Richard Baxter his account to his dearly beloved, the inhabitants of Kidderminster, of the causes of his being forbidden by the Bishop of Worcester to preach within his diocess with the Bishop of Worcester's letter in answer thereunto : and some short animadversions upon the said bishops letter.

Mr. Baxter's Doctrine concerning the Govern∣ment of England in particular.

HE denies the Government of England to be Monarchical in these words.

I, The real Soveraignty here amongst us was in King, Lords, and Commons. Pag. 72.

II. As to them that argue from the Oath of Supremacy and title given the King, I refer them (saith Mr. Baxter) to Mr. Lawson's answer to Hobb's Politicks, where he sheweth that the Title is often given in the single Person for the honour of the Commonwealth and his encouragement, because he hath an e∣minet interest, but will not prove the whole Soveraignty to be in him: and the Oath excludeth all others from without, not those whose interest is implied as conjunct with his—The eminent dignity and interest of the King above others allowed the name of a Monarchy or Kingdome to the Common wealth, though in∣deed the Soveraignty was mixed in the hands of Lords and Com∣mons. pag. 88.

III. He calls it a false supposition. 1. That the Soveraign power was onely in the King, and so that it was an absolute Monarchy. 2. That the Parliament had but onely the proposing of Laws, and that they were enacted onely by the Kings Authority upon their re∣quest. 3. That the power of Armes, and of Warre and peace was in the King alone. And therefore (saith he) those that argue from these false suppositions, conclude that the Parliament being Subjects, may not take up Arms without him, and that it is Rebellion to resist him; and most of this they gather from the Oath of Supremacy, and from the Parliaments calling of themselves his Subjects; but their ground (saith he) are sandy, and their superstructure false, pag. 459 & 460.

And therefore Mr. Baxter tells us, That though the Parliament are Subjects in one capacity, yet have they their ptrt in the Soveraignty also in their higher capacity, Ibid. And upon this false and trayterous supposition he endeavours to justifie the late Rebellion, and his own more then ordinary activeness in it. For,

IV. Where the Soverainty (saith he) is distributed into several hands (as the Kings and Parliaments) and the King invades the o∣thers part, they may lawfully defend their own by war, and the Sub∣ject lawfully assist them, yea though the power of the Militia be ex∣presly given to the King, unlesse it be also exprest that it shall not be in the other. Thes. 363.

The conclusion (saith he) needs no proof, because Soveraignty,

as such, hath the power of Arms and of the Laws themselves. The Law that saith the King shall have the Militia, supposeth it to be against Ene∣mies, and not against the Common-wealth, nor them that have part of the Soveraignty with him. To resist him here is not to resist power but usurpation and private will; in such a case the Parliament is no more to be resisted than he. Ibid.

V. If the King raise War against such a Parliament upon their Decla∣ration of the dangers of the Common-wealth, the people are to take it as raised against the Common-wealth. Thes. 358.

And in that case (saith he) the King may not only be resisted, but ceaseth to be a King, and entreth into a state of War with the people. Thes. 368.

VI. Again, if a Prince that hath not the whole Soveraignty, be conque∣red by a Senate that hath the other part, and that in a just defensive War, that Senate cannot assume the whole Soveraignty, but supposeth that Go∣vernment in specie to remain, and therefore another King must be cho∣sen, if the former be incapable. (Thes. 374.) as he tells us, he is, by ceasing to be King, in the immediately precedent Thes.

VII. And yet in the Preface to this Book he tells us that the King with∣drawing (so he calls the murdering of one King, and the casting off of ano∣ther) the Lords and Commons ruled alone; was not this to change the species of the Government? Which in the immediate words before he had af∣firmed to be in King, Lords and Commons; which constitution (saith he) we were sworn, and sworn, and sworn again, to be faithful to, and to defend. And yet speaking of that Parliament which contrary to their Oaths changed this Government by ruling alone, and taking upon them the Supremacy, he tells us that they were the best Governours in all the world, and such as it is forbid∣den to Subjects to depose upon pain of damnation.

What then was he that deposed them? one would think Mr. Baxter should have called him a Traytor, but he calls him in the same Preface, the Lord Protector, adding, That he did prudently, piously, faithfully, and to his immortal honour exercise the Government, which he left to his Son, to whom (as Mr. Baxter saith pag. 481.) he is bound to submit as set over us by God; and to obey for conscience sake, and to hehave himself as a Loyal Subject towards him, because (as he saith in the same place) a full and free Parliament had owned him: thereby implying, That a maimed and manacled House of Commons, without King and Lords, and notwithstand∣ing the violent expulsion of the secluded Members, were a full and free Par∣liament; and consequently that if such a Parliament should have taken Arms against the King, he must have sided with them. Yea, though they had been never so much in fault, and though they had been the beginners of the

War, for he tells us in plain and expresse terms,

VIII. That if he had known the Parliament had been the beginners of the War, and in most fault, yet the ruine of the Trustees and Representa∣tives, and so of all the security of the Nation, being a punishment greater than any faults of theirs against the King could deserve from him, their faults could not dis-oblige him (meaning himself) from defending the Common-wealth▪ Pag. 480.

And that he might do this lawfully, and with a good Conscience, he seems to be so confident, that in his Preface, he makes as it were a challenge, saying; that if any man can prove that the King was the highest power in the time of those Divisions, and that he had power to make that War which he made, he will offer his head to Justice as a Rebel.

As if in those times of Division the King had lost or forfeited his Sove∣raignty, and the Parliament had not only a part, but the whole Soveraignty in themselves.

IX. Finally Mr. Baxter tells us, pag. 486. That having often searched into his heart; whether he did lawfully engage into the War or not, and whether he did lawfully encourage so many thousands to it; he tells us, I say, that the issue of all his search was but this,—That he cannot yet see that he was mistaken in the main cause, nor dares he repent of it, not forbear doing the same, if it were to do again in the same state of things. He tells us indeed in the same place, that if he could be convinced he had sinned in this matter, he would as gladly make a publick recantation, as he would eat or drink: which seeing he hath not yet done, it is evident he is still of the same mind, and consequently would upon the same occasion do the same things, viz. fight, and encourage as many thousands as he could to fight against the King, for any thing that calls it self, or which he is pleased to call a full and free Parliament: as likewise that he would own and submit to any Usurper of the Soveraignty, as set up by God, although he came to it by the murder of his Master, and by trampling upon the Parliament. Lastly, That he would hinder as much as possibly he could, the restoring of the rightful Heir unto the Crown. And now whether a man of this Judgement, and of these affections, ought to be permitted to Preach or no, let any, but himself, judge.

Notes

• He might have refer'd them to himself, pag. 460. where he gives the same answer to the same objection.
• Vid. Preface to the Holy Com∣mon wealth. pag. 6.