have taken in Scotland that is never to give their consent to the Alteration either of the Religion or of the Government either in Church or State as it is there by Law established Such a Law as this and no worldly means but such a Law as this will secure us and our Posterity from all that we fear or pretend to be afraid of especially from Arbitrary Government and Popery and from Presbytery too For the Heir of the Crown may be a Presbyterian or an Independent or an Antinomian or an Anabaptist or a Socinian and may be every whit as great a Zealot and as much a Bigot in any of those perswasions as any Papist can be in his and consequently be as zealous and industrious to promote bring in and set up his Religion for the Only or at least for the Predominant Religion of the State as any Papist can be to bring in Popery and consequently to suppress all of any other perswasion but his own and that perhaps with as bloody a persecution as ever any Papist did when he hath as much power to do it Of this One of the Sects hath given us proof more than enough already I mean the Presbyterians who for the setting up of their Dagon instead of the Ark of God and for the abolishing of Monarchy in the State as well as Episcopacy in the Church entred into that Antichristian League and Covenant with the Scots whereby both Nations were ingaged in a bloody War with and against one another of which the execrable effects as no Act of Oblivion can ever make to be forgotten so can they never be remembred without horror nor indeed should be remembred without detestation of the procatarctical or promoting causes of it of which the most principal and most energetical was that Presbyterian Solemn League and Covenant for the setting up that Idol of theirs the Presbyterian Government for which they were so peremptorily and pertinaciously zealous and ambitious that in all their Treaties with the late King one of the conditions of Peace always was the abolishing of Episcopacy and setting up Presbytery instead of it without consenting whereunto and without taking of the Covenant as the Scotch Presbyterians did refuse the late King so the English Presbyterians would if they might have had their will have refused the present King to reign over them as might be made appear by the Consultation had amongst the Grandees of that Party to that purpose till they found it would be in vain to stand upon such terms the Noble and never to be forgotten General the late Duke of Albemarle being resolved to bring in the King as a King without condition and therefore as well for that as for his whole most prudent as well as loyal and couragious Conduct in that great affair I think that which was said of Fabius Maximus may be as properly and truly verified of him Vnus homo nobis cunct ando restituit rem That is One Man by his wary conduct hath restored our State and welfare And I wish it were engraven in Golden Letters upon his Tomb ad sempiternam rei memoriam for an everlasting Memorial But to return unto what I was speaking of what I have said already is enough to prove that a Presbyterian Heir of the Crown would do what he could to bring in and set up the Presbyterian Government which can no more consist with Monarchy in the State than it can with Episcopacy in the Church and make us all Presbyterians as well as a Poâ—ish Heir would to bring in Popery and to make us all Papists And that they would not suffer any that would not conform to them and comply with them is evident not only by what they did against us that were as they call'd us Cavaliers and Malignants but against their own Brethren in Iniquity the Independents and all the rest of the Sectaries their Fellow-Rebels against the King and Companions in Arms against Us all of whom they would have suppressed as well as they did Us if it had been in their power to do so as appears by their Books Sermons and Addresses to that which they call'd a Parliament against them And what the Presbyterians did against us and would have done against the Independents by the Parliament the Independents did against them by the Army And so no doubt would any other of the Schismatical Parties have done against all the rest that were not of their perswasion if they had got the power into their hands But none of them may some of their Friends say would have been so cruel as the Papists who hold it not only lawful but meritorious to put Hereticks that is all that are not Papists to death Did not the Presbyterians and Independents and the
own being an Intruder into the Headship of a College I remember too when the Churches in divers great Towns which had a great number of Souls and but little maintenance belonging to them were wholly neglected and the neighbouring little Villages where the Cures were small but the Tithes were great were seized on by the Grandees of the Faction which was an evident proof that they valued the Fleece more than the Flock and that they would not then as Mr. Baxter saith they will now serve God for nought But would not the Papists doe so also Yes perhaps they would will Mr. Baxter say but it would be in order to the destroying and not the edifying of the Church and have we not reason to fear that their offering to preach gratis is with such a meaning and Intention also We are sure they have done so and we are not nor cannot be sure they will not doe so again as long as they continue at that distance as they do from us In the mean time the Popish Priests being so persuaded as they are namely that all Protestants are in a State of damnation have a more rational pretence for the necessity of their preaching to us than our silenced Ministers have or can have even upon this account that unless they doe what they can to make us Roman Catholicks they are guilty of our perishing everlastingly But I hope our silenced Ministers do not think us in such a state of Damnation as we cannot be delivered out of but by their preaching as the Popish Priests may and do think us to be But whatsoever either of them may think of the need we have of their preaching and consequently of their own obligation to preach though they be forbidden we that do believe they would doe more hurt than good by their preaching do believe likewise that we are obliged in Conscience to restrain them from preaching though there were a greater want of Preachers and preaching than there is among us For sure there was never more need of preaching and scarcity of Preachers than when the Gospel began first to be planted when the Harvest was so great and the Labourers so few that Christ bad them pray the Lord of the Harvest to send more labourers into his Harvest and yet even then Christ would not have all to be hearkned unto that took upon them to preach but bad his Disciples beware of them and of their Doctrine though they came in Sheep's cloathing that is though they made a shew of nothing but harmlesness and meekness and simplicity because they might be ravening Wolves for all that And not long after that when there was still need of a great many more labourers than there were to carry on the great work of the conversion of the Gentiles yet even then St. Paul commands Titus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to silence some of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of those that were Preachers and why because they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unruly such as would not be governed or be brought under any rule or order but did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 subvert whole houses And if such Preachers as did but subvert whole houses were to be silenced or not suffered to preach then when there was so much more need of Preachers and of preaching than there is now how much more reasonable and necessary is it for us to silence those whose Principles tend to the subverting of whole Kingdoms especially when we have more Preachers of our own than we can tell how to provide for Again as in the first plantation of the Church when there was incomparably most need of Preachers the Apostles would not suffer such as were ungovernable or unruly themselves especially if they taught others to be so also so in the beginning of the Reformation of our Church from Popish Idolatry Superstition and Corruption both in Doctrine and Practice though there was a very great want of able and orthodox Preachers not onely in Edward the sixth's time but in Queen Elizabeth's time also for divers years together yet none of the Popish Priests were suffered to continue in their stations but very many Cures were supplied with men of very mean abilities till they could be better provided for rather than hazard a relapse into Popery by employing any that were Popishly affected in the work of the Ministry And Mr. Baxter may remember when we of the Church of England as it was established by Law were deprived and silenced for no other reason but because we could not in Conscience conform to the illegal Government that was by an usurped power set up in the Church and State I know there were other pretences against some as disability immorality and scandal but the main reason why we were generally turn'd out of our Free-holds and forbidden to exercise our Ministerial function was our Non-conformity to the then present Government in the State and to the then present way of serving God in the Church though both of them were illegal and though there was then as much or more need of their being assisted by us than there is now of our being assisted by them CHAP. X. According to Mr. Baxter 's own opinion the Ministers he pleads for ought to be silenced The Act against Conventicles why made and what is meant by Seditious Conventicles and Preachers Mr. Baxter by his own confession an incourager of the late Rebellion BUt supposing the want of Preachers and of Preaching to be much greater than it is may there not be a just cause to keep some from preaching and that without Sacrilege or robbing of God though they have been consecrated to God by Ordination if afterwards they prove such as are much more likely to doe harm than good by their preaching And such are not onely those that are utterly unable to teach or are notoriously scandalous in their lives and conversations but such as are heretical or schismatical in their opinions such as are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unruly and ungovernable and apt to stir up strife and Sedition either in Church or State Certainly such men as these ought to be silenced and punished too if they will not forbear preaching what need soever they may pretend there is for it otherwise St. Paul would not have given so strict a charge for the silencing of such as he did to Titus And truly that there are some such as ought to be silenced notwithstanding their consecration to God Mr. Baxter himself cannot deny For whom else doth he mean by those he calls intolerabiles that is such as are not to be tolerated or suffered to Preach Doth he mean none but those who were never ordained or none but those that are heretical in their opinions or debaucht in their manners or insufficient for the discharge of their duties No he confesseth that in the general all or any whose preaching is likely to doe more hurt than good
and particularly such as are against Princes safety and honour or whose Principles tend to overthrow the honour and safety of Governours and to kindle the fire of contention and enmity or such as draw their hearers Souls into any damnable errour or sin or that perswade men against any precept of the Decalogue and consequently against any of the precepts of the second Table as well as of the first all such as these saith Mr. Baxter are to be restrained from preaching For far be it saith Mr. Baxter from any sober man to think that the Magistrate must let all men doe the evil that they will but pretend to God and Conscience for Which one saying of his makes all that he said before to justifie the preaching of his Nonconformists to signifie nothing if they be silenced or forbidden to preach for any of the aforesaid causes by him specified and acknowledged to be such as Preachers ought to be silenced for notwithstanding any pretence of conscience to the contrary So this being agreed on betwixt us the next thing in question betwixt us is whether those that are silenced are such as Mr. Baxter confesseth ought to be silenced or no for if they be he confesseth likewise that no pretence of conscience can warrant their preaching and much less oblige them to preach For the deciding of this question therefore whether those that are silenced are justly silenced or no there remains one and but one question more and that is who shall judge and finally determine whether they that are silenced be or be not such as ought to be silenced or restrained from preaching Surely they themselves must not be their own judges but who must then why who but the Magistrate saith Mr. Baxter who in Church cases and religion hath the onely publick judgment whom he shall countenance maintain or tolerate or whom he shall punish or not tolerate nor maintain but with this caution so he be not the executioner of the Clergy's sentence without or against his own conscience and judgment Where by the Magistrate I hope he means the supreme Magistrate and by his judgment he means his judgment according to Law For the Law and nothing but the Law is the declaration of the supreme Magistrate's publick judgment in giving whereof he neither is nor can be the executioner of any other man's sentence but all subordinate Magistrates whether Civil or Ecclesiastical are the executioners of the supreme Magistrate's judgment or sentence and are no farther binding or to be obeyed than they are so Now that the supreme Magistrate with the advice and consent of his great Council hath given his judgment not onely who are and who are not to be tolerated to preach in publick or in Churches appears by the Act of Vniformity as likewise that he hath given his judgment also that those who are not to be tolerated to preach in publick or in Churches are not to be tolerated to preach in private nor in Conventicles neither appears by those other Acts of Parliament whereby such preaching is forbidden and such penalties as are therein specified are to be inflicted upon the transgressours of them Lastly as those Acts of Parliament are undeniable evidences who are and who are not to be tolerated to preach either publickly or privately according to the publick judgment of the State so the reasons why such preaching and such Preachers are prohibited are declared in the Titles and Prefaces of the aforesaid Acts for example the Title to one of those Acts namely that of decimo tertio of our present King is this An Act for the safety and preservation of his Majesty's person and Government against treasonable and seditious practices and attempts and in the Preface to the said Act it is said that the Lords and Commons assembled in that Parliament deeply weighing and considering the miseries and calamities of well nigh 20 years before his Majesty's happy return and withall reflecting upon the causes and occasions of so great and deplorable confusions the growth and increase of which they say did in a very great measure proceed from a multitude of seditious Sermons Pamphlets and Speeches published with a transcendent boldness from which kind of distemper say they as the present age is not wholly free so posterity may be apt to relapse into them if a timely remedy be not provided Therefore say they We the Lords and Commons having duly considered the Premisses do most humbly beseech your Majesty that it may be enacted c. By which Title and preface it plainly appears that the Lords and Commons did believe that neither the safety of the King's person nor of the Government could be secured if such kind of Preaching and Preachers as had in the late times been the stirrers up of the People to rebellion were not restrained from preaching for the future unless they would give some such security as the Parliament should think fit to require which was their renouncing the Covenant and their subscription to the Act of Vniformity which was enacted by the King by the advice and with the consent of the Lords and Commons the year following And it was for their not conforming to this Act of Vniformity that is for their not giving that security which the Law required that they would not preach schismatically and factiously and seditiously as they had done formerly for which they were some of them deprived and all of them disabled to preach publickly in Churches and consecrated places But this Act not proving effectual enough to prevent the danger for preventing whereof it was enacted because those that were forbid to preach publickly and in Churches did preach the same doctrines in Conventicles and in corners confirming their old and making more and more new Proselytes and being more and more followed because they were forbidden to preach in publick Therefore two years after this there was another Act made by the same Authority the Title whereof is An Act to prevent and suppress seditious Conventicles and the Preface or Preamble thereof is That for the providing of farther and more speedy remedies against the growing and dangerous practices of seditious Sectaries and other disloyal Persons who under pretence of tender Consciences do at their meetings contrive Insurrections as late experience hath shewed Be it enacted c. And then tells us first what shall be taken for a seditious Conventicle namely any meeting or Assembly in any place under colour or pretence of any exercise of Religion in other manner than is allowed by the Liturgy or practice of the Church of England where there shall be five Persons or more over and above those of the same house Secondly What are to be the Penalties for the first second and third Offence and lastly who are to be the Executioners and Inflicters of these Penalties Where you see that it is the Highest secular Magistrate whom Mr. Baxter will have
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