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.

The Attestation of Dr. Gunning and Dr. Pearson.

Concerning a Command of Lawful Superiours, what was sufficient to its being a lawful Command.

THis Proposition being brought by us, viz.

That Command which commands an Act in it self lawful, and no other act or circumstance unlawful, is not sinful.

Mr. Baxter denied it for two reasons which he gave in with his own hand in writing thus: One is, Because that may be a sin per accidens, which is not so in it self, and may be unlawfully commanded though that accident be not in the command. Another is, That it may be commanded under an unjust penalty.

Again this Proposition being brought by us,

That Command which commandeth an Act in it self lawful, and no o∣ther Act wherby any just penalty is injoyned, nor any circumstance whence per accidens any sin is consequent which the Commander ought to pro∣vide against, is not sinful.

Mr. Baxter denied it for this reason given in with his own hand in writing thus: Because the first Act commanded may be per accidens unlawful and be commanded by an unjust penalty, though no other Act or circumstance commanded be such.

Again this Proposition being brought by us,

That Command which commandeth an Act in it self lawful, and no o∣ther Act whereby any unjust penalty is injoyned. nor any circumstance whence directly or per accidens any sin is consequent▪ which the Com∣mander ought to provide against, hath in it all things requisite to the law∣fulness of a Command, and particularly cannot be guilty of commanding an Act per accidens unlawful, nor of commanding an Act under an un∣just penalty.

Mr. Baxter denied it upon the same Reasons.

Peter Cunning.

John Pearson.

The Postscript.

LEast Mr. Baxter should say I have defamed him once more, by charg∣ing him with devising and publishing Maxims of Treason, Sedition and Rebellion (which till he should as publiquely recant, I thought it un∣fit to restore him to the exercise of any act of the Ministry in my Diocess) I think my self obliged to set down some few of his political Theses or Aphorisms in his own words, as they are extant (though it be strange such a Book should still be extant) in his \[Holy Common-wealth\] most falsly and prophanely so called.

Mr. Baxter's Theses of Government and Governours in generall.

I GOvernours are some limited, some de facto unlimited: The un∣limited are Tyrants, and have no right to that unlimited Go∣vernment, P. 106. Thes. 101.

II. The 3. qualifications of necessity to the being of Soveraign Po∣wer are, 1. So much understanding, 2. So much will or goodness in himself, 3. So much strength or executive power by his interest in the People or others, as are necessary to the said ends of Government, P. 130. Thes. 133.

III. From whence he deduceth 3. Corollaries, (viz.)

• 1. When Providence depriveth a man of his understanding and intellectual Capacity, and that statedly or to his ordinary temper, it maketh him materiam indispositam and uncapable of Government, though not of the name. Thes. 135.
• 2. If God permit Princes to turn so wicked as to be uncapable of governing so as is consistent with the ends of Government, he permits them to depose themselves. Thes. 136.
• 3. If Providence statedly disable him that was the Soveraign from the executing of the Law, protecting the just, and other ends of Go∣vernment, it makes him an uncapable subject of the power, and so deposeth him. Thes. 137.

IV. Whereunto he subjoyns, that though it is possible and likely that the guilt is or may be theirs, who have disabled their Ruler by de∣serting him, yet he is dismissed and disobliged from the charge of

Government; and particular innocent members are disobliged from being Governed by him.

V. If the person (viz. the Soveraign) be justly dispossest, as by a lawful War, in which he loseth his right, especially if he violate the Constitution and end enter into a Military state against the People themselves, and by them be conquered, they are not obliged to re∣store him, unlesse there be some special obligation upon them besides their Allegiance. Thes. 145.

VI. If the person dispossess'd, though it were unjustly, do afterwards become uncapable of Government, it is not the Duty of his Subjects to seek his restitution. Thes. 146. No not although (saith he) the in∣capacity be but accidental, as if he cannot be restored but by Arms of the Enemies of God or of the Commonwealth.

VII. If an Army (of Neighbours, Inhabitants, or whoever) do (though injuriously) expel the Soveraign, and resolve to ruine the Commonwealth, rather then he shall be restored; and if the Com∣monwealth may prosper without his restauration, it is the Duty of such an injured Prince for the Common good to resign his Govern∣ment, and if he will not, the people ought to judge him as made un∣capable by Providence, and not to seek his restitution to the apparent ruine of the Commonwealth. Thes. 147.

Where by the way we are to note, he makes the people judge of this and all other incapacities of the Prince, and consequently when or for what he is to be Depos'd, or not Restored by them.

VIII. If therefore the rightful Governour be so long dispossess'd, that the Commonwealth can be no longer without, but to the apparent hazard of its ruine, we (that is, we the people, or we the Rebels that dispossess'd him) are to judge that Providence hath dispossess'd the former, and presently to consent to another. Thes. 149,

IX When the People are without a Governour, it may be the duty of such as have most strength, ex charitate, to protect the rest from injury. Thes. 150. and consequently they are to submit themselves to the Parliament, or to that Army which deposed or dispossess'd or mur∣dered the rightful Governour.

X. Providence by Conquest or other means doth use so to qualifie some persons above other for the Government when the place is void, that no other persons shall be capable competitors, and the persons (doth not he mean the Cromwells?) shall be as good as named by Providence, whom the People are bound by God to choose, or con∣sent to, so that they are usually brought under a divine obligation to submit to such or such, and take them for their Governours, before those persons have an actual right to Govern. Thes. 151.

XI. Any thing that is a sufficient sign of the will of God that this is the person, by whom we must be Governed is enough (as joyned to Gods Laws) to oblige us to consent and obey him as our Governour, Thes. 153.

XII. When God doth not notably declare any person or persons qualified above others, there the people must judge as well as they are able according to Gods general rules. Thes. 157.

XIII. And yet All the people have not this right of choosing their Governours, but commonly a part of every Nation must be com∣pelled to consent, &c.

XIV. Those that are known enemies of the Common Good in the chiefest parts of it, are unmeet to Govern or choose Governours, but such are multitudes of ungodly vicious men. Pag. 174. So that if those that are strongest (though fewest) call themselves the Godly Part∣ty, all others besides themselves are to be excluded from Governing or choosing of Governours. As amongst the ungodly that are to be thus exclu∣ded he reckons all those that will not hearken to their Pastors (he means the Preshyterian Classis) or that are despisers of the Lords-Day, that is, all such as are not Sabbatarians, or will not keep the Lords-Day after the Jewish manner, which they prescribe, and which is condemned for Judaism by all even of the presbyterian perswasion in the world, but those of England and Scotland only.

XV. If a People that by Oath and Duty are obliged to a Soveraign, shall sinfully dispossess him, and contrary to their Covenants, choose and Covenant with another, they may be obliged, by their latter Covenant notwithstanding their former; and particular subjects that consented not in the breaking of their former Covenants, may

yet be obliged by occasion of their latter choice to the person whom they choose. Thes. 181.

XVI. If a Nation injuriously deprive themselves of a worthy Prince, the hurt will be their own, and they punish themselves; but if it be necessarily to their welfare, it is no injury to him. But a King that by war will seek reparations from the body of the People, doth put himself into an hostile State, and tells them actually that he looks to his own good more then theirs, and bids them take him for their Enemy, and so defend themselves if they can. Pag. 424.

XVII. Though a Nation wrong their King, and so quoad Meritum causae, they are on the worser side, yet may he not lawfully war against the publick good on that account, nor any help him in such a war, because propter finem he hath the worser cause. Thes. 352.

And yet as he tells us (pag. 476.) we were to believe the Parliaments Declarations and Professions which they made, that the war which they raised was not against the King either in respect of his Authority, or of his Person; but only against Delinquent Subjects, and yet they actually fought against the King in person, and we are to believe (saith Mr. Baxter pag. 422.) that men would kill them whom they fight against.

Mr. Baxter's Doctrine concerning the 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.