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
relation to the Church and such are his Anti-monarchical Aphorisms in relation to the State which will be Thorns in the sides of both Church and State to trouble and molest them if they be not Engines to undermine or overthrow them as long as there be Baxterians in the World as there will be no doubt long after Mr. Baxter is dead and though he himself before he dies do truly and heartily as I do truly and heartily wish he may if he have not done it yet repent of having been the Author of some and Abetter of all of them As for his Anti-episcopal Aphorisms and all other his Heterodoxies relating to the established Government Discipline of the Church they have been so thoroughly canvassed and so thoroughly confuted by so many much more learned Pens than mine that as I have said already in my Preface so I say again I mean not to meddle with any of them But as for his Anti-monarchical Aphorisms because he saith I am a defier of Deity and Humanity for taking exceptions against them and for my justifying the rights of Kings against the grounds he lays for justifying the resisting of Kings by their Subjects and particularly of the late horrid Rebellion of the worst of Subjects against the best of Kings the most groundless in its causes and the most unchristian and the most inhumane in its effects that ever was in this or perhaps in any other Kingdom I thought my self concerned to enlarge my self in saying of what I have said to justifie my exceptions against those Aphorisms some of which I have before printed and now reprinted and could have printed many more and some of them as bad as the worst of those and as destructive of the established Government in all Bodies Politick especially to that of this in our Kingdom which is and hath been always taken for a Kingdom properly so called that is for a Monarchy or for such a State or Body Politick wherein the Soveraignty or Supremacy of power is in One only Mr. Baxter in order to justifying of the late Rebellion tells us it is no Monarchy because the Soveraignty is not in one only namely not in the King alone but divided betwixt the King and the two Houses of Parliament which he endeavours to prove First by the Testimony of both Parties principally concerned in it namely the Parliaments affirming and the King 's owning and acknowledging of it And 2dly by Reason or by Arguments drawn from the Constitution and Practice of the Government it self As to the King 's own Acknowledgment that there is such a division of the Soveraignty betwixt Him and the Lords and Commons I shall speak of it hereafter And as to the Parliaments affirming of it which he only saith they do and have done without naming any time when or what Parliaments they were that did so I have answered at large already and that not only negatively by denying that any Parliament properly so called that is consisting of King Lords and Commons did ever affirm or can in reason be supposed ever to have affirmed any such thing but positively also that all Parliaments even those that are improperly so called I mean the Body without the Head or as the two Houses only are called the Parliament even in this notion I say the Parliament hath always in all Addresses that have been made to the King by either of the Houses severally or by both Houses joyntly acknowledged the King to be their Soveraign and themselves to be his humble and loyal Subjects and that when they Address themselves to Him not as so many several single Persons or every one in his Personal capacity but as in their representative or Parliamentary capacity as they were one or both of the two Houses and how they be Soveraigns and Subjects or partly Soveraigns and partly Subjects in one and the same notion or under one and the same capacity is too subtil and airy a speculation for me to comprehend But that which I did then and do now principally insist upon for proof of the Parliaments acknowledgments of the King's Soveraignty or that the Soveraignty here in this Kingdom is in the King alone and not in the King Lords and Commons joyntly as Mr. Baxter would have it is the Oath of Supremacy whereby in as positive and as plain words as can be devised several Parliaments properly so called have declared and caused it to be sworn that the King is the only Supreme Governor of this Realm and of all other his Highnesses Dominions and Countries as well in all Spiritual and Ecclesiastical things and causes as Temporal Which I repeat again because which I did not observe before the Parliament by enjoyning Men to swear that the King is the only Supreme Governour in Spirituals as well as Temporals seems to suppose or to take it for granted that there were none that pretended to be the Kings Subjects but would willingly and readily acknowledg the King to be the only Supreme Governour in Temporals and consequently that there is no division of the Soveraignty betwixt the King and the Parliament or betwixt the King Lords and Commons For it is the Soveraignty in Temporals only that Mr. Baxter would have to be so divided for as to the Soveraignty in Ecclesiastical things or causes I believe if Mr. Baxter would tell us what lies at the bottom of his heart we should find that he thinks neither King nor Parliament have any thing to do with it and consequently that there can be no division of that betwixt them But of this we shall have occasion to speak more hereafter Now therefore having postponed the consideration of what Mr. Baxter infers for proof of his pretended Division of the Soveraignty betwixt the King and Parliament from the Kings own concessions I proceed to the examination of the Reasons he gives to prove this Kingdom to be no Monarchy or that the Soveraignty thereof is not in one only Which reasons of his are all of them reducible to this one of the Legislative power or the power of making and repealing Laws for the whole Nation which as he saith is not only a part but a principal part of the Soveraignty and therefore if this be not in the King alone but divided between the King and Parliament as Mr. Baxter saith it is the Soveraignty cannot be in the King alone but must be divided betwixt the King and Parliament CHAP. II. What is meant by the word Parliament The two Houses being called together and dismissed at the Kings pleasure are not co-ordinate or sharers with him in the Soveraignty NOW this being the summ and substance of all Mr. Baxter hath said to prove the War made by the Parliament against the King was a just War and no Rebellion and whereon he so confidently relies that he is ready he saith to offer his Head to Justice if it can be solidly confuted either as to
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