CHAP. I.

AND now one would have thought that being so lately delivered from so base and * shameful as well as heavy and grievous a Bondage, we should not so soon have forgotten what we suffered under a Succession of various Tyrannies, nor so soon have been weary of our Quails and Manna, as to be so desirous, as many of us seem to be, to return to the same, or per∣haps (if it be possible) to a worse Bondage than that they were under before; and to that end Page  394 there be some that do as good as say one to another, as that rebellious backsliding and ever-murmur∣ing Generation of the Jews did; Let us us make us a*Captain, and let us return into Egypt.

And why so? why so soon so weary of well-being? Is there any Nation under heaven in a * better, nay in so good a condition as we are? Are not we the only People of Europe that are in Peace, when all our Neighbours are in War with one another? Doth not every one of us from the highest to the lowest enjoy the Liberty of his per∣son, the Propriety of his gooods, and the fruit of his Industry, without having any of it without his own consent taken away from him? So that if ever it might be said of any, it may now most emphatically be said of us; Happy are the people that are in such a case.

Yes! may some men say, if we were sure to continue always as we are; but we are afraid we * shall not; we are afraid of Popery, we are afraid of Arbitrary Government, which may take away all we have from us, that is or ought to be dear to us.

But why should we fear, where no fear is? Is not our Religion, our Liberty, and our Properties* secured unto us by the Laws? and by such Laws as can never be repealed but by our own consents? Did not such a needless fear as this make us rebell against our late Gracious Soveraign Lord the King, and by that Rebellion make our fellow Sub∣jects, nay the basest and vilest and meanest of our fellow Subjects, to be Lords over us? And if ever we come into such a slavery, or any Page  395 slavery at all again, it must be by such a Rebellion produced by such a pretended fear, or by a Fo∣reign Invasion invited by our divisions amongst our selves, that must be the cause of it.

Never was there a better Constitution of a Govern∣ment than ours is; nor ever was there better se∣curity * for the keeping of it as it is, than we have. Never were there Subjects that had more and greater, or so many and great Priviledges as * the Subjects of England have; neither do our Kings deny them to be of right due unto them, as appears by the late Kings answer to the Peti∣tion of Right; but due unto them not by capitu∣lations and contracts with them, before they were Subjects; but either by Donations or by Concessi∣ons of our Kings to them, when they were and as they were their Subjects.

Neither is it denied, but that the People now have and of right ought to have Representa∣tives*in Parliament of their own choosing: But that this was not nor could not be always so, and that it was by the Kings meer Grace and favour when it first began to be so, appears by what I have already observed concerning the first Parliament (properly so called) here in England, instituted by Henry the first, and as Daniel (one of the most judicious of our English Historians) tells us, after the manner of Normandy.

But that ever since it hath bin so I deny not neither; namely, that the People have had, have, and ought to have such Representatives in Parliament of their own choosing, but to represent them, not as they were (no body knows when) Page  396 as Freemen before they had Kings or were under any Government at all, but as they are now and have been ever since, and were long before there were Parliaments, I mean as Subjects, and con∣sequently such as Mr. Baxter confesseth have no other lawful way of redressing their Grievances, if they have any (though never so great or so many) but their Representatives complaining and petitioning the King for the relief of them; and * that either by desiring him to put the Laws in execution, already made in favour of them (as they did in the late Kings time by the Petition of Right) or to Enact (if need be) new Laws for explanation and confirmation of the old ones, or to punish those, by whom the Legal Rights and Priviledges of the People have been Violated. All this I grant the Peoples Representatives in Par∣liament may, and if there be cause for it ought to do, and that not as they are the Peoples Repre∣sentatives only but their Trustees also: nay and * more than this, namely, not to promote or give their consent to the making of any such Laws as may be prejudicial to the publick, though they may seem to gratify, or may seem to be service∣able to the People; nor to hinder the passing of such Acts as are really for the Peoples good, though perhaps to the Major, that is, the most un∣wise and least judicious part of the People them∣selves, they may seem to be otherwise. And therefore their Representatives and Trustees as they are to consent or dissent, so are they to judge for them what is or what is not to be consented to by them in behalf of them. They are not always Page  397 the best Husbands for the People that are most sparing of their Purses; especially when the refusing to part with some may hazard the loss of all. Neither is every thing that is got from the King, a gain to the Subjects; for the King's power may be too little to protect, as well as too great, to oppress them; and according to the present conjuncture, the former is much more to be feared than the latter: And therefore the best service that can be done for the People by their Representatives in Parliament is to keep the Balance even betwixt the Prerogatives of the Sove∣raign and the Priviledges of the Subject, by not * indeavouring to intrench upon the one or to en∣hance the other, but always and above all things to remember that as they are themselves Subjects, so they are Representatives of Subjects, and Trustees for Subjects, as they are Subjects; and therefore are not to treat the King as if they were Coordinate or Copartners with him in the Sove∣raignty: but as it becomes Subjects and the Repre∣sentatives of Subjects, and such as have the ho∣nour of being there in that capacity, and have the liberty of promoting or hindring the Laws that are to be made for those they represent, from the meer Grace and Favour and Goodness of the King and his Predecessors; and therefore the King is not by them, nor by those they represent, to be esteemed to be less a King, or less their King, or less their Soveraign, than he was before; no * more than a Father is less a Father or hath less the Authority of a Father, the kinder and more in∣dulgent he is unto his Children; or a HusbandPage  398 hath less of the Authority of a Husband the kind∣er or more indulgent he is to his Wife.

And therefore it is well and prudently observed * by Grotius, first, Non desinere summum esse im∣perium, etiamsi is qui imperaturus est, promittat aliqua*subditis aut Deo, etiam talia quae ad Imperii rationem pertineant.

And therefore (Se∣condly) he observes likewise that, Multùm fal∣luntur qui existimant, cùm Reges Acta quaedam sua*nolunt rata esse, nisi à senatu aut alio coetu aliquo probentur, partitionem fieri potestatis. Mark that, Mr. Baxter, and tell me whether any thing can be more apparently * contradictory to your Main Principle of the Soveraignty's being divided, betwixt our Kings and their Parliaments, and to the main and only reason you give for it, namely, that our Kings do not, (or, if you will, cannot) make Laws for the People without their Parliaments, or with∣out the Peoples Representatives in Parliament consent to them. For the only reason why they * cannot is, because they have obliged themselves by promise to their People and by Oath to God Page  399 at their Coronation, that they will not. For ab initio non fuit sic, from the beginning of our English Monarchy it was not so, as I have at large shewed, and as I have proved likewise that this and all other Priviledges of the People had their beginning from the bounty and goodness of our Kings to their People, when they were their Subjects; and not from any bargain or contract of the People, before they were Subjects, with any of their Kings, as Mr. Baxter fondly as well as falsly imagins, without any proof or offer of proof out of any of our Historians or Records for it. Whereas the truth is, that all our Kings, except the Brittish (of whom we know nothing of certainty,) I mean all our Kings of the Saxon, Danish and Norman Races, coming in by Con∣quest, were not only Monarchs, but Despotical Mo∣narchs, that is, such as governed arbitrarily with∣out any Laws at all but that of their own will and pleasure; or by such Laws as they made with or by the advice of such as they thought fit to advise with, which were never any of the common People, or any Representatives for them, until after the Norman Conquest. And then indeed the Despotical began to be a Political Monarchy by *Henry the first's constituting of such a Parliament as we now have; and by his Successors granting and confirming the Great Charter, and by all of their obliging themselves successively to continue to the People the Priviledges granted unto them by that Charter; and to govern by such Laws as have been made by their Predecessors, or shall be made by themselves with the consent of the Page  400 Peoples Representatives in Parliament. By these Grants I say and concessions and condescensions of our former Kings, and by the confirmation of them by their Successors &c. the Monarchy which was at first Despotical, is become Political, being changed from an absolute and arbitrary to a regu∣lated and Legal Government; yet so as it is still a Monarchy; that is, it is still, the Government of one over all, and one who is accountable to * none under God; which are the only essentials requisite to the constituting of Monarchy; the Governing Arbitrarily or Legally, with, or without Laws, being but Accidentals to it only.

CHAP. II.

NO more is the subordinate Managery of it in such a manner as may seem to have something of Aristocracy or Democracy mingled with it, which, saith Grotius, was the cause of Polybius his Error; Qui ad mixtum genus reipub.*refert Romanam rempub. quae illo tempore, si non actiones ipsas, sed jus agendi respicimus, merè fuit Page  401 popularis.

Grotius therefore, what he saith of the error of Polybius in judging the Ro∣man to have been a mixed Commonwealth when it was not, will have it be understood of all those Writers of Politicks, who upon the same grounds are mistaken, as Polybius was. For idem de alio∣rum Politica scribentium sententiis (saith Grotius)*dictum volo, qui magis externam speciem & quotidi∣anam administrationem, quàm jus ipsum summi Im∣perii spect are congruens ducunt suo instituto. What I said of Polybius, saith he, (that is) to the derogating from the Supreme Power of Monarchy, either by imbasing it with the mixture of some less noble species of Government with it, or to weaken and enfeeble it by dividing of it. For what other can be the meaning of these words of Grotius than this, either as they are in the Text, or in relation to the context? And if this be his meaning, what could he have said more pertinently to prove the Government here * in England to be a mere Monarchy, and conse∣quently the Soveraignty to be wholly in one person, not withstanding any thing Mr. Baxter hath said or any man else can say to the contrary.

And that it is not now, as it was at first, an absolute arbitrary and Despotical, but a regulated legal and Political Monarchy we owe to the meer grace and favour of our Kings; and I wish that as it was gratia gratis data, a grace freely given, on their parts; so it may be gratia gratos faciens, a grace that may make us grateful, on our parts also.

And certainly it would be so, if the Subjects of England did but know or would but consider * in how much more happy a condition they are or may be if they will, (and would be if it were not for their seditious Preachers) than any other Subjects in the World are, or ever were, I had almost said or indeed can be, under what Govern∣ment soever, if they be not situated as we are: Because no Government upon the Continent can be safe from being suddenly invaded and over-run by its confining Neighbours, if he or they that Page  403 have the Supreme Power be not enabled to raise such Forces and Mony to pay them without staying for the advice or consent of his or their Subjects, as may be sufficient to defend them from their Enemies, and which being raised may be made use of for the oppressing of their Sub∣jects: Whereas we being Islanders intrenched and surrounded by the Ocean, and consequently not being in danger of being suddenly surprized and over-run by any from abroad, our Kings have obliged themselves to raise no Mony (without which no formidable Forces can be raised and maintained) by any Taxes or Impositions upon their Subjects without their own consent in Par∣liament, thereby securing both the liberty of their Persons, and Property of their Goods unto them, and that they shall never be put to any charge but for the necessary defence of themselves, and for their own safety and welfare, as well as for the Honour of the King and their Country.

This, together with many other Priviledges which the Subjects of this Kingdom have above * all other Subjects in the World that I know or ever heard of, made me presume (when I was One of the four first that was appointed to preach to the House of Commons of the Long Parliament in the late King's time) to tell them and to en∣deavour to prove unto them that the Constituti∣ons both of Church and State, as they were here by Law established (abstracting from the ill managery which might be in either through the faults or frailties of some particular men) were both of them the best in their kind that were in Page  404 the Christian World: that of the State for the reasons before specified, and that of the Church because it was the only Church (now extant) that professed and maintain'd both the Apostolick Doctrine and Apostolical Government: All other Christian Churches in the World, East, West, North, and South, failing either in the one or in the o∣ther, or both of them; and besides, because the Government of our Church was more agreeable with Monarchy, and with such a Monarchy as ours is, than either Popery, or Presbytery, or Independen∣cy is, or any other that can be devised by the wit of Man is or can be. And therefore I did hope they would not think of making any change or alteration in the legal and fundamental Consti∣tution either of Church or State, but only to re∣ctifie what they should find to be otherwise than according to the legal Constitution it ought to be in either of them, by causing the Laws of the one and the Canons of the other to be put in ex∣ecution. This I say I presumed to preach to the then House of Commons, as fearing there were many amongst them that were given to change, though not such and so horrible a change as they made afterwards both in the Church and State: For truly could I have foreseen, and had told any of their Grandees then (though it had been Cromwel himself) as the Prophet Elisha told Ha∣zael that he and those that joyn'd with him should do such things as afterwards he did, he would I believe have answered me as Hazael did the Prophet, What, do you think I am a Dog, that I should do such horrible and barbarous Page  405 things as you speak of? And yet both of them I mean Hazael and Cromwel did such things after∣wards; so dangerous a thing it is to leave the Road and to wander in by-paths: For as Grotius well observes, Verissimum illud, omnia incerta esse simul ac à jure recessum est: No man knows whi∣ther he is going when he is once out of the right way, nor whither the Devil may drive him, when he will not be led by Gods direction. And there∣fore I concluded, that in my humble opinion the best and wisest prayer that any could make unto God in the behalf of this Church and State, was, that if either of them had swerved from what it was or ought to be according to its legal consti∣tution, it might be reduced to its right frame and temper according to the standard; and that never Alteration or Innovation might be made in the fundamental constitution of either of them.

And this Declaration I thought my self obliged in conscience to make, though I knew well e∣nough that many of my Auditors would be dis∣pleased with it, as indeed they were, as I found by their usage of me afterwards, though then it was too early to make any shew of it; and there∣fore I was presented with a Piece of Plate with this Inscription, Donum Populi Anglicani, as the other first three Preachers were, but not desired, as they were, to print my Sermon.

I repeat this matter of fact to let the World * know that, though I was then by some thought and said to be a Puritan, as I am now by others thought and said to be a Papist, I was then, and Page  406 ever had been, as I am now; and am now as I was then, and by the grace of God ever will be, a true Son of the CHƲRCH of ENGLAND, as it was then and is now by Law established; and consequently a loyal Subject to the King, whatsoever either Papists or Presbyterians may think, or rather make others believe they think of me. I am sure mine own conscience bears me witness, that I was always what I pretended my self to be, and all that knew me heretofore, and do know me now (whether Protestants, Pa∣pists or Presbyterians) will I am confident bear me witness that I was always as I am now both in judgment and practice, in relation both to the Secular Government of the State and the Ecclesiastical Government of the Church, and to the Monarchical Government over them both.

Over them both I say; for there being two main parts or members of every Body Politick, and * consequently of Monarchy (especially amongst Christians) namely the State Civil and the State Ecclesiastical; if both these Parts or States of the Body Politick be not governed in chief by one and the same Person, they cannot be said to be parts or members of the same Monarchy.

Page  407

CHAP. III.

BOth these States are not nor cannot be gover∣ned by one and the same Person, where the * State Ecclesiastical or Government of the Church is either Popish or Presbyterian, because the State Ecclesiastical, if it be Popish, will be governed in chief by none but the Pope; and if it be Presby∣terian (Presbyterian I mean in the heighth, as it was in Scotland, and would have been in En∣gland) it will be governed in chief by none but it self; the one, to wit Popery, introducing a∣nother Soveraign; and the other, to wit Pres∣bytery, introducing another Soveraignty into the same body Politick, and consequently they are both of them destructive unto Monarchy.

Neither can a Prince be Soveraign so much as in civilibus, in civil affairs, as long as another besides himself (either abroad or at home) doth claim and exercise a Soveraignty over the same Subjects, though it be but in Ecclesiasticis, in Church-affairs only.

Because those that pretend to a Soveraign Po∣wer in Ecclesiasticals, (as indeed both the Con∣clave and the National Synod do pretend) must Page  408 needs pretend likewise to a Soveraign Power of judging what is Ecclesiastical, and consequently by affirming what they please to be Ecclesiastical, they may govern how they please even in those things that are meerly Civil also.

So that supposing two distinct Supreme Judi∣catories, one Civil and the other Ecclesiastical in * the same Body Politick or in the same Kingdom, (as there must needs be, if the Government of the Church be either Popish or Presbyterian) there cannot choose but be perpetual clashing betwixt those two Jurisdictions and the abettors of them, the one continually either affronting and under∣mining, or being affronted and undermined by the other.

And then let it be considered how the People in the mean time (who in several respects must be supposed to be equally subject to them both) must needs in case of contrary commands (there being no Appeal from the one unto the other) be distra∣cted and confounded betwixt them both; it be∣ing impossible (as Christ himself tells us) for a man to serve two Masters, of the which one is not sub∣ordinate unto the other; and as impossible like∣wise it is (as the same Christ tells us) for a King∣dom divided within it self, and consequently against it self (as every Kingdom having two Soveraign Powers in it at the same time must needs be) to stand, that is, to continue firm and stable with∣out falling at one time or other into such terrible Convulsions of Schisms, Factions and Seditions, as will finally bring it to Dissolution.

Page  409 Many sad Instances of this truth we read of in * our Chronicles whilst the usurped and exercised Ecclesiastical Supremacy in this Kingdom was in the Papacy, but none so sad, as those we our selves have seen and felt of late, whilst the Presbytery exercised in Scotland, and in England laid claim to, the same power. For indeed Popery and Pres∣bytery (though they look divers ways with their Heads;) yet they are tied together like Samson's Foxes by their Tayles, carrying the same Fire∣brands of combustion, wheresoever they come, I mean the same Principles of Sedition and Re∣bellion against Soveraign Princes and Estates, if they will not be ruled by them.

And therefore as our Kings Predecessors, to re∣deem themselves and their People from the slave∣ry * of the Papacy, did wisely and couragiously drive out Popery; so it is not to be doubted but his Ma∣jesty that now is, to prevent the same or a worse bondage to the Consistory, will with the same wis∣dom and courage keep out the Presbytery; as be∣ing 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 Presby∣tery to be predominant here amongst us, having had so sensible an experience formerly of the onePage  410 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 establi∣shed amongst our selves: a Government pretend∣ing 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 law∣ful 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 re∣gard of his Intellectuals, or his Morals, or his Re∣ligion) in any case, upon any pretence, or upon any provocation whatsoever: Finally, such a Go∣vernment 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 conse∣quently 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 char∣ging 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 Page  411Insurrection at home in defence of it; which can∣not 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 quiet∣ly 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 perpe∣tuating 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 Pul∣pits; 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,〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 Page  412 own Lusts, and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having mens Persons in admiration because of advantage. Whereunto, to compleat the Cha∣racter of them, he adds, These he they that se∣parate 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 Se∣paratists 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 sepa∣rate: 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 especi∣ally speaking evil of Dignities, and covetousness, and every other inordinate or immoderate Affe∣ction 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 ap∣propriating the Spirit unto it self, and being so * divided as they are both in Doctrine and WorshipPage  413 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 Ʋnity, 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 Be∣lievers 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 out of them, that seem to be possessed with him (which is above all things to be wished and prayed for) or those that are so possest be kept from infecting others by teaching and printing with that intolera∣ble licence as they do, and have done for so many years together, we are not to expect to be long without another Civil War; and whether the ef∣fects of that will not be as bad or worse than the former, no man can tell: I am sure we are not al∣ways to expect miracles; I mean such a miracu∣lous deliverance as we have once had from so ma∣ny several sorts of arbitrary and Tyrannical Go∣vernments as that War brought us to, or rather as we our selves brought our selves to, by that Re∣bellion, and as such a rebellion as that was may, and nothing but such a rebellion as that was can (pro∣bably and humanely speaking) bring us to again.

Page  414

CHAP. IV.

FOR the preventing whereof, why should not * we follow the example of the Scots in that which is good, as well as we did follow their ex∣ample in that which was evil? We took such a Covenant as they did, in order to the making and helping us to make such a War against our King and theirs, as they did, and for the alteration of the Government and Religion established by Law in both Kingdoms. And why should not we make such a Law as they have now made for the preservation of their Government and Religion, as it is now by Law established amongst them? why should not we, I say, make such a Law for the maintenance and preservation of the Government and Religion established by Law amongst Ʋs al∣so? * I mean such a Law, whereby all Men are dis∣abled * and made uncapable of any Office or Place of Power and Trust, either Military or Civil or Ecclesiastical; as likewise of being chosen them∣selves, or of choosing others, to be Members of Parliament, as will not take such a Test and OathPage  415 as they have taken in Scotland; that is, never to give their consent to the Alteration either of the Religion or of the Government either in Church or State, as it is there by Law established. Such a Law as this, and no worldly means but such a Law as this, will secure us and our Posterity from all that we fear or pretend to be afraid of; especially from Arbitrary Government and Popery, and from Presbytery too. For the Heir of the Crown may be a Presbyterian, or an Independent, or an Antino∣mian,* or an Anabaptist, or a Socinian, and may be every whit as great a Zealot and as much a Bigot in any of those perswasions, as any Papist can be in his; and consequently be as zealous and indu∣strious to promote, bring in, and set up his Reli∣gion for the Only or at least for the Predominant, Religion of the State, as any Papist can be to bring in Popery; and consequently to suppress all of any other perswasion but his own, and that perhaps with as bloody a persecution as ever any Papist did, when he hath as much power to do it.

Of this One of the Sects hath given us proof more than enough already, I mean the Presbyteri∣ans, who for the setting up of their Dagon instead of the Ark of God, and for the abolishing of Mo∣narchy in the State as well as Episcopacy in the *Church, entred into that Antichristian League and Covenant with the Scots, whereby both Na∣tions were ingaged in a bloody War with and a∣gainst one another, of which the execrable effects, as no Act of Oblivion can ever make to be forgot∣ten, so can they never be remembred without Page  416 horror, nor indeed should be remembred without detestation of the procatarctical or promoting causes of it; of which the most principal and most energetical was that Presbyterian Solemn League and Covenant, for the setting up that Idol of theirs, the Presbyterian Government; for which they were so peremptorily and pertinaciously zea∣lous and ambitious, that in all their Treaties with the late King, one of the conditions of Peace al∣ways was the abolishing of Episcopacy, and setting up Presbytery instead of it; without consenting whereunto, and without taking of the Covenant, as the Scotch Presbyterians did refuse the late King, so the English Presbyterians would, if they might have had their will, have refused the present King to reign over them; as might be made ap∣pear by the Consultation had amongst the Gran∣dees of that Party to that purpose, till they found * it would be in vain to stand upon such terms, the Noble and never to be forgotten General, the late Duke of Albemarle, being resolved to bring in the King as a King, without condition; and therefore as well for that, as for his whole most prudent as well as loyal and couragious Conduct in that great affair, I think that which was said of Fa∣bius Maximus, may be as properly and truly veri∣fied of him.

That is, One Man by his wary conduct hath restored our State and welfare.

And I wish it were engraven in Golden Letters upon his Tomb, ad sempiternam rei memoriam, for an everlasting Memorial.

Page  417 But to return unto what I was speaking of; what I have said already is enough to prove, that a Presbyterian Heir of the Crown would do what * he could to bring in and set up the Presbyterian Government, (which can no more consist with Monarchy in the State, than it can with Episcopacy in the Church) and make us all Presbyterians; as well as a Po•ish Heir would to bring in Popery, and to make us all Papists. And that they would not suffer any that would not conform to them and comply with them is evident, not only by what they did against us, that were as they call'd us Cavaliers and Malignants, but against their own Brethren in Iniquity, the Independents and all the rest of the Sectaries, their Fellow-Rebels against the King, and Companions in Arms against Us; all of whom they would have suppressed as well as they did Us, if it had been in their power to do so; as appears by their Books, Sermons and Ad∣dresses to that (which they call'd a Parliament) against them.

And what the Presbyterians did against us, and would have done against the Independents by the Parliament, the Independents did against them by the Army. And so no doubt would any other of the Schismatical Parties have done against all the rest that were not of their perswasion, if they had got the power into their hands.

But none of them (may some of their Friends * say) would have been so cruel as the Papists, who hold it not only lawful but meritorious to put Hereticks, that is, all that are not Papists, to death.

Page  418 Did not the Presbyterians and Independents, and the 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 Evange∣lium 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 possessi∣ons 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 Indepen∣dents. And whether they would not have pro∣ceeded * 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 Here∣ticks 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 Idola∣ters, 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 Page  419 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 be∣cause they were not so well setled in their Domi∣nion, as to think it safe for them to proceed so far. The Church of Rome her self did not at first pro∣ceed 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 po∣wer 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 pro∣fess at first that it was not lawful for them to de∣fend either their Goods or their Lives, though ne∣ver so injuriously threatned or attempted to be ta∣ken away from them by any, though not their Su∣periors, 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 Page  420 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 A∣nabaptists (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 Philoso∣phical Christians (I mean the Socinians) themselves, how much soever they seem for the present to dis∣like 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 propa∣gating of their kind by natural Generation.

CHAP. V.

SUpposing therefore (but not granting) the pre∣sent *Heir of the Crown to be a Papist; as I will not deny but that he may (as long as he continues Page  421 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 Re∣ligion than that established by Law, and conse∣quently 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 So∣cinianism 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 establi∣shed Religion in the Church, and probably of the established Government in the State also. Which I confess to be a thing of such dangerous conse∣quence, that it ought to be prevented and provi∣ded against by any lawful effectual Means* that can be made use of to that purpose; especi∣ally 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 alte∣ration 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.

Page  422 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 Principle common to them * all; and what can that be but the Law of Nature? and what is the Law of Nature but the Law of God himself written in mens hearts?

And therefore it was according to this Law (before there was any positive Law of God or Man in the case) that Jacob in blessing of his Children * before his death did acknowledge Reuben's right of Primogeniture, by saying that his was the excel∣lency of dignity and the excellency of power, because * he was his first-born, if he had not forfeited it by defiling his Father's Bed, and consequently by committing Incest as well as Adultery, crimes pu∣nishable by death, even in those days; as appears by Judah's condemning his Daughter-in-Law Thamar to be burnt, supposing her to have been an Adulteress. And it was for a crime punish∣able Page  423 by death also, that Simeon and Levi the two next eldest Sons of Jacob lost the priviledge of their Birth-right also; namely for being guilty of the horrible murder of the Inhabitants of the whole City of Shechem. And thus the dignity of Excellency and the dignity of Power came to be the Inheritance of Judah, Jacob's fourth Son, because the three Elder Brothers had forfeited their Right thereunto by being guilty of such Crimes as were punishable by death: which guilt of theirs being given by their Father Jacob as a reason why, or cause for which they were disinherited; from thence we may infer, first, that naturally or ac∣cording to the Law of Nature the Eldest; and con∣sequently the next in bloud hath a right to inherit before those that are younger, or those that are farther off: And (2dly) That they are not to be *excluded from that right of theirs, but for some very great crime, or unless God, who disposeth of all things as he pleaseth, do prefer the younger be∣fore the elder, as he did Jacob before Esau, Ephraim before Manasses, and David the youngest before all his elder Brethren; though Isaac, and Joseph, and Samuel himself seem to wonder why he did so, it being contrary to the dictates of Nature and the general practice of all Mankind; and contrary to the general Positive Law of God himself also * concerning the descent of Inheritances from Fa∣ther to Son; and if he have no Son, to his Daugh∣ters, and if he have no Daughters to his nearest Kinsman of his Family, as is set down at large, Numb. 27. from Verse the 8th. to the 12th. com∣pared with Deuteronomy the 21. v. 16. where it is Page  424 said that if a Man have a younger Son by a Wife that he loves better than he loved her by whom he had his eldest Son, he shall not make the Son of his beloved Wife the first-born, (that is, his Heir) before the Son of the Wife whom he hated, who is indeed the first-born or indeed his eldest, and therefore indeed and in right his Heir: which right it seems by the Text his Father could not deprive him of or take from him, unless he were so rebellious and incorrigible as that he was to be stoned by the People and put to death for it, as may be gathered from the Verses immediately following in the aforesaid Chapter. So that it seems it was not by the Positive Law of God, in the power of the Father to deprive his eldest Son of his Birth right for any thing less than would deprive him of his Life; neither was a younger Son to be preferr'd before the eldest, as to the Prerogatives of Birth-right, because he was a better Man or a better Son; because the Preroga∣tive of Birth-right was not founded in Grace, but in Nature; and therefore though Cain was grace∣less and impious, and Abel a righteous and reli∣gious Person, yet God tells Cain that he was to rule over Abel, which he could have no right or title to, but because he was his elder Brother; and so was profane Esau to rule over Jacob upon that Account only, if he had not sold him his Birth∣right, and with it his Right and Title to Lord∣ship over him.

And as this was the way of succeeding in the Government of Families, so was it in the Go∣vernment * of Kingdoms also; generally amongst Page  425 the Gentiles as they were led by the light and in∣stinct of Nature only, and particularly amongst the Jews by the Positive Law of God, as ap∣pears by the Catalogue and Genealogy of the Kings of Juda, where the eldest of the Sons did always succeed his Father in the Kingdom with∣out interruption, unless God himself (who is King of Kings) was pleased to interpose, as he did in the succession of David to Saul, and of Solomon to Da∣vid, which were both of them Acts of God's Pre∣rogative, and not according to the ordinary course of Law amongst the Jews, as appears by Solomon's answer to his Mother Batshebah when she spake to him to let his Brother Adonijah have Abishag the Shunamite to Wife; Ask for him, said he, the King∣dom also; for he is mine elder Brother: which is a * plain confession of Solomon himself that according to the ordinary course of Law then in force. Ado∣nijah* should have succeeded David in the King∣dom, had not David (who was a Prophet as well as a King) known God's mind to the contrary: And indeed God had made known his mind unto David concerning Solomon by Nathan the Pro∣phet, when assoon as he was born he called his name Jedidiah, that is, beloved of the Lord, there∣by making David to understand that he was de∣sign'd to succeed him in the Throne. Whereunto may be added that perhaps Adonijah was confe∣derate with Absolom (whose Brother he was by the same Mother) in his rebellion against David, and consequently had forfeited what was due to * him by his Birth-right, being guilty of what he deserved to be put to death for, though by reason Page  426 of his Fathers fondness of him he was not put to death for it. *

But whether this, or God's Intimation of his pleasure to David by Nathan the Prophet, were the reason that Solomon the younger Brother was preferred before Adonijah the eldest to succeed Da∣vid in the Kingdom, it is evident by Solomon's aforesaid answer to his Mother, and by the con∣stant course of succession in that Kingdom, that there, as well as in all other Nations, the eldest Son or nearest in bloud was legally to succeed in Thrones as well as in Families, and do so still, and are of right to do so in all Hereditary Kingdoms: from which right grounded upon the Law of Na∣ture, attested by the general practice of all Man∣kind in all places, and in all ages, and ratified by God's positive Law to his own People; I see not how any man can be excluded without some kind of Violation of the Law of Nature, or without some kind of unbecoming Reflection upon the Positive Law of God it self, as if God had not made as good and as wise a Law to obviate all incon∣veniences for his own People, as any People could make for themselves.

Page  427

CHAP. VI.

BUT if it be said that several Nations, accor∣ding * to several Climates they live in, may be of several Inclinations and dispositions, and there∣fore that a Law which may be very proper and useful for one sort of People may not be so conve∣nient for another, and consequently that the Ju∣dicial Law which God gave to the Jews, though it were best for them, it may not be best for us or for any other Nation: nay, because it was best for them it cannot be best for all other Nations or for any other Nation, that are naturally of a contra∣ry or of another kind of temper or constitution than they were; so that the Judicial Law of the Jews obligeth none but those for whom it was made, and to whom it was given, God having left it free to those that have the Legislative power in every Nation to make such Laws, as they think most proper and most effectual for the well governing themselves; so that they command nothing that is forbidden, nor forbid nothing that is command∣ed by the Moral Law of God.

Page  428 Be it so, and be it supposed likewise though not granted, that there is nothing in the Natural or *Moral Law of God against disinheriting of the right Heir of an Hereditary Kingdom: let us see whether there be any Law of the Land, or any legal way according to the constitution of this Kingdom of ours, that can warrant the doing of it; unless the Heir of the Crown be guilty of some such crime, as by Law is a forfeiture of his Life as well as his Birth-right; which one Case excep∣ted (wherein the present Heir of the Crown is not so much as pretended to be at all concerned)

I demand first whether there be any Law now in being for excluding the right Heir of this Here∣ditary*Kingdom, upon the pretence that is alledged but not proved against him: for if there be no such Law, there can be no such transgression, be∣cause every 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 must be (as St. John tells us) an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, every transgression must be a transgressi∣on of some Law or other; and where there is no Law there is no Transgression, saith St. Paul.

If it be said, that though he cannot be exclu∣ded, by any Law already made, yet a Law may be made by Act of Parliament which may exclude him; I demand again, whether according to the fundamental and essential constitutions of Parlia∣ment there can be any Act of Parliament, or any Law made by Act of Parliament, without the Lords and the Kings consent to it, as well as that * of the House of Commons? if not, as yet there is not, so more than probably there will never be any such Act pass, or Law made, the King and Page  429Lords having already declared their dissent from it.

But (3dly) supposing the King and Lords should agree with the House of Commons to make a Law for the excluding of the next Heir of the Crown, up∣on such an accompt as never any Heir of the Crown was excluded before, nor by Law to be excluded; and consequently for which he could not foresee that he deserved or was to be excluded; I demand by what reason, justice, or equity that *Law can be prejudicial to him, or to any right of his, all Laws being to look forwards, and not back∣wards, (that is) to enjoyn or prohibit something for the future upon such or such Penalties for the disobeying of them, but not for the punishing of any thing that was done before there was any such Law for the prohibiting of it; so that sup∣posing, but not granting that by such a Law the Heir of the Crown might justly be excluded from the succession for the future; yet he that is Heir at present, and was so before any such Law was made, cannot (as I humbly conceive) upon such a pretence be excluded without violence done unto the Law, as well as injury done unto himself.

If it be said that Salus Populi est suprema lex, the safety of the People is the supreme Law, and that the safety of the Kingdom doth require that as such a Law should be presently made, so it should be presently executed also; I answer that the Su∣preme Law is, That no evil should be done that good may come thereof; and besides that, the safety and peace of the Kingdom would in all pro∣bability * be much more indangered by the putting Page  430 or attempting to put such a Law in Execution, then it is yet, or I hope ever will be, for want of such a Law, the present execution whereof would for fear of but a supposed uncertain future evil (which many things we do see, and many more we do not see may hinder) put us into a real, a certain, and a present as evil a condition, as any we seem to be afraid of, and desirous to prevent; I mean a present Civil War; and perhaps a Fo∣reign War too. And then Dic mihi quis furor est ne moriare mori? Tell me, what madness is it to kill ones self for fear of being killed? I say, what a madness is it to run into a present greater evil, to prevent a less, that is to come, and probably may not come at all?

CHAP. VII.

TO conclude, supposing such a Law should be justly made and justly executed upon the preset Heir of the Crown; and supposing too that Inconvenience from abroad and at home should not follow upon it for the present: How would this secure us from the bringing in of Popery for Page  431 the future, unless the Act or Law should be made to extend to the excluding all future Heirs of the Crown as well as the present, that might be suspe∣cted * to be Papists, though not legally proved to be so? Would it not be easie for any future Heir of the Crown to defeat the efficacy of it, and to avoid the Execution of it upon himself, by concealing his being of that religion till he was King? And then it is a known Maxime of our Law, that the Crown takes away all defects in him, I sup∣pose it means, that is the rightful Heir to it, and against whom (after he is King) as no force can be used without a Rebellion, so no Law can be made without Ʋsurpution; the one being the ta∣king of his Sword, and the other the taking of his Scepter out of his hands: so that if such a Law be made to extend to the exclusion of all future Heirs of the Crown as well as the present, it would not be effectual for the keeping out of Popery, and much less for the keeping out of Arbitrary Go∣vernment; or for the securing of the Protestant Religion; unless we shall say that nothing but Popery can bring in Arbitrary Government, which is to lie against our late experience to the contra∣ry, * when Tyranny, and Tyranny in the highest de∣gree, and under many several sorts of Tyrants, was brought in without Popery, and the Protestànt Re∣ligion of the Church of England was not only sup∣pressed 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 Page  432 it in, by their then endeavouring to overthrow, and by their now endeavouring to undermine the stron∣gest 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 Do∣ctrine* 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 ex∣tant in the World, or perhaps ever was or can be for the keeping out of Tyranny or arbitrary Govern∣ment; 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.

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 be∣fore) Page  433 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 Ecclesi∣astical; 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 al∣teration 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 Govern∣ment* (the pretended Objects of our present fears) that they will be brought in by a Popish Suc∣cessor, (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 ei∣ther * by an Army of his own Subjects or of Foreign∣ers; 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 Page  434 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 attem∣pted to be done by force: Nor that it can be ef∣fected 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 Po∣pery, 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 ob∣liged by Oath never to give his consent to the pas∣sing of such an Act, and all Popish Lords are alrea∣dy 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 Exclu∣ding of Popery?

I answer, because of the vast difference between those times and these. Then the Protestant Reli∣gion* 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 Page  435 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 ve∣ry 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 establish∣ment of Popery, which she found to have been re∣pealed 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 Prote∣stant, 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 Presby∣tery* instead of Episcopacy in the one, and of a Page  436Commonwealth instead of Monarchy in the o∣ther, than Popery or Arbitrary Government under a King in either; as long as the Laws we have al∣ready against both are in force, whereby all Papists are made uncapable of having any thing to do in the Government as it now is, and of doing any thing towards the alteration of it by repealing or giving their votes for repealing any of those Laws that are in force against Popery, or for the making of any new Laws in favour of it, being (as I said before) excluded from sitting in either of the Hou∣ses; without the consent of the major part of which Houses the King himself (though he be the sole Law∣giver or sole maker of our Laws properly speaking as I have proved at large already) can neither make nor repeal Laws; but is according to the legal con∣stitution of this Kingdom oblig'd, and has obliged himself neither to make any New Laws nor to re∣peal any Old ones, nor to Govern any otherways than by such Laws as are in force and have been or shall be so made, that is, with the consent of both Houses of Parliament, either by himself or by His Predecessors. So that there wants nothing to per∣petuate our happiness under the best Government that ever any People did or can live under, but to be assured that never any change (as to the species and essentials of it) shall be made in it; And such * an assurance (as far as any thing in this world can be assured) the making of such an Act here for the taking of such a Test (as is already made and taken in Scotland) will give us, of what Perswasion so∣ever in point of Religion, or of what Inclination soever in point of Government, the Successor to the Page  437 Crown at any time may chance to be, especially after he hath taken the Coronation Oath to Go∣vern no otherwise than by Laws made and to be made by Act of Parliament.

CHAP. IX.

IF it be objected that if the Successor be a Papist, there is no Oath he can take, but he * may be and will be by the Pope easily and willing∣ly absolved from the Sin in taking it, and from the Obligation to keep it.

I answer first, that the same Objection will be as valid against a Presbyterian as against a Po∣pish*Successor; for that the Classis as well as the Conclave can dispense with the obligation of Oaths, we have seen and felt too: For what was the im∣posing of the Solemn League and Covenant, but a discharging of those that took it, by those that perswaded them to take it, from being any longer obliged by the Oāths of Allegiance and Supremacy, which they had formerly taken?

But Secondly, my answer is, that I do not ground * the Assurance of the continuance of our present Government either in Church or State, either wholly Page  438 or chiefly upon the Successors keeping of his Coro∣nation Oath (of what perswasion soever he is or may be) but upon the a version which 99. parts at least of an 100. of the whole Nation have from Popery and Arbitrary Government, and upon the Laws already in force against both, and upon the supposition of such a new Law to be made here as there is in Scotland for the preserving and securing of the old ones: viz. That no man be capacitated to choose or be chosen to be a Parliament-man, be∣fore He hath taken that or such another Oath as that, which by the aforesaid Act of Parliament in Scotland is prescribed and enjoyned to be taken. Which Oath why those that fear the bringing in of Popery and Arbitrary Government should not be very willing to take, I can see no reason, unless they would bring in something else as destructive to the present Government as Popery it self: and then I see no reason neither why they should not be excluded from choosing and being chosen mem∣bers of Parliament as well as the Papists are? For why should any that are Enemies to the Government, one way or other, be put in a capacity either to undermine the foundation or to weaken the props and the Pillars of it? or to make any substantial alteration in it? considering (as Mr. Baxter himself confesseth) That for ought he sees the Government of*this Commonwealth (I presume he takes the word Commonwealth not as a specifical but a generical No∣tion, as it signifies any body Politick) is already ballanced with as much prudence, caution and equality,*as the curiousest of the models that self conceited men would obtrude with so much ostentation.

Page  439 And that by Government of this Common∣wealth* he means the Government of this King∣dom, not as it was governed by a State before the Usurpation of Cromwel the Father, or by the Ar∣my and Rump-Parliament, after the deposing of Cromwel the Son, but as it was to be Govern'd ac∣cording to the Legal constitution by King, Lords and Commons, that is, by a King Governing by Laws made with the consent of the Lords and Commons in Parliament. I take this (I say) to be Mr. Baxter's meaning by that which he calls the Government of this Common-wealth: because in o∣ther places he seems not only to dislike but abhor * the Government of a Common-wealth in a spe∣cifical Notion, that is, as it signifies a Democrati∣cal or popular Government, for no fewer than 20. several reasons; at the end of which (he saith) I conclude therefore that this Ignorant, impious, mutable, cruel, violent rout shall never have my consent for the Soveraignty: and in another place (as I have al∣ready observed) he saith that although the two Houses of Parliament, as having (he thinks) a part of the Soveraignty, may lawfully in defence of that part of theirs make War against the King, or those commissioned by the King; yet though in that contest they get the victory, they do not thereby gain the whole Soveraignty to themselves, nor can∣not alter the former constitution, but must have the same, or some other King in his stead; where∣by it plainly appears that by the aforesaid Govern∣ment of this Common-wealth, as he cannot mean a Democratical or popular, so he cannot mean an A∣ristocratical or a Parliamentary Government with∣out Page  440 a King. And therefore if he will sibi constare, hold to what he saith, and not contradict Himself (as he does in many other things) by that Govern∣ment of this Common-wealth, which he saith is alrea∣dy ballanced with so much prudence and caution, he must needs mean this political regulated Monarchy of ours, which we now enjoy; and consequently that it ought not to be chang'd for any other form, frame or model of Government, which the curiosity of self conceited men (saith Mr. Baxter) he might have said, or the Ambition of Proud, or the greediness of Covetous, or the malice of Discontented, or the Bigotry of Hereticks, or the peevishness of Schis∣maticks, may endeavour to obtrude upon us instead of it. For preventing whereof, I could wish (as he doth in the same place) that some better order were taken for the Exclusion of unworthy persons * from Electing or being Elected members of Parlia∣ment, that so (says he) being out of danger of impi∣ous Parliaments, chosen by an impious Majority of the People, we should then build all the Fabrick of our Go∣vernment on a Rock, which else will have a foundati∣on of Sand: And then a multitude of errors would thus be corrected at once, and more done for our hap∣piness than a thousand of the new Fantastical devices will accomplish.

Euge, well said again Mr. Baxter! No man can * more heartily say Amen than I can to this wish of yours, that none were to choose or to be chosen Par∣liament-men, but those that were worthy to choose and to be chosen; nor no man can more fully concur with you in this Opinion than I do, That such a Parliament so chosen would be more Page  441 effectual for the Establishment of our Government upon a Rocky or impregnable foundation, as like∣wise for the correcting of such errors and miscar∣riages, as by reason of the ill management of the best Government, are, or possibly may be in it, and consequently for the making of us more happy than any new Fantastically devised model of Go∣vernment can do. In all this, I say, I agree with Mr. Baxter; But in the Notion of who are worthy or unworthy to choose or to be chosen, I am afraid we shall differ very much; for perhaps Mr. Bax∣ter and those of his Party may think those that * are Dissenters from the Government of the Church are the only worthy men to choose and to be cho∣sen Members of the Parliament; I am sure by that stir and stickling they have made in the late Elections for Knights and Burgesses in all Counties and Corporations it appears they think so. Where∣as I am of opinion that none but such as are con∣formable* in point of Judgment and well inclin'd in point of Affection to the present Government both in Church and State, as to the species or kind of either, (that is, as the one is Monarchical and the other Episcopal) is fit to choose or to be chosen a Parliament-man, and consequently that none of those that are not well affected to the present Go∣vernment are fit to choose or to be chosen, though they pretend never so much to be the Godly party; nay though they were indeed as good and Godly men as they say they are, and would have others believe them to be. For though as Moses wish'd, that all the Lords people were Prophets, and yet did not think them to be so; so I wish that all good Page  442 and Godly men were wise and prudent men also, but I cannot believe they are so; nor consequent∣ly that they are sufficiently qualified either to be Statesmen themselves, or to discern who are fit to be Statesmen. And unskilful though well meaning Workmen may be marring whilst they think they are mending, and pluck down more in a day than wiser men can build up again in a year. And there∣fore the Fabrick of our present Government being so good a one as that Mr. Baxter himself by prefer∣ing it before any new Fantastical mode or model that can be devised, or obtruded upon us, doth as good as confess there cannot be a better; certain∣ly the main care that is to be taken by the wisdom of the State is to prevent the alteration or change of it: And consequently the main Qualification* to be required in those that choose and are to be chosen to be States-men, is their being obliged to maintain and uphold the present Government as it is by Law established (I still mean as to the species or kind of it) and then as wise and good men may find work enough (without medling with remo∣ving or moving of Foundations) to mend the faults that are, and to prevent those that may be in the superstructure: So those that are not so wise as they should be, nor so good as they would seem to be (and those are the men most likely to be medling) will not be able to do any great harm, so long as the foundations themselves are secured from being undermined or overthrown by them.

Page  443

CHAP. X.

IF it be objected that the making of such a Law would be the excluding of many of the Free∣men* and Free-holders of the People from one of the greatest of the priviledges of their Birthright, namely, the choosing and being chosen Members of Parliament.

I Answer, that if the security of the Government and the Peace and Welfare of the Kingdom re∣quire * it, and the Majority of the Peoples represen∣tatives (without which it cannot be done) consent to it, it is no more than in many other cases is done already.

Secondly, I answer, that in this very case All the Papists (who if they be not a great number, I wonder why we should be so much afraid of them) all the Papists (I say) who are all of them Free-men, and as Freemen have a right to choose and be chosen into the House of Commons, and some of them by Birth to be Peers of the Realm, yet are all of them excluded from both Houses, and so are all Out-law'd and Excommunicated persons, and such are or should be all the Sectaries that will not come unto our Churches.

Thirdly, Did not both Houses of Parliament make it one of the conditions of Peace with the Page  444 late King, that none that had serv'd him against them should be capable of sitting in either of the Houses for Twenty one years to come? And why might not the King with much more reason have demanded the exclusion of all those that had fought for the Parliament against Him from the same priviledge? Or why may not those that will not oblige themselves by Oath to maintain the Govern∣ment legally established by King, Lords and Com∣mons be much more reasonably, and much more justly and equitably excluded from having any thing to do in the Government, or in the making of our Laws than those that would not take the Oath of Abjuration and of being faithful to the Govern∣ment, as it was illegally set up without King and Lords, were excluded not only from choosing or being chosen into Parliaments, but from having any protection or benefit of the Laws by the up∣start Free-state, (as they call'd themselves) but were indeed no better than Rebels and Robbers.

It is not therefore to be doubted but that such a Law, as is made in Scotland, may by the same Au∣thority * respectively be made in England and in Ireland also; Neither is it to be doubted but that such a Law, if it were made, would be the best se∣curity that can be given against the bringing in of Popery or Arbitrary Government; especially if the rightful Successor will not oppose but pro∣mote the making of such a Law here, as I do verily believe, and as all reasonable men have reason to believe, he will; because he did not only consent to, but promote the making of that Law in Scot∣land. And if he be willing not only to * consent to, Page  445 but to promote the making of such a Law here, why should we not believe that he intends and resolves to keep it and maintain it also, whatso∣ever his own private perswasion in point of Reli∣gion may be for the present (for God may and I hope will perswade Japheth to dwell in the Tents of Shem) or continue to be for the future? For if he did not intend and resolve it should be kept when it is made, and consequently that Popery and Arbitrary Government should be kept out by it, no∣thing could be more imprudent than to promote the making of such a Law, whereby all that have or are to have interest in the making and repealing of Laws, and in all places of trust and power, Ci∣vil, Military and Ecclesiastical, in both Kingdoms, are to be obliged by Oath never to consent to the alteration of the Government, as it is now by Law established, nor consequently to the bringing in ei∣ther of Popery or Arbitrary Government; which Oath when they have taken, as they cannot be dis∣pens'd with for the breaking it, if they would, so they would not if they could; being such as are to be supposed to be enemies both to Popery, and Arbitrary Government, and therefore such as would do, what legally they could, for keeping out of both, though they were not sworn, and much more being sworn to do so. And therefore it is not to be supposed that the Successor intends or means to attempt the bringing in of either of them, if he be willing such a Law should be made, as will make it exceedingly difficult, if not utterly impossible for him to do it. Let us try therefore whether He will not consent to the making of Page  446 such a Law here, as willingly as he has done in Scotland, and let the consenting or not consenting to the making of such a Law here, as there is there, and the taking, or refusing to take such an Oath, as by that Law is prescribed to be taken by those that are to choose, or to be chosen Members of Par∣liament for the future, be the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the mark of trial, whereby to Judge who are friends and who are enemies to the present Government, and who are most likely to desire and endeavour an alteration of it.

CHAP. XI.

AND thus I have done with what I thought my self especially concern'd to do, namely, the justifying of my Exceptions against those Po∣litical Theses in Mr. Baxter's Holy Commonwealth, whereby he endeavours to justifie the Rebellion* against the late King, and to countenance and en∣courage any Rebellion upon the same grounds a∣gainst this or any other of our Kings for the fu∣ture. For first, if the Soveraignty was divided then betwixt the King and the two Houses of Parlia∣ment, so it is now, and so it will be always as long as the present constitution of our Government shall continue. Secondly, if where the Soveraignty is divided they that have any share in it, may by force Page  447 of Arms defend their part of it against whosoever attempts to take it from them. Thirdly, if the two Houses are to be believed and assisted by the People, whensoever they shall declare that the King takes away or attempts to take away their part of the Soveraignty, (all which are Mr. Baxter's Politi∣cal Aphorisms or Maxims of State) doth it not follow that when and as often as there is a corrupt Majority in both Houses (as Mr. Baxter grants there may be, and we by woful experience have found there has been) doth it not follow, I say, from these Principles of Mr. Baxter's, that the * People not only may, but are obliged to rebel and take up Arms against the King, whensoever a fa∣ctious Majority in both Houses shall declare there is, though really there is no such cause as they pre∣tend there is to do so? Nay if there be but such a factious ill principled or ill affected Majority in the House of Commons only: For it is the House of Commons which Mr. Baxter means, when he talks of the Peoples Representatives and Trustees whom they are to believe, and whom they are to assist. And they are (says he) the Representatives and Trustees of the People not only in the Condition * of Subjects as the People are now, but likewise in the Condition of Contracters, as they were before they were Subjects, and as such did by contract reserve to themselves such and such Priviledges and Exemptions from Regal Jurisdiction, which the House of Commons (as they are their Trustees in that Notion) are bound to defend, as they (the People) are bound to assist the House of Commons in defending of them. And the representing the Page  448 People by the House of Commons under this Noti∣on, together with their having a part of the Sove∣raignty as well as the House of Lords, is by necessa∣ry consequence from Mr. Baxter's principles, to justifie the Peoples making War not only against the King, but against the King and House of Lords also, if they shall not agree to whatsoever the House of Commons shall propose as an Original reserved right of their Representees as they were Contractors, and before they were Subjects. And of their Original reserved rights they may * pretend to as many as they please; for it is but their saying they are so, and the People must be∣lieve them to be so; because they are not their Representatives only, but their Trustees also; and therefore it is by their Eyes (says Mr. Baxter) that * the People are to see, and by their Ears that the People are to hear, and by their Declarations that the People are to judge whether their Rights and Priviledges be invaded or no, and whether they be such rights and priviledges as were gran∣ted by our Kings, after they were Kings to their People, as graces and favours to their Subjects; or such as were contracted for with Him that was to be King before he was King by those that were to be his Subjects before they were his Subjects. For it seems by Mr. Baxter's distinction, that the People may take Arms against the King to defend or recover the one, but not the other: And there∣fore it were to be wished that we had an Authenti∣cal Catalogue of those we may fight for, that we may not be Rebels before we are aware; as like∣wise it were to be wished also that we had a Ca∣talogue Page  449 of the Priviledges of both Houses of Par∣liament,* that knowing them we might take the better heed of offending against any of them; espe∣cially considering how great a crime it may be and how great a punishment it may deserve, if either or both the Houses are partakers of the Soveraign∣ty with the King. As likewise for another (and in my humble opinion) a very weighty and impor∣tant reason; namely to prevent the Kings not being able to govern by Parliament, though he be never so willing and desirous to do so; as when there is a difference betwixt the two Houses concer∣ning priviledge, there the order is that whatsoever business they are about, of what concernment or importance soever, it must cease, and nothing must be done until the difference concerning Privi∣ledge be decided; which being no other way to be decided but by one of the Houses yielding to the other, (for neither the King nor the Judges are admitted to umpire betwixt them) if after Confe∣rence upon conference they finally adhere on both sides (as they did in the case of Dr. Sherleys appeal∣ing * to the House of Lords from a Decree in Chan∣cery, wherein one of the House of Commons was concern'd) there is no more to be done that Sessions, though Hannibal were ad portas, knocking at the City-gates, though the business they were about before were of never so publick, or never so neces∣sary a concernment, as indeed that which we were about then was; namely the passing of an Act for securing the Government both in Church and State by taking such a Test, as the aforesaid Test that was lately enacted to be taken in Scotland, and Page  450 which would undoubtedly have past in the Lords House at that time, if some that desired an alterati∣on in both, had not thrown that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that stone of offence betwixt the two Houses; which as it was done to hinder what we were a doing then, so that or the like may be done at any time by either of the Houses to make any Parlia∣ment useless and fruitless, though there be never so present, or so great need of it, and though the King and the People do never so much desire the contra∣ry; unless there be some means devised and con∣sented to by both Parties to adjust the difference betwixt them, as there is betwixt all other differ∣ing Parties but these only; or unless the Privi∣ledges of each of the Houses be so particularly enu∣merated and cleerly stated by the consent of both of them, that there may not be any difference be∣twixt them upon this account for the future.

If I have been too bold in saying what I have said in relation to either of the two Houses of Parli∣ament, I humbly beg pardon of them both; for Si peccavi, peccavi honestâ mente, if I have offended in it, I have done it out of an honest meaning; I am sure I did not intend to lessen the dignity, or power or priviledges of either of them; Good luck have they with their Honour! but all that I said upon this Subject hath been to vindicate the Kings Sove∣raignty over all His Subjects, of all denominations and in all capacities whatsoever; which I am sure may well enough consist with whatsoever Power or Priviledge can by the legal constitution of this Kingdom be claim'd by either or both Houses of Parliament.

Page  451

CHAP. XII.

WHereunto if it be objected that by making * the King sole Law-giver, or the sole Law∣maker, I seem to take away the greatest of all the Priviledges the two Houses have, and which it most concerns all the People of England they should have; I answer, it were true indeed that I did so, if by saying the King is the sole Law-giver or the sole maker of our Laws, I meant he could make what Law he pleas'd; but when I say withal, that although whatsoever is Law is made by the King to be Law, yet he cannot make any Law, or any thing to be Law without the consent of both Hou∣ses to it, or to his making of it; by giving to Caesar what is Caesar's, by giving to the King what belongs to the King, I take away nothing from either of the Houses that belongs unto them, or what is requisite for them to have for the securing of themselves and the People from Arbitrary Government; for which end it is abundantly sufficient, that the dissent of either of the Houses can hinder the making of any Law, though the consent of both of them cannot make a Law; for that would destroy the Monar∣chy, not by dividing the Soveraignty betwixt the King and the two Houses, which is really impossi∣ble, but by vesting the Soveraignty wholly in the Page  452two Houses, and consequently by taking it wholly from the King; whereas the power to hinder the making of Laws without their consent being vest∣ed in the Houses, and the power of making Laws with their consent being vested in the King, the Soveraignty and Majesty that is due to a Monarch is reserv'd to the Prince, and as great power and Authority (as Subjects are capable of) is communi∣cated to the two Houses, and their Liberty and Pro∣perty which is due to them, is secured to all the Peo∣ple: which blessed frame and temper of our English*Government is such, as no wiser can be devised, nor no better can be desired, and such as no Nation but ours under Heaven is or can be (unless it be situ∣ated as ours is) so happy as to enjoy; and there∣fore such a one, as if it were well understood, and seriously considered by us, it would make us first to be truly and heartily thankful to God for it; Secondly, to live obediently, quietly and contented∣ly under it, and consequently not only to be con∣tent but desirous that such a Law as I before spake of should be made to prevent the alteration or change of it into any other form or frame of Go∣vernment whatsoever.

And in the mean time not to give ear or credit to any of those seditious Preachers, or Pamphleteers,* who do what they can to disaffect the People to this excellent Government as it is by Law establi∣shed; and only to this end, that as they have once already, so they may now again make such an alte∣ration in this Government, as to turn the Monar∣chy into a State, and Episcopacy into Presbytery; which because they think it cannot be done now, Page  453 but as it was done then, namely by a Rebellion; therefore as they did always, so they do still main∣tain that it is lawful for Subjects in some cases to *take up Arms against their Soveraign, though some of them take one way to prove it lawful, and some another; for some will have a middle kind of power betwixt the King and People to be Ʋm∣pires or Arbitrators between them, whose Arbitre∣ment if the King will not submit to, they may by force compel him with the assistance of the People, and the People are bound to assist them in so do∣ing; this is CALVIN's way, whereunto he adds * that fortassè Ordines Regni in Angliâ, that perhaps the Parliament in England are this middle sort of Magistrates: Others will have the King and the two Houses of Parliament to be Co-ordinates, and * that any of the two is to over-rule the third, and consequently the two Houses of Parliament to over∣rule the King if They agree and He will not; this was HERL's way, one of the Prolocutors of the Westminster Assembly, called together by the two Houses in the Rebellious Parliament: But Master BAXTER will have the Soveraignty divided be∣twixt * the King and the two Houses, or betwixt the King and the Parliament; and will have it to be lawful for either of the Parties to defend its own Right by force, if it be incroached upon by the other; and that the People are to take part with the Party encroached upon, against the Party en∣croaching; but with this difference, that They are always to believe what the Parliament declares a∣gainst the King to be true, because they are their Trustees, not only to defend their Rights, but to Page  454 inform their Judgments whether they be wrong∣ed or no: and because they are their Trustees, not only as they are Subjects now, but as they were originally or at first Contractors before they were Subjects; and did then by bargain reserve unto themselves certain Priviledges and Immunities to be exempted for ever from the Kings Jurisdiction; which if their Trustees whom they are to believe, declare to be violated, they may lawfully take Arms against the King to maintain or recover those Rights of theirs, and to defend that part of the Soveraignty which the Parliament have in the Go∣vernment.

Now putting all these things together, and sup∣posing a corrupt Majority of Parliament-men in both Houses, as Mr. Baxter confesseth there may be, and we know there hath been, and therefore may be so again, who can secure the King, though he reign never so much according to Law, from being always in danger of a Rebellion, or the *Kingdom from being always in danger of a Ci∣vil War! which being the worst of Evils that can happen to any Body Politick, they that sit at the helm ought above all things else to take espe∣cial care to prevent the broaching any such Prin∣ciples as tend to the stirring up of the People to Sedition and Rebellion, by making them believe that in some cases it is not only lawful but their duty to take up Arms against the King; and that they shall do God and the King too good service in so doing. Such are those Principles of Mr. Baxter before rehearsed, published and owned by * him in many of his Books, especially in that of Page  455 the Holy Common-Wealth: and amongst the rest especially two, of which he seems to be the Ori∣ginal Parent or very first Author: as namely first, That the Peo•le of England are represented by their Trustees in Parliament not only as Subjects to the King, but as Contractors with the King, before he was their King and before they were his Subjects; for which he brings no other proof, but that he takes it for undeniable. And (2dly) That the So∣veraignty here with us is not in the King alone (as the Oath of Supremacy saith it is) but that it is divi∣ded betwixt the King and the two Houses of Parlia∣ment; and for proof of this the only reason he gives is, That the Legislative Power which is essen∣tial to Soveraignty is in them as well as in the King; and the late King himself confessed it to be so. Whe∣ther it be so or no, I have already considered and examined at large, and I hope have proved, that the King, and the King alone is the efficient cause, or maker of our Laws, whatsoever the two Hou∣ses may antecedently do towards the making of them.

CHAP. XIII.

NEither do I think what Mr. Baxter saith the late King confesseth in his answer from York to the Parliaments XIX, Propositions, namely Page  456That in this Kingdom the Laws are joyntly made by*a King, by an House of Peers, and by an House of Commons chosen by the People, doth (being rightly understood) contradict what I have said of the ma∣king of our Laws by the King only: For although to say, the same thing is made solely by one, and joyntly by more than one, seems to be a contradi∣ction; yet if by making the same thing be meant the making of it, not in the same but several sences, it is no contradiction to say it is made by one and no more in one sence, and yet that it is made joint∣ly by more in another sence. For example, accord∣ing to an instance before given; It may truly be said that Christ alone shall judge the World, and yet it may truly be said that the XII. Apostles (for * so saith Christ himself) and all the rest of the Saints (for so saith St. Paul) shall judge the World toge∣ther with him: because the judging of the World by Christ is meant in one sense, and the judging of the World by the Saints in another. For it is Christ and Christ alone, or Christ and none but Christ shall judge the World, as a Judge properly so called, that is, authoritativè, or by his own inherent power and Authority: But the Saints are said to judge the World approbativè, by assenting to and approving of the judgment given by Christ, as just and righte∣ous; so that in propriety of speech, they are not to be called Judges, but Assessors and Assenters only.

In like manner, as to the making of our Laws, it may be truly said, that the King alone is the maker * of them; because it is by the King and by the King alone, that they are made to be Laws, which were before no Laws; and yet it may truly (though not Page  457 so properly) be said too, that they are made by the King, and the two Houses of Parliament; because they do consent to the Kings making of them to be Laws, and not only so, but also because they do not only con∣sent to the making and publishing of them after they are made Laws by the King, but they must consent to have them made Laws by the King, before the King can make them to be Laws. And yet for all that, it is the King and the King alone who by his LE ROT LE VEƲLT or his FIAT doth make them to be Laws. In which operative and ef∣ficacious words neither of the Houses concur with him; and yet it is by those words only, or alone, that what was before but a Bill, that is, an Embryo, or at most but materia disposita, matter fit to be made a Law of, is informed and enlivened with that obliging po∣wer and authority both directive and coactive, which makes it to be a Law. So that all the two Houses can be said to do towards the making of a Law, is to give it a posse fieri, a capacity to be made a Law, but it is the King, and the King only that gives it its factum esse, its being made so; and yet because the King can∣not 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 joint∣ly 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 nei∣ther, that is, without their doing something antece∣dently, 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 Page  458 this Kingdom were made jointly by the King, Lords, and Commons, that is, (according to the old Parlia∣mentary 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, where∣in he differs or dissents from our Church, that a Priest or Minister of the Word and Sacraments cannot be or∣dain'd without consent of the People; will he there∣fore 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 be∣cause 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 marri∣age without consent of Parents, and supposing that o∣pinion 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 Mar∣riage, though it cannot be a Marriage without it.

Many other Instances of the like nature might be gi∣ven; 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 can∣not Page  459 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 VEƲLT 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 pro∣posing 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 a∣greed upon by them, to be made Laws by him.

CHAP. XIV.

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 con∣sulting 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 So∣veraignty; 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, Page  460 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 ju∣bet, the Senate requesteth or proposeth, namely, such or such a thing to be made a Law, but the People com∣mands 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 Soveraign∣ty was in the People; so à paritate rationis, upon the like reason and account, in a Monarchy, where the Sove∣raignty 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 Re∣quest) 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 De∣spotical, and more Political, in the managery and execu∣tion of his Kingly Power; having by his Predecessors and his own voluntary and gracious condescension ob∣liged 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 despo∣tical,* and to become a legal, regulated and Political Monarch, or a King that is to govern his People by Page  461Laws; Laws indeed of his own making, but not with∣out their consent to them, I mean without their con∣sent 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, where∣of * the King is the Head. And as it is he that governs the whole Body, so it is he that makes the Laws to go∣vern the whole Body: which because they are not made by the King without the consent of the three Estates re∣presenting 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 be∣twixt 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) observeth to have been the error of Polybius, in judging the Ro∣man to have been a mixed Government, and the Sove∣raignty or supreme power thereof to have been divi∣ded, betwixt the Consuls, the Senate, & the People, when (saith Grotius) the Government was indeed meerly po∣pular or Democratical. And the cause of this mistake in Polybius (saith Grotius) was his respiciens ad actiones ip∣sas, & non ad jus agendi; his looking at the things that were done, & not at the authority whereby they were done; whereas if he had consider'd that what was done either by the Consuls, or by the Senate, was done by an authority derived from the People, & signified nothing if it were not ratified by the People, he would have been convinc'd, that the Soveraignty or supreme power was wholly in the People, & consequently, that it was a meer Democracy and not a mixed Government. In like manner Mr. Baxter looking only at the things that are done by the 3. Estates in Parliament, as to their concur∣rence Page  462 to the making of Laws, & subordinate managery of other parts of the Government; & not considering by whose Authority they do what they do, and that all that they do signifies nothing, unless it be ratified by the King, erroneously at least (if not fallaciously) con∣cludes the Soveraignty or supreme power it self to be divided betwixt the King and the 3. Estates, or betwixt the King & the 2. Houses of Parliament; whereas their very Parliamentary being, & consequently the power of their Parliamentary acting, is derived from the Supre∣macy of power, inseparably and indivisibly and in∣communicably inherent in the King.

But although the Soveraignty it self or original foun∣tain* of all power in a Monarchy be indivisibly & incom∣municably in the person of the King, yet the streams that issue or flow from that fountain may be, and are, and of necessity must be divided & communicated, so as may be most serviceable for the several uses, the whole body Politick, or the whole body of the Kingdom may have of it. And as this Supreme or Soveraign Power (though it be always indivisibly inherent in the King, as the fountain of it) may have its several streams divi∣ded & communicated: so in the exercise of its several Acts & operations, it may be, & in all Political Kingdoms it is, limited & determined in some more, & in some less, but in none more nor so much for the good of the Sub∣ject without prejudice to the Soveraignty & Majesty of the King, than in this of ours; where the People by their Representatives, are not only admitted to propose what they would have to be made Laws; but where no Law can be made but what they propose or consent to, though they do not make it, & though it be in the Kings power to refuse the making of it; because the Laws, we have already, are sufficient to secure all their Rights unto Page  463 the People, as long as they are in force; & in force they will be, until the People themselves do consent to the repealing of them: For the King as he can make no new Law, so he can repeal no old Law without the consent of the Representatives of the People; who most certain∣ly will never give their consent for repealing of Mag∣na Charta, or the Petition of Right, or any other Law now in force, for the securing any of their just Rights and Privileges. So that the Kings Negative is not, nor cannot be prejudicial to the Interest of the People, but * it is absolutely necessary for the preservation of Mo∣narchy. For if the King could not refuse to make what the 2. Houses propose to be Laws, the Soveraignty would be wholly in them, & not at all in him; Nay he would be so far from having the Soveraignty of a King, that he would not have the liberty of the meanest of his Sub∣jects, that sits in the House of Commons, in giving his I or No, according to the dictate of his own Reason and Conscience, which as it is every private mans right by nature, as he is a reasonable Creature, so it is the Kings right by Nature and Prerogative too, as he is a King, it being impossible to be a King without it. And there∣fore those that say the King is bound to pass all those Laws, quas Vulgus elegerit, which the People or Com∣monalty shall make choice of; or that he is but one of the three Co-ordinates, & therefore may be overvoted by * the other two; or that he hath but a part of the Sove∣raignty, and therefore cannot over-rule those that have their parts in the Soveraignty as well as he; or that he may not prorogue or dissolve Parliaments when he thinks fit to do so; All these are Enemies not only to the well-being, but to the very being of Monarchy; and that not of absolute or despotical Monarchy only, but of Political or Paternal Monarchy also. And there∣fore though they cajole and flatter the People never so Page  464 much, they are the greatest Enemies they have, and as such the People ought to look upon them, & would do so, if they were not like Beasts without understanding, nay worse than Beasts without sence and memory of what they have so often and so lately suffered by list∣ning to the same Songs of the same Sirens, or sweet Singers, that have so often deceived them.

But if the People cannot or will not understand the things that belong unto their peace; yet Be wise O ye Kings,*and be learned O ye Judges of the Earth; be wise for the Peoples sake, & be wise for your own sakes also. For if you do not prevent the raising & raging of those waves, the Pilot as well as the Passengers will be swallowed up by them. And there is no way to prevent the raising of those Waves, nor the raging of them when they are raised, but by rebuking the Winds that raised them; for if it were not for those boysterous Winds that puff them up, there would be no such swelling Waves as we see there are.

In the mean time (I hope) I have said nothing for the * justifying of my self from being a Defier of Deity and Humanity, and from being an Enemy to God, to Kings, and to all Mankind, (as Mr. Baxter saith I am, because I maintain it to be Ʋnlawful for Subjects to resist their Soveraigns in any cause, or upon any provo∣cation whatsoever:) and for the confutation of Mr. Baxter's erroneous and seditious Aphorisms or Princi∣ples to the contrary; I hope, I say, I have said nothing in order to either of these ends, that will give any just offence to such as are judicious and impartial Friends to Truth, and do really wish and desire the continuance of the Peace and welfare of their Country; and then for such as are contrary minded, I care not what they think, or say of me.