The English nonconformity as under King Charles II and King James II truly stated and argued by Richard Baxter ; who earnestly beseecheth rulers and clergy not to divide and destroy the land and cast their own souls on the dreadful guilt and punishment of national perjury ...

CHAP. LIV. POINT XI. Of Swearing an Abhorrence of taking Arms against any Commis∣sionated by the KING. (Book 54)

M.

THis also I have said enough of in the Case of the XI. Ministers, and told you that we are far from scru∣pling it in Disloyalty; but in Loyalty, only, 1. Lest the Keepers of the Seals may by Commissions depose the King, or deliver up the Kingdom to whom they please. 2. Because the Authority of a Commission, as above, and against the King's own Law, is not a matter that Lawyers and Judges themselves are agreed of, and therefore unfit for the unskilful Vulgar to determine by their Oath.

L.

The end is but to secure your Loyalty.

M.

The End is one thing, and the Means another: We are ready to give better security of our Loyalty than this, which I before intimated to you.

Do you think in your Conscience that all the Souldiers in En∣gland, and all the Corporation-Officers, and entrusted Persons, and all the Vestry-men, and all the Ministers are so well skill'd

in Politicks and Law, above Bishop Bilson, Grotius, Barclay, and all the Tribes of Learned Lawyers, Casuists, Canonists, Phi∣losophers, &c. before named, as that they can take such an Oath in Truth, Iudgment, and Righteousness? Swearing Alle∣giance, and renouncing Rebellion, is easily known to be every Subjects Duty. But to unty knotty Controversies in Law, is sure above every vulgar Brain.

Why was not this way found out to prevent all the Civil Wars in the days of the two Williams, of Stephen, of Henry the 1st. and 3d. of K. Iohn, of Edward 2d. of Richard 2d. of Henry 4th. and Edward 4th. and Henry 6th. and Richard 3d. and to prevent the Insurrections in the days of Q. Mary, and Q. Elizabeth? Why do they not this way decide all the Contro∣versies at Liege, Colen, &c. to make the People determine them by Oath?

All Politicks agree that the Difference between near Subjects and Slaves, is, that the former have propriety which none can take from them, but by their Consent, at least in their Wives, Children, and Lives; and that Slaves have none such, nor may resist a Commission to take them away, though causlesly, and Laws are there but the Will of the Lord, who may cross them at his pleasure; and that a Ruler of Subjects, and an Owner of Slaves thus differ. Now if it be a Controversy, Whether the English be meer Subjects or Slaves, the ignorant Vulgar are no fit Judges to decide it, and that by Oath?