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
it was not made against the King but against his evil Councellors and other his Delinquent Subjects only CHAP. III. Another ground of Mr. B's justifying the late War that according to our constitution the King is not sole Sovereign disproved The Act for the Rebel-Parliaments sitting censured All Kings properly so called not accountable to the People but to God only AND this doth farther appear by the little confidence he himself seems to have in this Topick For supposing as he had all the reason in the World to suppose that the aforesaid Declaration of the Parliament as he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 abusively and falsly calls it would signifie nothing with considering and understanding men as to the justifying of the late War from being a down-right Rebellion as indeed it was he seems to quit this as an indefensible Out-work and retires to that which he thinks to be a much stronger Hold and which if he can maintain he thinks that though he should grant the late War to have been made against the King yet it was not could not be a Rebellion because it was not made by Subjects against their Sovereign For the King of England saith he according to the constitution of our Government is not our sole Sovereign but there be others that be partners with him in the Sovereignty it self and of this he is so very confident that he saith in positive and express terms that if any man can prove that the King was the highest power in the time of those Divisions He will offer his head to justice for a Rebel Which saying of his seems to require some animadversion upon it as not being an absolute denyal of the Kings Sovereignty or of the Kings being the highest Power but of his being Sovereign or highest Power during those times of division only which seems to imply that he was even in Mr. Baxters opinion the Sovereign or highest Power before those times of division And if this be his meaning as it must be if there be any meaning at all in those words then it is not from the Constitution of the Government as Mr. Baxter saith it is that the King I mean our King of England is not the Sovereign or the highest Power always and in all times and to all intents and purposes but it was from the Alteration of the essential Constitution of our Government and from the iniquity of those Times and Persons that made that alteration that the King did not nor could not then exercise those Acts of Sovereignty or Supreme Power which was as legally invested and as inseparably inherent in him even then as ever it was before For though the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Power might and was yet the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Authority was not nor could not be taken from him but by taking away his Life also Unless Mr. Baxter will say and there seems to be some such secret intimation in that saying of his I last quoted that the King himself gave away his Sovereignty or that he made his two Houses of Parliament partakers with him in it when he passed an Act for their sitting until They themselves should be willing or content to be dissolv'd I confess this was a very great alteration in the very fundamental constitution of the Government and I confess the King passed such an Act the very great streights he was then in together with the minatory importunity of the two Houses backt by the insolent and tumultuous behaviour of the Multitude necessitating him as it were to do that which never any of his Predecessors did before him and I hope never any of his Successors will do after him I mean to pass such an Act as that was Although that Act gave neither of the Houses singly nor both of them jointly any whit or jot of more Power but only of sitting longer than what They or their Predecessors had before or their Successors now have And I hope Mr. Baxter will not say that is a Power to repeal Acts to make Ordinances of equal validity and obligation with Acts without the Royal Assent to them to raise Armies and Monies to maintain them upon their fellow-subjects and against their fellow-subjects and against the King himself also Did the Act that gave them a Power to sit until they thought fit to be dissolved give them Power to do all or any of these things before specified and many other as bold as bad and as illegal as any of those were or because they had leave to sit as long as they listed had they leave to do what they listed also No no it was their ingrateful and ungracious abuse of the Kings too gracious favour to them that was the cause of all those evils that afterwards upon that occasion befel Him and the whole Royal Family and all his Loyal Subjects And therefore of all the Acts that ever that good King did I take the passing of the aforesaid Act for the sitting of the two Houses not during his but their own pleasures to be the worst not only in point of prudence and policy as most prejudicial to the Crown and Government in general but in point of Right and Justice also to all and every one of the rest of his Subjects I mean as many of them as were capable of chusing and of being chosen Parliament-men who were all of them by the passing of this Act excluded from having what was due to them in either of those capacities and consequently from the Rights and Priviledges of Free-born Englishmen as long as those Parliament-Men that were then in being should please to sit and that might be ar was as We saw afterwards as long as they lived or at least as long as they could I mean till the Army which they raised made them to rise whether they would or no and yet there want not some that say they are still in being But to return from this digression because it is not upon this particular occasional alteration of the Government that Mr. Baxter doth openly and professedly ground his denyal of the Kings Sovereignty here in England but upon the fundamental and essential constitution of the Government it self and consequently he denies England to be a Kingdom and our King to be a King properly so called For he himself defines a Kingdom to be such a Common-wealth or body Politick as hath but one Person only for its Sovereign So that according to this definition all Kingdoms that are Kingdoms indeed are Monarchies and all Kings that are Kings indeed or Kings properly so called are Monarchs I say Kings properly so called because some have been called Kings who were really no Kings as the Kings of Sparta or Lacedaemon were who were but Generals of their Armies only the Sovereign Power of the State being in those that were called the Ephori or Overseers to whom those they called their Kings were
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
it is evident that his meaning in the words before was that the Parliament by their conquering of the King in defence of their own pretended part of the Soveraignty did not gain that part which he lost nor consequently could as he saith assume the whole Soveraignty to themselves But they did assume the whole Soveraignty even that Parliament did assume it those Lords and Commons did assume the whole Soveraignty who as Mr. Baxter saith were the Best Governours in all the World and such as whom to resist or depose is forbidden to Subjects on pain of damnation And why so Mr. Baxter because saith he they had the Supremacy that is the whole Soveraignty But whom doth Mr. Baxter mean by those the best Governours in all the World and whom all the Subjects of England were forbidden to resist on pain of damnation because they had the Supreme power I mean saith he them whom you speaking to the Souldiers called the corrupt Majority or the 143. imprisoned and secluded Members who as the majority had you know what power and the remaining Members that now sit again as many of them as are living Whereby it plainly appears that he meant the two Houses or the majority of the two Houses of Parliament in 47. and consequently that they were those that had then the Supreme power and who because they had the Supreme power were on pain of damnation not to be resisted But how came they by that Supreme Power not by having conquered the King saith Mr. Baxter in that before quoted Thesis for that saith he did not give them a right to more of the Soveraignty than they had before which was saith he but a part of it neither was that to make any change of the Government in specie and consequently the Soveraignty was still according to his Hypothesis to be in a King Lords and Commons and therefore the two Houses of Parliament or Senate as he calls them in the aforesaid Thesis could not assume the whole Soveraignty where by could not he must mean they could not de jure by right assume it that is they had no right or just title to it And what are they that assume Soveraignty without any Right or just title to it some saith Mr. Baxter call them Tyrants but what doth he himself call them He saith they may be more fitly called and you must know he loves to speak properly and distinctly Invaders Intruders and Vsurpers but are the People bound to obey or not to resist Invaders Intruders and Vsurpers upon pain of damnation No saith Mr. Baxter when it is notorious they have no title to govern them the People are not bound to obey them Now what can be more notorious than that the two Houses had not the Soveraignty at least not the whole Soveraignty whilst the King was alive and whilst he was acknowledged and treated with by them as their King as he was at that very time Mr. Baxter saith they had the Supreme Power and consequently if they had it as indeed they had it de facto in fact they held it without any title or Right to it and therefore by Mr. Baxter's own confession they had it as Invaders and Vsurpers And if notwithstanding they were Invaders and Vsurpers they were the best Governours in all the World and not to be resisted on pain of damnation as Mr. Baxter tells us in one place then are the People bound to obey notorious Invaders and Vsurpers which in another place he saith they are not but yet he saith it with such limitations and exceptions as one may see he leaves a Latitude for any man to submit to any that are in the possession of the Supreme Power whether they have any right to all or any of it or no or though they be never so much Invaders or Vsurpers of it as all of them were that succeeded one another from the beginning of the War with the late King until the Restauration of our present Soveraign As first the two Houses governing arbitrarily and independently whilst the King lived 2dly The House of Commons alone after the Kings murder and Martyrdom assuming to themselves the title of a free State or Soveraign Common-wealth 3dly Cromvel the Father making himself Master of all and of servus servorum a servant of servants becoming Dominus Dominantium a Lord of Lords of whom Mr. Baxter saith in the same Preface That he did prudently piously and faithfully and to his immortal Honour exercise the Government 4thly Cromwel the Son to whom he saith he was bound to submit as set over him by God and to obey for conscience sake and to behave himself as a loyal Subject towards him because as he saith in the same place a full and free Parliament hath owned him Hereby acknowledging First That a full and free Parliament meaning the two Houses only may own or disown whom they will to be set over them by God and consequently whom in conscience they are bound to obey whether he have an Hereditary Right to it or no For Cromwel the Son could have no such Right from his Father neither doth Mr. Baxter pretend he had any such right 2dly That without Writs issuing from the King the People may meet and choose Knights and Burgesses to be their Representatives and that they that be so chosen make up a full and free House of Commons as likewise such as the Vsurper is pleased to call Lords though they be no Lords and have not so much as one Lord truly and properly so called amongst them do make up a full and free House of Lords 3dly That two such Houses do make up a full and free Parliament And such a Parliament was that with such a Summoner of it and such a Head to it as Cromwel the Son was which were the Powers that Mr. Baxter saith were last laid by and of which together with those that were laid by before he means laid by or deposed by the Souldiery to whom he addresseth his Preface to his Holy Commonwealth he hath so excessively high an opinion that he saith he should with great rejoycings give a thousand thanks to that Man that will acquaint him with one Nation in all the Earth that hath better Governours in Soveraign Power as to Wisdom and Holiness conjunct than those that have been resisted or deposed in England Where by those Powers he so much magnifies that were resisted and deposed here in England you may be sure he means not the King nor the Kingly Government though that was the only Soveraign Power that was resisted and deposed but for ought I see or he saith to the contrary he may and doth mean all others that successively usurped and exercis'd Soveraign Power both before and after the late Kings death till his Son 's coming in and consequently not only the two Houses of Parliament before the King's death but the One House
to lie against our late experience to the contrary when Tyranny and Tyranny in the highest degree and under many several sorts of Tyrants was brought in without Popery and the Protestà nt Religion of the Church of England was not only suppressed and persecuted but endeavoured to be quite extirpated and for ever to be abolished by the greatest pretenders of enmity to Popery though indeed the greatest of its Friends and the most likely to be a most effectual means to bring it in by their then endeavouring to overthrow and by their now endeavouring to undermine the strongest Bulwark the Protestant Religion truly so called hath in the World against Popery I mean the Protestant Religion of the Church of England And as this Church of ours according to the present legal constitution of it both as to Doctrine and Government is the best fenced of any Church in the World not only against Popery but all other Heresies and Schisms some of them as bad if not worse both in their speculative and practical opinions than Popery it self is So the legal constitution of our civil Government also is I verily believe the best Government now extant in the World or perhaps ever was or can be for the keeping out of Tyranny or arbitrary Government of what disposition or religion soever the Prince or Governour in chief for the time shall happen to be of so the legal established constitution of the Government be not altered CHAP. VIII The Scotch Test an Assurance that there can no change be in Government either of Church or State The case of Protestants in Queen Maries time much different from what it is now FOR preventing whereof the best and as I verily believe the only effectual means that can be devised and put in practice is as I said before the making of such an Act of Parliament here in England as is lately made in Scotland viz. That for the future no Man shall be capable of any place power trust or profit Military Civil or Ecclesiastical or to choose or be chosen a Parliament man but he that will take such a Test as is there specified viz. That he will never give his consent for the alteration either of the Religion or the Government by Law established in the Church and State Which being once enacted I for my part cannot foresee how either Popery or Arbitrary I might add or any other Government or Religion prejudicial to the rights either of King or Subject can be brought in amongst us but by an absolute conquest of the whole Nation For as for Popery and Arbitrary Government the pretended Objects of our present fears that they will be brought in by a Popish Successor supposing there be any such if he be not excluded the aforesaid Act after it is enacted will make it impossible for him to effect it though he have never so strong an Inclination or desire to do it For if he endeavour to do it it must be either by force or fair means if by force it must be either by an Army of his own Subjects or of Foreigners if by an Army of his own Subjects it must be an Army of Papists only which being not one to 500. in proportion to the rest of the Nation and all of them excluded by the aforesaid Act from all places of Power or Trust will make but a very inconsiderable handful of Men to attempt and much less to effect any thing by force against the Body of the Nation whom we are to suppose to be obliged by the aforesaid Act not to consent to and much less to assist the bringing in either of Popery or Arbitrary Government So that if it be by force it must be by an Army of Foreigners and such an Army as shall be able to subdue the whole Nation and then he that brings them in cannot choose but fear they will subdue us for themselves and not for him and therefore will take heed of running such a hazard for any consideration whatsoever We are not therefore to fear it will be attempted to be done by force Nor that it can be effected if it should be attempted to be done by fair means neither that is by Law or by making any Act of Parliament for the introducing of Popery when there shall be an Act before in force to prevent any Man's choosing or being chosen a Member of the House of Commons that is not obliged by Oath never to give his consent to the passing of such an Act and all Popish Lords are already excluded from voting in the House of Lords But why may not a Popish Successor cause both these Acts to be repealed as Queen MARY did for the Reducing of Popery those that were made by Her Brother Edward the Sixth for the Excluding of Popery I answer because of the vast difference between those times and these Then the Protestant Religion was but begun to be planted in this Kingdom and had not taken root enough for the setling and growth and continuance of it much the major part of the People being still Popishly affected in their Hearts though they were by the Laws then in force restrain'd from the open profession of it as appear'd by their so readily and so gladly returning as most of them did to it and by their not only accepting but desiring and purchasing the Pape's Absolution for revolting from it So that it was very easie for Queen Mary to make that Alteration which she did by repealing such Acts and Laws as she found in favour of the Protestant Religion and to re-enact or restore such as were for the establishment of Popery which she found to have been repealed by Her Predecessor And to make this work of hers the more easie she did and could without any legal impediment to the contrary bestow all places of Trust Power and Profit Civil Military and Ecclesiastical upon such as were as zealous as she her self was for the suppressing of the Protestant and setting up of the Roman Religion instead of it Whereas now the Protestant Religion has been setled here in England for above fourscore years before the Rebellion and above twenty years since and the Popish suppress'd for twenty years longer even during all the time of the Rebellion it self whilst the Sectaries usurped the Supreme Power and whilst the Protestant Religion of the Church of England was suppress'd and persecuted also But all that while Popery was kept down and Presbytery was set up and spread it self so much in and over all parts of the whole Kingdom that we have much more reason to fear the alteration of Government both in Church and State by setting up of Presbytery instead of Episcopacy in the one and of a Commonwealth instead of Monarchy in the other than Popery or Arbitrary Government under a King in either as long as the Laws we have already against both are in force whereby all Papists are made uncapable
King cannot by his Fiat give it its factum esse till it be agreed on by the two Houses and because the two Houses by their agreeing on it do give it its fieri posse or make it ready and fit to be made a Law therefore it may truly though not properly be said to be made jointly by the King Lords and Commons because though it be not made by the Lords and Commons but by the King only yet it cannot be made without them neither that is without their doing something antecedently without their doing whereof the King cannot make Laws And this was that and all that which the late King meant when he said that the Laws of this Kingdom were made jointly by the King Lords and Commons that is according to the old Parliamentary stile by the King with the consent of the Lords and Commons or if you will by the King but not without the consent of the Lords and Commons But I hope Mr. Baxter who would be thought the Master of propriety and distinctness of speaking will not affirm that a thing can properly be said to be done by him or them without whose consent it cannot be done For I think it is one of the main matters wherein he differs or dissents from our Church that a Priest or Minister of the Word and Sacraments cannot be ordain'd without consent of the People will he therefore deny that it is the Bishop with his Presbyters that ordains him or will he say that he is jointly ordained by the Bishop and the People Certainly none but they that lay hands upon him have any thing to do in the Act of Ordination So that it doth not follow that because a Law cannot be made without the precedent consent of both Houses of Parliament that therefore they have any thing to do properly speaking in the making of it Again supposing Mr. Baxter is of the opinion of the Protestant Churches abroad that there can be no marriage without consent of Parents and supposing that opinion to be true yet I suppose neither Mr. Baxter nor any of the Ministers of those Churches will say that it is the consent of Parents that makes the Marriage though it cannot be a Marriage without it Many other Instances of the like nature might be given but this is enough to prove the thing we have in hand namely that though in some sence it may be said that our Laws are made by the King and Parliament or by the King Lords and Commons because they cannot be made by the King without the consent of the Lords and Commons yet properly speaking it is the King alone who by his LE ROY LE VEVLT makes them to be Laws in which Law-making Act of his neither of the Houses do joyn or are joyned with him and therefore the Laws so made cannot properly be said to be made by the King and them joyntly And yet because they cannot be made by the King without their antecedent consent to them and proposing of them they may truly be said to concur To the making though not In the making of them And this and no more but this was undoubtedly the late Kings meaning when he said the Laws were made here in England by the King Lords and Commons or upon their proposing such and such Bills being first agreed upon by them to be made Laws by him CHAP. XIV The making of Laws in the Roman State applied to Vs Mr. B. 's division of the Soveraignty rectified The King 's Negative voice asserted and the Enemies of Monarchy detected THus when the Soveraignty was in the People of Rome the Senate did concur to the making of Laws for the Common-wealth but did not make them they concur'd to the making of them by consulting and debating what was fit to be made a Law by the People as having no power to make it a Law themselves the making of Laws being an Act of Soveraignty and the Soveraignty being then not in the Senate but in the People and therefore the Senate did not so much as pretend to the making of Laws but only to the proposing of Laws to be made by a higher power namely that of the People as appears by the formal and solemn stile relating to the making of Laws in those times which was this Senatus rog at Populus jubet the Senate requesteth or proposeth namely such or such a thing to be made a Law but the People commands or enjoyns it that is the People maketh what was proposed by the Senate for a Law to be a Law And as this was the stile in relation to making of Laws in a Democracy when and where the Soveraignty was in the People so à paritate rationis upon the like reason and account in a Monarchy where the Soveraignty is in One the stile ought to be Populus rog at Rex jubet the People requests and the King grants And so indeed it was as I observed before according to the ancient stile used in our Parliaments here in England in divers Acts and Statutes wherein the King is said to give or grant sometimes at the special request and sometimes at the humble Petition of the Commons Neither doth the Alteration of the Stile at the Request to with the consent argue an alteration in the species of the Government for the King is still the sole Lawmaker or Lawgiver as much as he was before and consequently as much a Monarch though less Despotical and more Political in the managery and execution of his Kingly Power having by his Predecessors and his own voluntary and gracious condescension obliged himself not to exercise his Legislative power or to make any Laws without the consent of those that are to be governed by them which though it do not make him cease to be a Monarch or to have the Soveraignty or supreme power wholly and solely in himself yet it makes him cease to be an absolute arbitrary and despotical and to become a legal regulated and Political Monarch or a King that is to govern his People by Laws Laws indeed of his own making but not without their consent to them I mean without their consent by their Representatives in Parliament together with the consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal which all of them jointly are the Representatives of the three Estates or of that whole Body Politick whereof the King is the Head And as it is he that governs the whole Body so it is he that makes the Laws to govern the whole Body which because they are not made by the King without the consent of the three Estates representing that Body therefore Mr. Baxter thinks they are made by the three Estates as well as by the King and therefore that the Soveraignty is divided betwixt the King and them and consequently that this is no Monarchy but a mix'd Government which is the same mistake that Grotius as I said before
all of them made him their Proxy to speak for them which if they have done why doth he not shew us his Commission for it which as he hath not done yet so I am confident he will never be able to doe no not from all or from the most of any one party of the Nonconformists Which I am the bolder to affirm because having sometimes occasionally made use of his Authority in point of opinion and of his Example in point of practice for the convincing of some both Presbyterians and Independents who by their practice seemed to be of another judgment in diverse things than he was I found that what he said or did signified little or nothing unto them Nay they told me in plain terms that I was very much mistaken if I thought that Mr. Baxter's either judgment or practice was of so great weight with them as for that reason onely to make them alter their own either judgment or practice in any thing whatsoever So that it doth not follow that because Bishop Morley in that printed Letter of his saith that this or that was Mr. Baxter's Assertion therefore he said or must be understood as if he had said it was the assertion of all or indeed of any other of the Nonconformists but of Mr. Baxter himself onely Of any other I say for I did not so much as charge both or either of those two Nonconformists that were Mr. Baxter's Assistants at that Conference with asserting what he asserted Nay I do in that Letter of mine discharge them both from concurring with him in that Assertion which I lay unto his charge though he saith he concurr'd with them in it I charge him with it because as I tell him in my printed Letter he did often affirm and declare it to be his and I discharge them from it because neither of them did affirm or declare it to be theirs but rather seem'd to dislike it and to dissent from him in it But why then will he say do I say Crimine ab uno disce omnes From ones ill carriage you may know the rest which seems to imply that what I charge upon him I charge upon his whole party as I do indeed but not in that same place nor speaking of the same mater but for their censuring and condemning all other Protestant Churches in the World as well as ours as Mr. Baxter did expresly at the Conference aforesaid because They as well as We refuse to give the Communion to those that will not receive it so as by publick order it is to be received And it was upon account of this proud peevish and censorious humour of which I take all the Nonconformists and amongst them the Presbyterians especially to be more or less guilty that I then taking Mr. Baxter to be a Presbyterian said Crimine ab uno disce omnes that is By one man's ill temper you may know the whole party But then as by Omnes All of them I did not mean all the Nonconformists so I did not mean all the Presbyterians neither but those of England and Scotland onely all foreign Presbyterians that allow of and practice Calvin's Scheme of Discipline and Government of the Church agreeing with us against our Presbyterians in the main difference betwixt us and them namely that as it is in the power of a National Church to appoint and prescribe to those of her own Communion the usage of such indifferent things as she shall think to be most for order decency and edification in the publick service and worship of God so it is in her power also to oblige all of her Communion to the use and observation of all such indifferent things after they are prescribed and enjoyned as long as they continue to be so under the penalty of Excommunication or of being excluded out of the Society or Communion of that Church if they do not comply and much more if they preach or write against any such orders or ordinances as are made by publick Authority or by the Representatives of the whole Society and most of all if they deny theChurches power to ordain and enjoyn any such orders or ordinances of all which Crimes or degrees of the same crime no other Presbyterians are guilty for ought I know but those of England and Scotland onely or if perhaps some be they are excluded from Communion with the National Church wherein they live as well as Nonconformists are with us here in England so that in Holland it self where it is said any man may chuse his own Religion or be of what Religion he will no man that will not subscribe to the Synod of Dort in Rituals as well as Doctrinals is or can be admitted to be a member and much less a Preacher in that Church no nor to the exercise of any Office Civil or Ecclesiastical in their Church or State It is true they suffer men of all Religions to live amongst them Lutherans as well as Calvinists Arminians as well as Antiarminians nay Papists as well as Protestants and Jews as well as Christians but not as members of their Church who are Calvinists and Calvinists onely The rest indeed beforenamed are some of them conniv'd at and some of them permitted to have their Meetings and preaching after their own way but it is at their own charge and severely punishable if they preach or print any thing to the reproach or scandal of the Religion allowed of and established by the State We wish no more will our Sectaries perhaps say Let us have but so much liberty as this upon the same terms and We will thank God and you for it But what security will you or any of you give us that when you have that liberty you will not all of you joyn together to destroy our Religion though you know not what to set up instead of it We see you have done so once already and attempted it often both before and since and why may not you do so again For the Laws were against you then as much as they are now and so was the King too And therefore granting such a Toleration of several Sects of Religion or ways of Belief and Worship as there are in Holland it is not possible humanely speaking to secure the publick peace either of Church or State but by keeping up a standing Army of thirty or forty thousand men always in pay even in times of peace with a powerfull Fleet at Sea as the Hollanders do to secure themselves from Insurrections at home as well as Invasions from abroad Now whether the People of England will be content to be at such a Charge and to live under such a Government those that would have such a Liberty of Conscience or Toleration of Religion as there is in Holland let them enquire of the peoples Representatives and Petition them to that purpose at their next meeting In the mean time all their Pleas for Peace
magne Sacerdos But do not bluster so mighty Presbyter Is this the humble the meek the mortified and daily dying Mr. Baxter Tantoene animis Coelestibus irae Have heavenly minds such boisterous passions And why not may some Friend of his say can a man be too zealous for God or too angry with any that defies God or that denies his Sovereignty over all his Creatures and consequently over all humane Powers or Governours Was not Moses the meekest man alive and yet was not he angry very angry so angry that he brake the Tables of stone wherein the Law was written by God's own hand because the People had by their Idolatry broken the Law written by God's own hand in the Tables of their hearts The like may be said of Phineas of David and of St. Paul who was so angry that he wished that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The disturbers and overturners of the Church in those times were cut off which by the way is as bad if not worse than silencing Why then should Master Baxter be blamed if he thinks no words bad enough for those that are the defiers of Deity and Humanity and the Enemies to God to Kings and to all Mankind True but who or where are they that are so they are those saith Mr. Baxter in one place that deny all humane Powers to be limited by God But who are they that deny all humane Powers to be limited by God they are saith Mr. Baxter in another place Such as deny all Governours whether limited or unlimited to be Subjects themselves and under the Sovereignty and laws of God But who are they or who is he that denies either this or the former of those two Propositions Bishop Morley for one saith Mr. Baxter in the aforesaid late Book of his and therefore he is a defier of Deity and Humanity and so are others too for the same reasons as he tells us in his Paper of Recantation but they it seems must be nameless Well but how doth he know that Bishop Morley doth or ever did deny either That all humane Powers are limited by God or that all Governours are subject to God Did he ever hear me say so himself or can he produce any Witness that is fide dignus That may be believed who told him so I am sure I never thought so and therefore I am sure I never said so But because he grounds my being a defier of Deity and Humanity upon this supposition and upon this supposition onely That I deny all Humane Powers to be limited by God or That all Humane Governours are Subject unto God And because there be many that will believe whatsoever he saith because he saith it Be it known to Mr. Baxter and all Baxterians in the World that I Bishop Morley do in my own name and I am confident may doe it in the name of all the Episcopal Party that is of the whole Church of England truly so called not onely confess and acknowledge but declare and aver and avow first That all Humane Powers and not Humane onely but Terrestrial Celestial and Infernal Powers also are subject to God and limited by God that is by the Power the Will and Wisedom of God so that none of them can doe more or less or otherwise than he wills or permits them to doe and that he restrains overrules and orders whatsoever they doe as he pleaseth in order to his own most wise and just ends Secondly I do acknowledge and declare also that all humane Powers or Governours the Supreme as well as the Subordinate and the Vnlimited I mean the unlimited by humane Pacts and constitutions as well as the Limited are all of them limited by God and that not by his Power onely but by his Laws also either as they are written by him in Mens hearts or revealed by him in his Word and that as all the Heathen World Kings as well as Subjects were limited by the former so all the Christian World Kings and States as well as Subiects are limited by the latter and by the former also so as to be thereby obliged though not necessitated to observe the Dictates and to doe nothing contrary to either of those Laws and if they doe not accordingly that they are answerable to God and punishable by God for it as he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 King of Kings and Lord of Lords as much or more than any of the meanest of their Subjects This is and always was my Creed as to this parcular and therefore instead of defying Deity and Humanity I defy Mr. Baxter and all the Baxterians in the World to prove that I ever did dicto vel scripto By saying or writing directly or indirectly in terminis vel in sensu oequipollenti In downright terms or equivalent meaning formally or consequentially deny all or any humane Powers or Governours either de jure As to matter of right or de facto As to matter of fact to be limited by God or that I did ever accuse Mr. Baxter or any body else for affirming it And therefore I do now accuse him for having falsely accused me of such a Crime as is no less as he himself saith than the defying of Deity and Humanity which is a very high degree not of Profaneness onely but of Atheism and Blasphemy also and therefore highly criminal and highly punishable even here in this world in them that are guilty of it and per legem talionis By that law which requires like for like in those also that accuse any man of it and cannot prove it especially in one Church man accusing another and more especially according to the ancient Canons of the Church in a Presbyter accusing a Bishop of so high a Crime as this is But Mr. Baxter it seems will joyn Issue with me upon this point and will prove that though I did not in terminis defy Deity and Humanity by denying in terminis all humane Power to be limited by God Yet I am nevertheless a defier of Deity and Humanity because I do consequentially deny all humane Powers to be limited by God And that I do consequentially deny all humane Powers to be limited by God he proves or thinks he proves or rather indeed would have others think he proves it for I am confident he himself believes it no more than I do because I deny this Aphorism of his That all unlimited Governours are Tyrants and have no right to their unlimited Governments so that the proof of my being a defier of God because I deny all humane Powers to be limited by God depends upon the truth of this Syllogism He that denies all unlimited Governours to be Tyrants and such as have no right to their unlimited Governments doth consequentially or by necessary consequence deny all humane Powers to be limited by God But Bishop Morley doth deny the former Ergo he doth deny the latter also Well
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
to speak with in declaring his judgment upon other occasions nor as he doth in the Paragraph preceding this in which he doth positively and resolutely condemn the resistance of Kings by their Subjects in any case or upon any provocation whatsoever and for this he brings undeniable arguments and proofs out of Scripture and answers clearly and solidly all objections to the contrary But when he comes with his deprivatis hominibus loquor that is I speak of private men to tell us that by Subjects that are not to resist their Kings he means private Men only what he gave with one hand he takes away with the other by not only permitting and allowing but by obliging and injoyning some that are Magistrates to restrain their Kings from oppressing or insulting as he calls it over their People and to bind their Kings as it were to the good behaviour which how it can be done if Kings have no mind to be so bound but by force he doth not tell us and how it can be done by force without the assistance of private men he doth not tell us neither nor consequently without making private Subjects to resist their King which as he told us before was utterly unlawful in any Case whatsoever So that he seems as to this point to speak very doubtfully and warily For first he doth not say there are now any such Magistrates that are to be Umpires as it were betwixt Kings and their Subjects with Power to curb and restrain Kings from governing of their People otherwise than they ought to do such as saith he were the Ephori in relation to the Lacedemonian Kings but he saith si qui nuno sunt if there be any such Magistrates now as the Ephori were then and as fortè saith he perhaps he doth not say certé for certain or absque dubio without doubt the Conventions of the three Estates are in those Kingdoms wherein are such Conventions meaning I presume the Kingdoms of England and France and others if there be any other of the like Constitution so that if such a Convention or Assembly of the three Estates have no such Power as the Ephori had as Calvin doth not positively affirm they have but that fortè or perhaps they may have and consequently that forté and perhaps they may not have neither then hath Calvin this to say for himself that if such Conventions or Assemblies have no such Power as most certainly they have not nor ever had where Kings were Kings indeed and not in name only as the Spartan Kings were he hath this I say to say for himself that what he positively affirms afterwards that such Magistrates or such Assemblies may and ought to do for the restraining and curbing of Kings was only upon supposition that they were legally invested with the same Power over their respective Kings as the Ephori were legally invested with over the Kings of Lacedaemon which if it be not true as he that saith but perhaps it is doth thereby grant that perhaps it is not neither then is not he chargeable with that which follows namely with this Opinion or Doctrine that such popular Magistrates as he calls them or such representative Assemblies of the People might and ought to do what the Ephori did And thus these two little Adverbs Fortè and Ferè Perhaps and Almost do as the Proverb saith save many a Lye and are of great use to insinuate that unto others as true which we are not sure of our selves as also for the bringing men off from being answerable for what they so warily and doubtfully affirm if they be questioned for it and undeniably convinced of the falshood of it And truly that Calvin himself did doubt whether there were any such Magistrates in any of those Kingdoms he seems to speak of that had such Power and Authority in relation to their Kings as the Ephori had in relation to the Kings of Lacedaemon I make no doubt at all and that not only in regard of his Fortè perhaps which I have already spoke of but also because he gives us not so much as one Instance of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that there are any such Magistrates nor one argument for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of it that there should be any such either from Reason or from Authority either Divine or Humane that is from either any Example or Precept of Gods Law or of any Humane Constitution in any Kingdom though by saying as he doth that those Populares Magistratus are the Tutores the Guardians or Defenders of the Peoples Liberty against the violence of Kings Dei Ordinatione by the Ordinance of God he seemeth to think that they are by Gods own appointment which is very strange it should be so now and was never so in the Kingdom of his own framing for his own People for whom he professeth he had a greater kindness than for any other Nation and therefore no doubt would have made such a provision for their security from being oppressed by their Kings whom he foresaw would be such oppressors as many of them proved to be But we see he did not And therefore if there be any where such Magistratus Populares or Tutelares Populi Guardians of the People to protect the People against their Kings I conclude that it is not an Ordinance of God but an Invention of man and such an invention as is likely to embroil States and Kingdoms in a Civil War which is the worst of Evils rather than to preserve the publick peace and quiet by keeping fair quarter or a good correspondence betwixt King and People For quis custodiet ipsos Custodes Who shall take care of the Keepers of our Liberties themselves For who shall secure either King or People from these securers of the People from the King May not they be as cruel as covetous as voluptuous as self-seeking and every way as careless of the publick good as the worst of Kings Nay are they not more likely to be so all of them having a divided Interest of their own from that of the Publick and each of them from that of one another Whereas the Kings Interest if he be a King indeed and not a titular King only is one and the same with the Publick both in regard of himself and of his Posterity also if his Kingdom be Hereditary and consequently if he do that which is best for himself he must needs do that which is best for his People also so that supposing him to be Wise for himself there will be no danger of his doing any thing wittingly and willingly that will indanger the Peace and Prosperity of his People because that which will endanger theirs will endanger his own also But supposing the King for the present as bad as bad may be yet he may mend or if he do not he is mortal and his successor may be better or if not yet at
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
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
rest of the Sectaries that joyned with them in the War against the King think so too when they kill'd as many as they could of the Royal Party and when their Preachers incourag'd them to do so which he that doubts of let him read Evangelium armatum for his conviction But that they will say was but in the heat of blood whilst the War lasted afterwards they suffered us to live amongst them And so say I do the Papists too and to enjoy not only their lives but their liberties and their legal possessions and goods also in many nay in most places where there is no Inquisition which was more than we of the Church of England especially we of the Clergie were suffered to enjoy here under the Raign of either the Presbyterians or Independents And whether they would not have proceeded to blood as well as the Papists upon the account of Religion only I have reason to doubt or rather I have no reason to doubt but they would for as it is a Popish opinion that all Hereticks are to be put to death and that all that are not Papists are Hereticks so it is a Presbyterian opinion that no Idolater is to be suffered to live and that all Papists are Idolaters as likewise that all the Bishops and Episcopal Party of the Church of England are Papists and consequently Idolaters that is such as by the Law of God are to be put to death And if they did not put this doctrine in practice here as they have done in Scotland witness the murder of the late Primate there upon the account of Religion only whatsoever the first printed Narrative of that horrid Fact said to the contrary it was because their reign was so short and because they were not so well setled in their Dominion as to think it safe for them to proceed so far The Church of Rome her self did not at first proceed with that extremity of Rigor against those she calls Hereticks as she did afterwards It is but of late that the bloody Inquisition was set up by the Church of Rome and that but in some places And was not that of the Tryers here in England in order to the depriving Men of their livelihoods though not of their lives some such thing And who can tell whether it might not have proceeded to deprivation of life also as well as the Roman Inquisition doth if it had gotten power and authority enough to support it We know that the Anabaptists who made a great part of that rebellious Army against the late King of blessed Memory were a Sect that did profess at first that it was not lawful for them to defend either their Goods or their Lives though never so injuriously threatned or attempted to be taken away from them by any though not their Superiors but even by Thieves and Pirates insomuch as they would not carry Guns in their Ships when they went to Sea for fear of being tempted to make resistence in defence of their Goods or of themselves by having wherewithal to do it And yet I have been credibly informed that there were none in that rebellious Army whose feet were more swift and their hands more ready to shed blood than theirs of that Sect were as fearing to offend God by doing his work negligently or that their own lives should go for theirs if they spared or suffered any to escape whom it was in their power to kill So that now as one of their Officers said lately The Sword is become a good Ordinance of God in its season And of the same mind with the Anabaptists if they be not yet may the Quakers and all the rest of the Sectaries come in time to be also together with those merely moral Philosophical Christians I mean the Socinians themselves how much soever they seem for the present to dislike the propagating of Religion by force which there is no Sect but doth profess also whilst they want power to practise it themselves It being as natural for all sorts of Hereticks and Sectaries to endeavour the propagating of their opinions by making as many Proselytes as they can as it is for single Persons to desire and endeavour the propagating of their kind by natural Generation CHAP. V. The Exclusion of the right Heir contrary to the Law of God both Natural and Positive SUpposing therefore but not granting the present Heir of the Crown to be a Papist as I will not deny but that he may as long as he continues to be so wish and desire that all were of the same Religion so they that would have him excluded upon that Account must needs grant likewise that if any Heir of the Crown after him or at any time hereafter shall chance to be of any other Religion than that established by Law and consequently as desirous as a Papist can be to change or abolish that and bring in his own in the stead of it which may be as bad or perhaps worse than Popery as I take not only Paganism whatsoever Julian the Apostate saith to the contrary but Socinianism to be also They must grant I say that upon the same account whosoever shall be of any other than the established Religion must be excluded from succession to the Crown for fear of the alteration he may possibly make of the established Religion in the Church and probably of the established Government in the State also Which I confess to be a thing of such dangerous consequence that it ought to be prevented and provided against by any lawful effectual Means that can be made use of to that purpose especially where the present constitution of the Church and State is such as ours is that is such a one as I think all things considered there cannot be a better and therefore I say it will become the wisdom of the State to prevent as much as by humane prudence it may be prevented any alteration either of the Religion or of the Government I mean as to the essentials of either of them but then it must be by the use of such Means as are lawful and effectual And first the Means that must be made use of to prevent such an alteration must be lawful evidently and undoubtedly lawful and that both in relation to the Law of God and in relation to the Law of the Land also But the excluding of the right Heir from his Inheritance seems to be contrary to both and by the right Heir I mean the first-born or him that is nearest in bloud to him that is or was for merly in possession And that such a one hath a right of succession from which God would not have him to be excluded appears by the almost universal practice of all Nations in all Ages and in all Places which Practice being every where and almost the same among those that in all things else differ so much from one another must needs proceed from some
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
last yet that which both of them agree in to be done first is the pulling down of us in order to the setting up of themselves afterwards And hence it is that the Papists who are much the cunninger Gamesters do make the Sectaries to play their Game for them by making as many divisions as they can amongst us to the end that dum singuli pugnant universi vincantur while we fight in single parties we may all the whole body of us be beaten and worsted And I pray God it prove not to be so at last In the mean time the aid and assistance which Mr. Baxter thinks we of the Church of England have from the Nonconformists for the inabling us to defend our selves against the common Enemy the Papists puts me in mind of what the ingenious Boccalini saith of Spain that when it was weighed by it self the weight that is the power wealth and strength thereof was very considerable but when they put the Kingdom of Naples first and then the Dutchy of Millain into the Scale thinking thereby to add much to the weightiness of the Spanish Monarchy they found it to be much lighter and the less considerable both in strength power and wealth than it was before And so no doubt the Church of England of it self alone would be more healthfull more strong more vigorous and every way more able than it is to preserve the Protestant Religion and to defend it self against Popery and all other heretical opposition or invasion from without if there were neither Presbyterians nor Independents nor Baxterians or any other Dissenters from it lurking in it who whilst they seem to be zealous to keep out Popery do effectually though not intentionally make way for the bringing of it in And therefore as a great Statesman in Queen Elizabeth's time was wont to say That England would be the best Island in the World if Scotland and Ireland were drown'd in the bottom of the Sea speaking I suppose of Scotland and Ireland as they then were the one at enmity with us and the other in rebellion against us and therefore that it would be better for us that they were not at all than to be so near in place to us and so far off in affection from us so may I say of the Church of England That as it is the best so it would be the happiest of all Churches in the Christian world if there were not so many tam propè tam procúlque nobis That are so near to us and so far off from us I mean so many among us that are not of us who have been and are and will be always thorns in our Eyes and goads in our Sides unless they be either wholly as the Irish Rebels were suppressed by us or of Enemies become our Friends as the Scotch are by being united to us and that not onely as the Scots are by becoming Subjects to the same King but Subject to the same Laws also The End of the Sixth Section THE CONCLUSION Wherein two possible Objections against the whole Design of this Writing are Answered Mr. Baxter 's Recantation examined his professions of Loyalty censured and his Way of Concord disapproved AND now having sufficiently and as I hope satisfactorily to all indifferent and impartial Readers justified what I have truly said of Mr. BAXTER in that Letter of mine with the Appendices thereunto so long ago Printed and vindicated my self from all those false and injurious reflections which in diverse passages of several of his Books he hath either plainly and directly or obscurely and obliquely made on me which was all I intended to do I should here make an end of giving my self or the World any more trouble did I not foresee that there might one or two Objections more de novo anew be made against me which I think I ought to prevent The former of which is That supposing I have sufficiently proved that Mr. Baxter did at the Conference at the Savoy assert and maintain what I in my long ago Printed and now reprinted Letter do affirm he did assert and maintain concerning things sinful by Accident yet seeing that since then he hath in a Treatise purposely written upon that subject declared himself to be otherwise minded than I say he was at that Conference I ought in Charity to have forborn upbraiding him with what he said then Whereunto I answer that the difference betwixt me and Mr. Baxter as to that particular being whether I had falsly charged him or no with what he had said at the aforesaid Conference as he in an Address to his Parishioners at Kidderminster pretends I had I was necessitated in mine own defence to prove I had not charged him falsly but that howsoever his mind be changed since he did then assert and maintain what I in my Sermon at Kidderminster did affirm he had asserted and maintained at that Conference as it was presently after that Conference attested in Print by the subscriptions of the now Bishops of Ely and Chester who were two of the three Disputants on our part and are yet God be thanked alive to confirm and justifie the truth of their Attestation if need be which hath never yet though it was Printed above 20 years ago been excepted against either by Mr. Baxter himself or by any of his Party and consequently is as good as acknowledged and confessed to be true And if that Attestation of theirs be true all that I affirm to have been asserted by Mr. Baxter of things sinful by Accident at that Conference must needs be true also whatsoever he hath said and published in any of his Books since to the contrary Which I take for a sufficient answer to the former of the aforesaid objections if any such shall be made by Mr. Baxter or by any other in his behalf hereafter Now as to the latter of the aforesaid Objections which I foresee may be made against me also and which is of much more moment than the former namely that it was uncharitably done of me to publish such a Collection of Mr. Baxter's Aphorisms against all Monarchies in general and this Monarchy of ours in particular as I did at first with that Letter of mine above 20 years since and much more uncharitably done of me now not only to reprint and publish those Aphorisms again with some others of the same kind out of the same forge but to aggravate the hainousness and dangerousness of them in relation to Kingly Government as I have done in this Book of mine to make him more and more odious to those that are in Power at present as one that is not only not to be suffered to Preach or Write but to Live in a Monarchy and all this after he hath disclaimed and recanted what he writ before and what I except against in those Aphorisms of his My answer therefore hereunto is 1. That Mr. Baxter having been silenced by me when I was