THE Bishop of Worcester's LETTER To a Friend For VINDICATION of Himself FROM Mr. BAXTER'S Calumny.  
— Tenet insanabile multos  
Scribendi Cacoethes—  
London, Printed by R. Norton for Timothy Garthwait at the Little North-door of St. Paul's Church, 1662.   

Mr. Baxter hath lately printed a Book called [The Mischiefs of Self-Ignorance, and the Benefits of Self-Acquaintance] in the Address of which Book to his dearly beloved the Inhabitants of Kidderminster, he hath this ensuing passage relating to the Bishop of Worcester.  
IN a disputation by writing, those of the other part form an Argument, whose Major Proposition was to this sense (for I have no Copy) [Whatsoever Book enjoineth nothing but what is of itself lawful, and by lawful authority, enjoineth nothing that is sinful,] We denied this Proposition, and at last gave divers Reasons of our denial; amongst which one was, that [It may be unlawful by Accident, and therefore sinful] You now know my Crime; it is my concurring with Learned Reverend Brethren, to give this reason of our denial of a Proposition: yet they are not forbidden to Preach for it, (and I hope shall not be) but only I. You have publicly heard from a mouth that should speak nothing but the words of Charity, Truth and Soberness, (especially there) that this was [a desperate shift that men at the last are forced to] and inferring [that than neither God nor man can enjoin without sin] In City and Country this soundeth forth to my reproach; I should take it for an Act of Clemency to have been smitten professedly for nothing, and that it might not have been thought necessary to afflict me by a defamation, that so I might seem justly afflicted by a prohibition to Preach the Gospel. But indeed is there in these words of ours so great a Crime? though we doubted not but they knew that our Assertion made not Every Evil Accident to be such as made an Imposition unlawful, yet we expressed this by word to them at that time, for fear of being misreported: and I told it to the Right Reverend Bishop when he forbade me to Preach, and gave this as a reason: And I must confess I am still guilty of so much weakness, as to be confident that Some things, not Evil of themselves, may have Accidents so Evil, as may make it a sin to him that shall Command them. Is this opinion inconsistent with all Government? yea I must confess myself guilty of so much greater weakness, as that I thought I should never have found a man on Earth, that had the ordinary reason of a Man, that had made question of it; yea I shall say more than that which hath offended (viz.) That whensoever the commanding or forbidding of a thing indifferent is like to occasion more hurt than good, and this may be foreseen, the commanding or forbidding it is a sin. But yet this is not the Assertion that I am chargeable with, but that [Some Accidents there may be that may make the Imposition sinful] If I may ask it without accusing of others, how would my Crime have been denominated if I had said the contrary? should I not have been judged unmeet to live in any governed Society? It is not unlawful of itself to Command out a Navy to Sea: but if it were foreseen that they would fall into the Enemy's hands, or were like to perish by any Accident, and the necessity of sending them were small, or none, it were a sin to send them. It is not unlawful of itself to sell poison, or give a knife to another, or to bid another to do it; but if it were foreseen▪ that they will be used to poison or kill the buyer, it is unlawful; and I think the Law would make him believe it that were guilty. It is not of itself unlawful to light a candle, or set fire on a straw; but if it may be foreknown, that by another's negligence or wilfulness it is like to set fire on the City, or give fire to a train or store of Gunpowder that is under the Parliament House, when the King and Parliament are there, I crave the Bishop's pardon, for believing that it were sinful to do it, or command it; yea or not to hinder it (in any such case) when Qui non vetat peccare cum potest▪ jubet, yea though going to God's public worship be of itself so far from being a sin, that it is a Duty, yet I think it is a sin to command it to all in time of a raging Pestilence, or when they should be defending the City against the assault of an Enemy, it may rather than be a duty to prohibit it. I think Paul spoke not any thing inconsistent with the Government of God or Man, when he bid both the Ruler's and the People of the Church, not to destroy him with their mea● for whom Christ died: and when he saith, he hath not his power to destruction, but to edification; yea there are evil Accidents of a thing, not evil of itself, that are caused by the Commander: and it is my opinion that they may prove his command unlawful.  
But what need I use any other Instances then that which was the matter of our dispute? Suppose it never so lawful of itself to kneel in the Reception of the Sacrament, if it be imposed by a penalty that is incomparably beyond the proportion of the offence, that penalty is an Accident of the Command, and maketh it by Accident sinful in the Commander. If a Prince should have Subjects so weak as that all of them thought it a sin against the example of Christ and the Canons of the General Counsels, and many hundred years' practice of the Church, to kneel in the Act of Receiving on the Lord's Day, if he should make a Law that all should be put to death that would not kneel, when he foreknew that their Consciences would command them all, or most of them to die rather than obey, would any man deny his command to be unlawful by this Accident? Whether the penalty of ejecting Ministers that dare not put away all that do not kneel, and of casting out all the people that scruple it, from the Church, be too great for such a circumstance (and so in the rest) and whether this, with the lamentable estate of many Congregations, and the divisions that will follow, being all foreseen, do prove the impositions unlawful which were then in Question, is a Case that I had then a clearer call to speak to, than I have now; only I may say That the Ejecting of the Servants of Christ from the Communion of his Church, and of his faithful Ministers from their Sacred Work, when too many Congregations have none but insufficient, or scandalous Teachers, or no Preaching Ministers at all, will appear a matter of very great moment in the day of our accounts, and such as should not be done upon any but a necessary cause, where the benefit is greater than this hurt (and all the rest) amounts to.  
Having given you (to whom I owe it) this account of the cause for which I am forbidden the exercise of my Ministry in that Country, I now direct these Sermons to your hands, that seeing I cannot teach you as I would, I may teach you as I can: And if I much longer enjoy such Liberty as this, it will be much above my expectation.   

The Bishop of Worcester's Letter to a Friend for Vindication of himself from Mr. Baxter's Calumny.  
SIR,  
I Have received that Letter of yours, whereby you inform me that Mr. Baxter hath lately written and printed something with such a reflection upon me, that I am obliged to take notice of it.  
I thank you for your care of my Reputation, which next to Conscience ought to be the dearest of all things to all men, especially to men of my Profession and Order, who the more they are vilified (whether justly or unjustly) the less good they will be able to do, especially amongst those that have industriously been prepossessed with prejudice either against their Persons or their Functions This was St. Paul's Case, when there were some that did what they could to make the Corinthians to undervalue his person, that thereby they might discredit his Doctrine, and weaken his Authority, whom therefore he thinks he may without breach of Charity call False Apostles and Deceitful Workers. Nay this was our Saviour's own Case, who, whilst he lived here upon the Earth, was ever and anon traduced and slandered by the Scribes and Pharisees, those proud Hypocrites, who were the greatest pretenders to holiness, and yet the greatest seducers of the people, and the grossest falsifyers of God's Word, that ever were in the world, until these our times, which have brought forth a generation of men (St. Johnaptist would have called them a Generation of Vipers) who in the Art of holy juggling and malicious slandering have outdone the Pharisees themselves▪ and all that went before them; witness their so often wresting and perverting the Scripture in their Sermons to stir up the people to Sedition, and their as often Libelling the King in their Prayers, in order to the making of his Subjects first to hate him, then to fight against him, and at last to take away his Crown, and his Life from him. And is it any wonder that those that are such Enemies to Kings, should not be friends to Bishops? or that one (who hath done what he could to make the late King odious unto his People) should do what he can likewise to make the Pastor odious unto his Flock? to his Flock I say; For it is the Bishop of Worcester, and not Mr. Baxter that is Pastor of Kidderminster, as well as of all other Parochial Churches in that Diocese; neither did I or any other Bishop of Worcester, ever commit the Care of Souls in that, or any other Parish of that Diocese to Mr Baxter, though by that Preface of his to those of Kidderminster, he would make the world believe, that they were his Flock, and not mine, and that therefore he hath the more reason to complain of my defamation of him (as he calls it) in that place and before that people: whereas the truth is that Mr. Baxter was never either Parson, Vicar, or Curate there or any where else in my Diocese; for he never came in by the Door, that is, by any legal right or lawful admission into that Sheepfold, but climbed up some other way, namely, by violence and intrusion, and therefore by Christ's own inference he was a Thief and a Robber; and indeed he did Rob him that was then, and is now again the lawful Vicar of that Church; he Robbed him I say, first of his Reputation amongst his Flock, and then of his means and maintenance, by taking away the Fleece as well as the Flock from him; though (as Mr. Baxter himself hath confessed to me) He be a man of an unblamable life and conversation, though not of such parts (said Mr. Baxter) as are fit to qualify him for the Cure of so great a Congregation; which whether it were so or no, I am sure Mr. Baxter was not to be the Judge; but in that Case the Bishop that was then living should and would have provided him a Coadjutor, as I have done since, and such an one, as I hope will feed that flock with much more wholesome Doctrine then Mr. Baxter did, when he sowed the seed of Schism and Sedition, and blew the Trumpet of Rebellion amongst them. For which cause I thought it my Duty (as being their Pastor in Chief) not only to forbid Mr. Baxter to Preach there any more, which, by the way, he had done without my Licence; but likewise to Preach there myself, and to do what I could to undeceive that poor seduced and miserably deluded people; which was not to be done, as long as they had the person of their Seducer in so great admiration; and therefore by the example of St. Paul, who in order to the same end did take the same course with Alexander the Coppersmith, with Demas, Philetus, and Hymeneus; as likewise by the example of Christ himself, who in order to the same end, did take the same course with the Scribes and Pharisees, I thought it necessary to let them know that one that was of great authority amongst them (meaning indeed, though not naming Mr. Baxter) was not the man they took him for; that he had not dealt faithfully with them, nor preached the word of God sincerely to them, when he made them believe it was lawful for them to take up Arms against the King, nor in suffering (if not making) them to scruple at these things as unlawful, which he himself confesses to be lawful; and afterwards making use of those scruples of theirs (which he himself had infused into them, or not endeavoured to take from them) as the only argument why those things they did so scruple at should not be enjoined by lawful Authority, though lawful in themselves, because, forsooth, the enjoining of things lawful by lawful Authority, if they may by Accident be the occasion of sin, is sinful; which assertion of his (as I then said, and must still maintain) is destructive of humane society in taking away the Authority of Commanding and the obligation of obeying, together with the whole Legislative power, Civil as well as Ecclesiastical, and Divine as well as Humane. And thus much (as Mr. Baxter himself saith) I told him before in mine own house, neither did he then deny the assertion, or endeavour to disprove what I inferred from it, by any of those distinctions or instances he now useth. And that this is true the Reverend Dr. Warmstry now Dean of Worcester will witness for me, whom I desired to be by whilst I conferred with Mr. Baxter, foreseeing what misreport a man of Mr. Baxters' principles and temper was like enough to make of what should pass betwixt us. And it was very well I did so; for I find that the Presbyter aswell as the Papist will serve themselves, as often as they are put to it, of their piae frandes, or holy artifices, of speaking more or less than the truth, as it makes more or less for their purpose or advantage; as likewise of putting non causam pro causa, or a part and a less principal part of the cause for the whole cause. For who would not think that knows not Mr. Baxter, that when he tells his Disciples of Kidderminster, You now know my Crime, with reference to the aforesaid assertion, and to that only, who would not think, I say, that either there was nothing else objected against him, or at lest nothing of moment, or that could be any just and reasonable cause of my forbidding him to Preach in my Diocese? especially when he adds that the Right Reverend Bishop gave him this as a reason for his forbidding him to Preach; where if he means that the Bishop gave him this as the only, or the principal reason, he speaks without truth, and against his Conscience; for the first and principal reason the Bishop gave him for his forbidding him to preach, was (as he well knows, and as the Dean of Worcester will witness against him) His Preaching before without Licence, having no Cure of his own to Preach to; whereunto when he replied, I had promised to give him such a Licence as the Bishop of London had given him, viz. quam diu se bene gereret, & durante beneplacito, I rejoined, That it was true indeed, I had once promised to give him such a Licence, but withal, that it was as true, that first I had never promised to give him a Licence, if he took it before I gave it him; and that for this presumption of his, I had now forbidden him to Preach any more. Secondly, That I knew more of him since then I did at that time; for, first, I had been credibly informed, that he had abused the Bishop of London 's favour by preaching factiously, though not in the City, yet in the Diocese of London, and I named the place to him: Secondly, that since that promise of mine (which cannot be supposed to be other then Conditional) I myself had heard him at a Conference in the Savoy, maintaining such a Position as was destructive to Legislative Power both in God and Man (meaning the Assertion before spoken of, viz. That the enjoining of things lawful by lawful Authority, if they might by Accident be the cause of sin, was sinful) which Assertion of his with the horrible consequences of it I told him then at Worcester, I had formerly told him of at the Savoy openly, and before all the company that was at the Conference; whereunto all that he replied at my second telling him at Worcester, was, that he had used some distinctions to salve that Assertion from those consequences; but what those distinctions were he did not then mention, (as Dr. Warmstry can witness) though in this printed address of his to his friends of Kidderminster, he saith, he did tell the Bishop in what a limited and restrained sense he and his brethren understood that Assertion; which whether they did or no, will appear by and by, when we shall more nearly examine his printed Narrative as to that particular. In the mean time, though I said indeed that one that held and was likely to teach such Doctrines, was not to be suffered to Preach unto the People, yet this was not then alleged by me as the cause or crime for which I had forbidden him to Preach, (for that, as I said before, was His presuming to Preach without a Licence) but only as a reason why I should have thought myself not obliged by the promise I had formerly made him, to give him a Licence, though he had not otherwise forfeited his Claim to that promise by Preaching without, or before he had it. Lastly, He might have remembered another reason I gave him why I could not have made good that promise, namely, those principles of Treason and Rebellion publicly extant in his Books, which I had not taken notice of till after the making of that promise, and which till he should recant in as public a manner, I thought myself obliged in Conscience not to suffer him to Preach in my Diocese; whereunto his Answer was, That whatsoever he had said or done in that kind, was pardoned by the Act of Indemnity: True, said I, so far as the King can pardon it, that is, in regard of its corporal punishment here in this world, but it is God that must pardon the guilt or obligation to punishment in the world to come, which he will not without Repentance, and it is the Church that must pardon the scandal, which she cannot do neither without an honourable amends made her by public Confession and Recantation. I could tell Mr. Baxter in his ear likewise, that in excuse of his Rebellious Principles formerly published, he said, That now the Parliament had Declared where the Sovereign Power was, he should acknowledge it and submit to it, as if the King owed his Sovereignty to the declaration of a Parliament, which is as false as Rebellious, and as dangerous a principle as any of his former, however by what hath been said, it appears that Mr. Baxter meant to impose upon his credulous friends at Kidderminster, and upon his unwary Readers, by making them believe that was the only cause for which the Bishop forbade him to Preach, which was neither the only, nor the principal cause, why the Bishop did so, nor indeed, to speak properly, any cause of it at all; for the only proper cause for which the Bishop forbade him to Preach, was His Preaching before without the Bishop's Licence; the other which he pretends, together with the third which he conceals, were properly and professedly the Causes why the Bishop would not take off that prohibition, or why he would not give him a Licence to Preach for the future, either at Kidderminster, or in any other place of his Diocese, until he should publicly retract that Position which he had openly asserted at the Conference, and should publicly renounce likewise those seditious and rebellious principles which are published in his Books. And this is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth of what passed betwixt me and Mr. Baxter at Worcester, before I preached at Kidderminster, where whether I defamed him, or he, by saying so, hath not grossly defamed me, will appear by that which follows; wherein that I might neither be deceived myself, nor deceive others, I have not trusted to my own memory only, as Mr. Baxter saith he doth to his, but I have consulted with Dr. Gunning and Dr. Pearson, two of the three that managed that Conference with Mr. Baxter and his Assistants, and have seen that Assertion in the same sense that I object it, and Mr. Baxter disclaims it, affirmed by Mr. Baxter himself under his own hand.  
I found Mr. Baxter at the Savoy engaged in a Dispute, and I perceived that to keep himself off from that part of the argument which would press near to the merits of the Cause, he had often affirmed in his Answers, That the Command of a most lawful Act was sinful; if that Act commanded might prove to any one a sin per accidens. This Assertion I did then and there presently and openly lay to his charge; and when he denied it (as it was most frequent with him immediately to deny what he had before affirmed) the answers which he had delivered written with his own hand were produced, and upon the reading of them, the Justice of my charge was most apparent; whereupon I urged him farther, that this Assertion of his was not only false, but destructive of all Authority Humane and Divine, as not only denying all power to the Church of making Canons Ecclesiastical for the better ordering and governing of the Church, but also taking away all Legislative Power from the King and Parliament, and even from God himself: I delivered at the same time my reason for what I said, which was briefly this, because there can be no Act so good of itself, but may prove per Accidens, or by Accident, a sin; And therefore, if to Command an Act which may prove per accidens a sin, be a sin, than every Command must be a sin. And if to command be a sin, then certainly God can command nothing, because God cannot sin; and by the same reason, Kings, Parliaments and Churches ought not to command any thing, because they ought not to sin.  
Thus far I then charged Mr. Baxter, and to this Charge he gave then no satisfaction. Neither can I yet conceive it possible to give any satisfaction, but by one of these two ways, either by proving that the Assertion, with which I charged him, was never his, or by showing that the consequence I urged, is not good; neither of which was he then able to do: and by what he hath now been pleased to publish, it is more than probable that he can never perform either of them.  
For in his bold, but weak Apology, he doth not so much as pretend to show any Invalidity in my Inference, and for the Assertion with which I charged him, he denies it so poorly, and goes about to prove another instead of it so manifestly, that he may without any injury be interpreted to yield it. He saith indeed now, That he told us that his Assertion made not every Evil Accident to be such as made an Imposition unlawful. But whether he ever said so before this time or no, it was then clearly proved that he did assert, That an Act for nothing else, but because it might be per accidens a sin, could not be commanded without sin.  
And now in his public appeal, he hath taken a strange way to wipe off all this, for he makes a very brief Narration, and most notoriously imperfect, and then says, You know my Crime, as if that were all that had been, or could be objected against him. Besides, in the relating of this short Narrative, he relies wholly upon his own memory; not so much as endeavouring to satisfy himself, before he presumed to satisfy others. How his memory may be in other things I know not, in this if it hath been faithful to him, he hath been very unfaithful to others. He relates an Answer in what terms he pleaseth, and brings one Proposition, as made by his Opponents in what terms he thinks fit, and the Application of this answer to that Proposition he propoundeth as all his Crime; whereas his answer was far more largely given, and that to several Propositions in several Syllogisms, of which the Proposition which he relateth was but one, or rather none; so that he hath most shamefully abused his Disciples at Kidderminster, with a short and partial Narrative of his fact.  
As for his Concurring with Learned Reverend Brethren, (which he would pretend to be part of his Crime) and his invidious insinuation, That they are not forbidden to Preach for it, though he be, the reason is clear. He had often delivered this Assertion before the company, his Brethren had not; the words of the Answer were written with his hand, not with his brethren's. His Brethren had several times declared themselves not to be of his Opinion (as particularly when he affirmed (That a man might live without any actual sin) And therefore we were so just as not to charge them with this Assertion; especially considering they did show themselves unwilling to enter upon this dispute, and seemed to like much better another way tending to an amicable and fair compliance, which was wholly frustrated by Mr. Baxters' furious eagerness to engage in a Disputation.  
All his discourse which followeth (after his imperfect Narrative) in justification of himself, is grounded first upon a misreporting of his own Assertion; Secondly, upon the dissembling of the several Propositions, to which his answer was so often applied; Thirdly, upon his pretending That he says more now, than that which had offended formerly; which is most palpably false, and in all probability (if he have any memory) against his own Conscience. And this will presently appear by the vanity and impertinency of all those specious instances which he brings to mollify his Assertion.  
To Command a Navy to Sea (he says) is lawful but if it were foreseen that they would fall into the Enemy's hand, or were like to perish by any accident, it were a sin to send them. Is this more than he said before, or is it any defence of his Assertion at all? It is not certainly, because the Opponents had put it expressly in the Proposition; That the Act in itself lawful, was to be supposed to have nothing consequent, which the Commander of it ought to provide against; and yet being so stated, Mr. Baxter affirmed, That if the Act might be per accidens sinful, the Commanding of it was sin. Now certainly the falling of a Navy into the Enemy's hand, or the perishing of it any other way, if foreseen, aught to be provided against by the Commander; whereas Mr. baxter's answer did import, That if any Prince did Command a Fleet to Sea, though he did not foresee the Fleet would fall into the Enemy's hand, or perish any other way, yet if by Accident it miscarried that or any other way, which he could not foresee, or were not bound to provide against, the very Command at first was sin.  
The same reason nullifies his instances of the poison, and the knife, because the sin in selling them supposeth the murder of the buyer to be foreseen, and consequently that the seller ought to prevent it; but if he will speak in correspondence to his former Answer, he must show, that though the seller do not foresee that the buyer will use the poison or the knife, to his own, or any other man's destruction, yet if by any Accident or mistake, either the buyer, or any other perish by the poison or the knife, the Seller is guilty of his death.  
His instance of setting a City on fire, or putting Gunpowder under the Parliament House when the King and Parliament are there, is of the same nature, and needs no addition of answer but only this, that Mr. Baxter, in a sense too true, hath been very instrumental in setting the City on fire, and in adding powder to the Parliament.  
The rest which follows betrays the same weakness, because the inconveniences are urged upon a Duty to prohibit them, and his answer did charge the Command with sin in respect of such Accidents, as it was no part of the Commanders Duty to provide against. It is therefore most certain, that no one of those instances singly, nor all of them jointly have any force in any measure to justify that Assertion which Mr. Baxter did maintain, and whereof he is accused.  
As for that last instance, which was (saith he) the matter of the Dispute, and which he urgeth in this manner, (Suppose it never so lawful of itself to Kneel in the reception of the Sacrament, if it be imposed by a penalty, that is incomparably beyond the proportion of the offence, that penalty is an Accident of the Command, and maketh it by Accident sinful to the Commander) he is manifestly guilty of a double falsification: First, in pretending the matter in dispute, was the imposition of kneeling at the Communion; when this very matter was expressly rejected in the very beginning of the dispute, as belonging to the Canons, not the Common-Prayer-Book, the lawfulness of which Canons the Commissioners had no authority to debate, and Mr. Baxter knows, that his Argument was denied upon that ground. The second falsification is yet greater, in urging the penalty to make the Command sinful, when his Answer did charge the Command with sin, without any relation to the punishment; and when the Proposition he replied to was so framed, that all unjust penalties were in terminis expressly excluded, even than I say he charged the Command of a lawful Act with sin, if it were otherwise by Accident sinful; though by the way I must not grant that the penalty imposed by the Law for not kneeling at the Receiving of the Sacrament (namely the not admitting of such as will not kneel, at the receiving of it) is incomparably greater than the offence; for the greatness of the offence in such cases, and as it stands in relation to such or such a penalty appointed for it, is not to be measured by the Quality of the Act considered in itself, but by the more or less mischievous consequences it is likely to produce, if men be not restrained from such an Act by such a penalty; for example▪ when a Soldier is hanged for stealing of a Hen, or for taking away any thing of never so little a value, without paying for it, no wise man will blame the General for such a severity; because if he did not do so, every one would take what he pleased, which would discourage the Country from bringing in provisions, and consequently the whole army would be ruin●d. And as the Martial, so the Civil and Ecclesiastical Laws likewise in commanding or forbidding any thing under such or such a penalty, have an eye not so much to the merit of the Action itself, as to the more or less danger of the Public in the consequences of it; whence it comes to pass, that a less evil may sometimes most justly be forbidden under a more severe penalty than a greater, because the former may be of much more dangerous consequence than the latter; so that he that will judge rightly, and impartially of the equity or iniquity of appointing or inflicting such or such a penalty, he must not so much consider the quality of the Transgression singly in itself, nor whether it be from weakness, or wilfulness in the party transgressing (as he is this or that individual person) but rather he must consider what the Consequence would be of the breach of such a command if it were not prevented by such a penalty, always supposing the Command itself to be lawful, and that the transgressor of it is to be considered as he stands in relation to that whole Body, whether Civil, or Ecclesiastical, whereof he is a part; and that the whole is not to be endangered out of tenderness and indulgence to some particulars, as evidently it would be, if every man were left at liberty to do what seemed best in his own eyes, even in the Ceremonials and Circumstantials of God's Worship; for considering the pride and self-love that is in humane nature, which makes men so overvalue their own practices and their own opinions, that they are always apt to undervalue those that will not conform to them, as it always hath been, so it always will be; he that worshippeth God one way, will either judge or condemn him that worshippeth God another way; he that Kneeleth at the Sacrament, will be thought to be Idolatrous or Superstitious by him that Kneeleth not, and him that kneeleth not will be thought wilful, or weak, by him that kneeleth. And thus from diversity grows dislike, from dislike enmity, from enmity opposition, and from opposition, first Separation and Schism in the Church, and then Faction, Sedition and Rebellion in the State; which is a progress very natural, and I would we had not found it to be so by our own experience; for as the safety of a State depends upon the safety of the Church, so the safety of the Church depends upon Unity, and Unity itself depends upon Uniformity, and Uniformity there cannot be, as long as there is diversity or divers ways of worship in the same Church, which will be always, unless it be lawful for public Authority to oblige all particulars to one way of public worship, and that under such penalties, as the Lawgivers shall think necessary to prevent the disturbing of the public Peace and safety; the preservation whereof being the main end of all Laws, and of all penalties appointed by Law, those practices that are either intentionally or consequentially destructive to this End, may be, and no doubt ought to be restrained by severe penalties. It is not therefore the not kneeling at the Sacrament, but the breaking of the Orders of the Church, and the endangering of the Peace and Safety of the whole, which our Laws punish by not admitting such unto the Sacrament, as will not, or perhaps dare not kneel at it; for as they will not endanger the Peace of their Consciences for the Church's sake; so it becomes the Lawgivers not to endanger the Churches and the State's Peace for their sakes: And surely when there is a necessity of the yielding of the one or of the other, it is much more reasonable that a part should yield unto the whole, than the whole unto a part, especially when the whole cannot yield without endangering itself, and with itself even those themselves also, that, will they nill they, must be involved in the ruin of it; as the Presbyterians have found by their own experience also, who by their groundless and needless separation from us, have given example and ground enough for others to separate from them, till by dividing and subdividing from one another, there was nothing of Uniformity, or unity, or order, or decency left in that Church, which was formerly (and I hope by the Prudence and Piety of Public Authority will be now again) the Glory and Pattern of all other Protestant and Reformed Churches in the world; of which, by the way, there is not one which doth not use as great severity for the preserving of Unity by Uniformity as we do, even in this particular; for do not the Protestant Churches in France enjoin Standing, the Churches of Holland, Scotland, and the Churches of Germany that follow Calvin enjoin Sitting, and the Churches that follow Luther there and elsewhere enjoin Kneeling as we do, and all of them upon the same penalty of not receiving it otherwise? And is it not as lawful for our Church, as for all other Protestant, and all other Christian Churches, to require of her Children the like conformity to her Laws under the like penalty for the same end, and to prevent the same danger? Yes (replied Mr. Baxter when this question was asked him) just as lawful, that is, not lawful at all, such an injunction upon such a penalty being sinful, wheresoever and by whomsoever it is enjoined. O happy England, that hath such an Aristarchus as is worthy to censure all the Churches of the world, whose Catholic practise (if it cross Mr. Baxters' opinion) must presently without more ado be Condemned as sinful, and all the world must be Liars rather than Mr. Baxter must not be justified in his sayings. You have before seen the ingenuity and veracity, you now see the humility, and the modesty of the Man; and indeed in proportion, of the whole party, for crimine ab uno,— Disce omnes. But doth Mr. Baxter and the rest of his persuasion think indeed, that it is so great and grievous a punishment to be kept from the Sacrament when men will not receive it in that way and upon those terms that the Church offers? if they do, why then do they deny it to so many that hunger and thirst after it, whensoever either by reason of Age, or Lameness, or sickness, or some other bodily infirmity they cannot come to Church for it? especially when the Catholic Church in the 12th Canon of the first General Council commands it be given even to those that are Excommunicate, if they desire it when they are in Extremis, or going out of the world. Secondly, why have they suffered so many whole Parishes in England under their charge to have been without a Communion so many years together, as I am credibly informed they have? Thirdly, why do they reject those from the Sacrament, that will not come before hand to them to be examined by them, there being neither precept nor practice in the Gospel, nor Canon in the Church, either to warrant them to require it, or to oblige the People to submit to it upon any such penalty? I am sure St. Paul when he chides those of the Church of Corinth for coming ignorantly to the Sacrament, and for behaving themselves profanely at the Sacrament, that which he prescribes for avoiding the same or the like faults for the future, is not that every man should come, and be examined by the Minister, but that every man should examine himself before he eat of that Bread and drink of that Cup; And yet I will not deny but that every man before he Communicates aught to be well Catechised and instructed by the Minister, and thereby enabled to examine himself the better; nor will I deny neither but that every man may and aught in Case of scruple of mind or trouble of conscience to advise with, and to be advised by him that hath the cure of his Soul; but that every man as often as he intends to receive the Sacrament should be obliged under the penalty of being rejected from it, to come and to be examined by the Minister, this is that which I utterly deny, and which I take to be the same thing in other words with that of Auricular Confession; so that they who exact the one, have no reason to condemn the other, unless it be because they would engross it wholly unto themselves: Howsoever, if refusing the Sacrament to those that will not kneel, when the Church enjoins it, be a penalty so far transcending the offence, how much more must the same penalty transcend the offence, when there is indeed no offence at all? for where there is no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, there can be no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, where there is no Law there can be no transgression, and consequently there being no Law of God nor Man that requires all Communicants to be pre-examined by the Minister, those that are refused the Sacrament because they will not be pre-examined, are punished with the same punishment which they complain of, for no offence at all. And therefore si maximè digna essem (may our Church say) ista contumelia, indigni vos, qui faceretis tamen; for, Who art thou O Man that judgest another? nay, that judgest thy Mother, when thou dost the same, or worse, thing, than those are for which thou condemnest her? And how can any man of reason be so scrupulous, as to quit his Calling, rather than deny the Sacrament to those that will not receive it kneeling, when the Church commands it should neither be taken nor given otherwise, and yet make no scruple at all of denying it to whole Parishes? of denying it to those that cannot come to Church for it, though desirous of it, and qualified for it, and such as have most need of it to strengthen their faith in their last Agony? and lastly, of denying it to such as refuse to be pre-examined by them, and all this without any command or warrant from God's Word, and contrary to the Command and Custom of God's Church? whereby it plainly appears, that either they do not think the receiving of the Sacrament of so great importance, as indeed it is, nor the denying of it so great an injury or punishment as they pretend it to be; or else that they would have every Minister to be a Monarch or Sovereign Lawgiver in his own Parish, and this indeed is that they would fain be at, now they have lost their hopes of Governing the whole Kingdom; for you see by what Mr. Baxter adds, that if they may not be suffered to give or deny the Sacrament to whom they please, and in effect to do what they list in their own Parishes, they threaten to quit their Stations, which he calls being Ejected because they dare not put away all that will not kneel at the Sacrament: And this menace they often repeat upon all occasions, as if they were the only men that could carry on the work of the Lord; or as if the Church must needs sink and perish, if it wanted such Pillars as they are to uphold it. But (thanks be to God for it) the Church of England is not yet (notwithstanding all their endeavours to that purpose) reduced to so very ill a condition, that she cannot subsist without them; whereas the truth is, she cannot subsist with them, as long as they continue to be what they have been, the sowers and fomenters of Schism in the Church, and sedition in the State; and as long as they continue to do as they have done in humouring, and hardening, and confirming the people in their obstinate standing out against the lawful commands of their Superiors; which they would never have done at all, if these men had not at first infused into them these scruples. And therefore as God asked Adam and Eve, How came you to know that you are naked? so if I should ask those poor souls whom those sly and subtle Serpents have beguiled and seduced, How came you to know that you shall sin against God if you obey the Orders of the Church in general? or particularly how came you to know, That it is against the Canons of the General Counsels, and many hundred years practise of the Church to Kneel in the Act of receiving? Did you or can you yourselves read those General Counsels? Did you or can you examine so many hundred years practise of the Church as Mr. Baxter speaks of? What answer can they make to these demands, but that which Eve made unto God? The Serpent beguiled me, and I did eat; Mr. Baxter, or some such Godly and Learned men as Mr. Baxter is, did tell us so, and we believed them: But what if Mr. Baxter do not believe that himself which he would have you believe? For first he would have you believe that there is great reverence and respect to be given (as indeed there is) to the Canons of General Counsels, and to the Catholic practice of the Primitive Church; but doth he himself believe this? if he do, why did he so furiously oppose that which all General Counsels approve of and confirm? I mean the Government of the Church by Bishops in the sense wherein it is asserted and practised in our Church? Or why did he persuade Subjects to take Arms against their Sovereign? which he knows to be contrary to the Doctrine and practice of the Primitive Christians for many hundred years more than he speaks of. Secondly, Mr. Baxter would have you believe, that Kneeling at the receiving of the Sacrament is forbidden by General Counsels, and contrary to the custom and practice of the Ancient Church, which I am afraid he doth not believe himself; I am sure there is no convincing reason to make him believe it; for it is not the Ancient Church's injunction to stand when they prayed betwixt Easter and Whitsuntide, that will prove they were forbidden to Kneel when they received; especially if the Presbyterian opinion be true, that we are not to be in the Act of Praying, when we are in the Act of receiving; But if we may pray (as no doubt we may and aught to pray) in the Act of Receiving, then supposing the Ancient Injunction of the Church to stand at Prayer upon Sundays betwixt Easter and Whitsuntide to be still in force, yet all the rest of the year we are to kneel when we Pray, and consequently when we Receive, though there were no particular command of our own Church for it. Besides Mr. Baxter knows that the aforesaid Injunction of the Church was but Temporary, till the people were sufficiently confirmed in the Doctrine and Belief of the Resurrection; for if it had been of perpetual obligation, and were still in force, Mr. Baxter must needs condemn the whole present Church of God for kneeling when they pray betwixt Easter and Whisontide, and particularly he must most of all condemn himself and the Presbyterians of England, for not standing when they receive, if at least that Injunction be to be understood of Receiving, as well as Praying; which if it be not, then is it urged by Mr. Baxter against us to no purpose, as indeed it is; And therefore no doubt Mr. Baxter doth not believe himself what he would have others believe, when he presseth that occasional temporary injunction of the Church for standing against kneeling; which if it be of force, must needs condemn his own practice of sitting, as well as ours of kneeling. The like may be said of Christ's example alleged by him also; for would he, or would he not have his Disciples believe that they are obliged to do as Christ did? if he would not have them believe so, why doth he press them with Christ example? if he would have them believe so, I demand again whether he doth believe it himself or no? if he do not, it is plain he is a seducer of the People; but if he do believe it, he must needs condemn the French Presbyterians for standing, as well as the English Protestants for kneeling; nay he must needs condemn himself and all other Christians in the world for not doing as Christ did in point of time, I mean, for not giving and receiving the Sacrament in the Evening as Christ did, as well as he condemns us for not doing as Christ did in point of gesture; unless he can prove (which I think he cannot) that we are of necessity to follow Christ's example in one circumstance of the same action, and not in another, and in that circumstance which is less, but not in that which is more material; for certainly that circumstance which denominates the action (as the circumstance of time doth the Lord's Supper) is most material; and yet that circumstance by the consent of all Christendom is altered from the Evening to the Morning, and so was the gesture or posture of receiving also, and that upon most just and weighty reasons, till those that delight in change would needs have it otherwise, and that perhaps for no other reason but because they found it settled in the Church▪ This is not to follow Christ's example, who in things indifferent in their own nature conformed his practice to that of the Church in which he lived, though varying in some circumstances from the primitive Institution; and particularly in this very action, from which they press us with Christ's example. For it is certain that Christ and his Disciples sat at the Passeover, (though it be uncertain whether he or they sat at the giving and receiving the Sacrament o● no, for it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, after he had supped, saith the Text, Luk 22.20.) Howsoever it is certain, I say, that Christ and his Disciples sat when they eat the Passover, and this no doubt was according to the custom of the Jewish Church at that time; but it is as certain that this was not the manner according to the first institution of it, which was to eat it standing, as you may read Exod 12.11. So that to urge Christ's example against us, is to urge Christ's example against himself; for as we conform ourselves to the Church's order and custom of our times in receiving the Communion otherwise in point of gesture, than perhaps it was received at the first institution; so Christ and his Apostles conforming themselves to the order and practise of the Church of their times, did celebrate the Passeover otherwise then according to the first Institution it was to be celebrated in point of gesture also; thereby perhaps intending to teach us, that as long as the Essentials of Doctrine and worship (which are unalterable) are preserved, we are not to separate from the Church, or quarrel with our Superiors, if those things that are in their own nature alterable, be not always and in all places just the same that they were at first, because there may be very just cause for the alteration of them; and whether there be such a cause or no in this and the like particulars, it is the Church that is to be the Judge. So that there is nothing that can be collected either from the Canons of the Counsels, or from the practice of the Primitive Church, no nor from Christ's own example, that can prove kneeling at the Sacrament to be a sin; neither doth Mr. Baxter himself believe it to be sinful, for if he did, he would not say (as he does. Pag. 411. of his five Disputations) that he himself would kneel rather than disturb the peace of the Church, or be deprived of its Communion. In which words he confesseth, First, that Kneeling at the Sacrament is not sinful or unlawful, Secondly, that not to Kneel when it is imposed, is to disturb the Peace of the Church, and Thirdly, that the imposing of it upon penalty of being deprived of the Communin, is an effectual means to make those that otherwise would not kneel, to conform to it; and consequently, that the imposing of it upon such a penalty is prudent and rational, and whatsoever is prudent and rational cannot be unlawful; so that not only the Act of Kneeling itself, but the imposition of it by lawful Authority must needs be lawful. Neither indeed would the People scruple at the imposition, if they had not been taught that the thing itself were unlawful, or if Mr Baxter would yet teach them to believe what he himself believes, namely, that it is lawful; which with what conscience he can refuse to do I know not; for sure he is obliged to teach them obedience not to Divine Authority only, but to humane authority also in all lawful things; and not to let them go on in such an erroneous opinion, as will disturb the Peace, and deprive them of the Communion of the Church, and consequently make them sin against God and man and their own Souls. Of which sin of theirs he must needs be a partaker in a great measure, if he do not persuade them from it; seeing (as he himself saith) Qui non vetat peccare cum potest, jubet. And what Power he hath to lead or misled those kind of men, their venturing to kill and be killed in a most unrighteous quarrel (upon his persuasion) hath more than enough demonstrated during the time of the late troubles; unless he will say that he hath conjured up a Spirit that he cannot lay. Howsoever by how much the more fault he hath been in misleading them heretofore, by so much the more zealous he should be to reduce them into the right way hereafter; which if he and the rest of his Brethren can do (as I am confident they can if they will) they will make some amends for the mischief they have done and then there will be no fear or danger of Ministers being Ejected for their tenderness towards the People, nor of the Ejecting of any of the People from the Communio of the Church for not conforming themselves to the Orders and Commands of it, and consequently, there will be no Schisms or Divisions amongst us, when we shall all worship the same God the same way. But if they will not do this (which by all obligations humane and Divine they are bound to do) for my part I know no better way for undeceiving and reducing of the People, then by removing such Ministers, and then we shall see when the blowing of those boisterous winds ceaseth, whether the waves will not be still or no: In the mean time, I hope the removing of erroneous and seditious, will not necessitate the introducing of ignorant and scandalous Ministers, though Mr. Baxter ought to remember, that as there is no sin more heinous than Rebellion, so no teacher ought to be more scandalous (I am sure there is none more dangerous) then a teacher of Rebellion.  
And now (to use Mr. baxter's own words) I think there is no man to be found on earth, that hath the ordinary reason of a Man, but will confess, That it is indeed destructive of all Government and Legislative power, to Assert (as Mr. Baxter did Assert) the command of a thing in itself lawful by lawful Authority, under no unjust punishment, with no evil circumstance, which the Commander can foresee or aught to provide against (for all these precautions were expesly put in the proposition which Mr. Baxter denied) is a sinful Command, for no other reason, but because the Act Commanded may be by Accident a sin.  
Let Mr. Baxter then know, and (if he have ingenuity enough) confess, that the words I spoke (as to this particular) were words of truth, and words of charity also, as being intended and spoken to no other end, but to undeceive that People, who by having his person too much in admiration (as if he could neither deceive nor be deceived) had been so long and so dangerously misled by him; so that it was not I that defamed him then, but it is he that hath defamed me now. Neither could I expect less from the boldness of this man and that Party, who have had the confidence publicly to own the obligation of the Covenant, even since it hath been condemned to be burnt by the Parliament. And truly I see no reason why all those Books and Sermons which have been Preached and Printed in defence of the Covenant, or to maintain the same or worse principles of Sedition then are in the Covenant, should not be burnt also. Nay I dare be bold to say, that if the Authors of such Books and Sermons were not still of the same opinions (and if they be, God deliver us from such Preachers) if they were not still, I say, of the same opinions, but did truly repent of them, and were heart'ly sorry for the horrible mischief they have done by them, they would with those converted Exorcists, Act. 19.19. bring all those Conjuring Books of theirs together, and to save the Hangman a labour, would publicly burn them all with their own hands, that so, though by the burning of their works they may perhaps suffer some loss in point of reputation with some of their Disciples, yet they themselves may be saved, but so as by fire, 1 Cor. 3.15. At least they ought to be enjoined to write Books of Retractation, as St. Augustine did, having much more reason to do so then St. Augustine had.  
And this Sir is all I have to say upon this occasion, and more a great deal than I thought to have said, or then perhaps was needful to be said to one that knows Mr. Baxter and me as well as you do; which if it satisfy you, as I hope it will, you may do what you please with it, in order to the satisfying of others; for this is the first and last trouble I mean to put myself to of this kind, whatsoever provocation I may have from him hereafter.  
Your very affectionate Friend and Servant, G. Worcester.   

The Attestation of Dr. Gunning and Dr. Pearson. Concerning a Command of Lawful Superiors, what was sufficient to its being a lawful Command.  
THis Proposition being brought by us, viz. That Command which commands an Act in itself lawful, and no other act or circumstance unlawful, is not sinful.  
Mr. Baxter denied it for two reasons which he gave in with his own hand in writing thus: One is, Because that may be a sin per accidens, which is not so in itself, and may be unlawfully commanded though that accident be not in the command. Another is, That it may be commanded under an unjust penalty.  
Again this Proposition being brought by us,  
That Command which commandeth an Act in itself lawful, and no other Act whereby any unjust penalty is enjoined, nor any circumstance whence per accidens any sin is consequent which the Commander ought to provide against, is not sinful.  
Mr. Baxter denied it for this reason given in with his own hand in writing thus: Because the first Act commanded may be per accidens unlawful, and be commanded by an unjust penalty, though no other Act or circumstance commanded be such.  
Again this Proposition being brought by us,  
That Command which commandeth an Act in itself lawful, and no other Act whereby any unjust penalty is enjoined, nor any circumstance whence directly or per accidens any sin is consequent, which the Commander ought to provide against, hath in it all things requisite to the lawfulness of a Command, and particularly cannot be guilty of commanding an Act per accidens unlawful, nor of commanding an Act under an unjust penalty.  
Mr. Baxter denied it upon the same Reasons.  


Peter Gunning.  
John Pearson.     

The Postscript.  
Lest Mr. Baxter should say I have defamed him once more, by charging him with devising and publishing Maxims of Treason, Sedition and Rebellion, (which till he should as publicly recant, I thought it unfit to restore him to the exercise of any Act of the Ministry in my Diocese) I think myself obliged to set down some few of his Political Theses or Aphorisms in his own words, as they are extant (though it be strange such a Book should still be extant) in his [Holy Commonwealth] most falsely and profanely so called.  

Mr. Baxter's Theses of Government and Governors in General.  
I. Governors are some limited, some de facto unlimited: The unlimited are Tyrants and have no right to that unlimited Government, P. 106. Thes. 101.  
II. The 3. qualifications of necessity to the being of Sovereign Power are, 1. So much understanding, 2. So much will or goodness in himself, 3. So much strength or executive power by his interest in the People or others, as are necessary to the said ends of Government, P. 130. Thes. 133.  
III. From whence he deduceth 3. Corollaries, (viz.)  
1. When Providence depriveth a man of his understanding and intellectual Capacity, and that statedly or to his ordinary temper, it maketh him materiam indispositam and uncapable of Government, though not of the name. Thes. 135.  
2. If God permit Princes to turn so wicked as to be uncapable of governing so as is consistent with the ends of Government, he permits them to depose themselves, Thes. 136.  
3. If Providence statedly disable him that was the Sovereign from the executing of the Law, protecting the just, and other ends of Government, it makes him an uncapable subject of the power, and so deposeth him. Thes. 137.  
IV. Whereunto he subjoins, that though it is possible and likely that the guilt is or may be theirs, who have disabled their Ruler by deserting him, yet he is dismissed and disobliged from the charge of Government; and particular innocent members are disobliged from being Governed by him.  
V. If the person (viz. the Sovereign) be justly dispossessed, as by a lawful War, in which he loseth his right, especially if he violate the Constitution and enter into a Military state against the People themselves, and by them be conquered, they are not obliged to restore him, unless there be some special obligation upon them besides their Allegiance. Thes. 145.  
VI If the person dispossessed, though it were unjustly, do afterwards become uncapable of Government, it is not the Duty of his Subjects to seek his restitution. Thes. 146. No not although (saith he) the incapacity be but accidental, as if he cannot be restored but by the Arms of the Enemies of God or of the Commonwealth.  
VII. If an Army (of Neighbours, Inhabitants, or whoever) do (though injuriously) expel the Sovereign, and resolve to ruin the Commonwealth, rather than he shall be restored; and if the Commonwealth may prosper without his restauration, it is the Duty of such an injured Prince for the Common good to resign his Government, and if he will not, the people ought to judge him as made uncapable by Providence, and not to seek his restitution to the apparent ruin of the Commonwealth, Thes. 147.  
Where by the way we are to note, he makes the people judge of this and all other incapacities of the Prince, and consequently when or for what he is to be Deposed, or not Restored by them.  
VIII. If therefore the rightful Governor be so long dispossessed, that the Commonwealth can be no longer without, but to the apparent hazard of its ruin, we (that is, we the people, or we the Rebels that dispossessed him) are to judge that Providence hath dispossessed the former, and presently to consent to another. Thes. 149.  
IX. When the People are without a Governor, it may be the duty or such as have most strength, ex charitate, to protect the rest from injury. Thes. 150. and consequently they are to submit themselves to the Parliament, or to that Army which deposed or dispossessed or murdered the rightful Governor.  
X. Providence by Conquest or other means doth use so to qualify some persons above others for the Government when the place is void, that no other persons shall be capable competitors, and the persons (doth not he mean the Cromwell's?) shall be as good as named by Providence, whom the people are bound by God to choose, or consent to, so that they are usually brought under a divine obligation to submit to such or such, and take them for their Governors, before those persons have an actual right to Govern. Thes. 151.  
XI. Any thing that is a sufficient sign of the will of God, that this is the person, by whom we must be Governed is enough (as joined to God's Laws) to oblige us to consent and obey him as our Governor. Thes. 153.  
XII. When God doth not notably declare any person or persons qualified above others, there the people must judge as well as they are able according to God's general rules. Thes. 157.  
XIII. And yet All the people have not this right of choosing their Governors, but commonly a part of every Nation must be compelled to consent, etc.  
XIV. Those that are known enemies of the Common Good in the chiefest parts of it, are unmeet to Govern or choose Governors, but such are multitudes of ungodly vicious men. Pag. 174. So that if those that are strongest (though fewest) call themselves the Godly Party, all others besides themselves are to be excluded from Governing or choosing of Governors. And amongst the ungodly that are to be thus excluded, he reckons all those that will not hearken to their Pastors (he means the Presbyterian Classis) or that are despisers of the Lordsday, that is, all such as are not Sabbatarians, or will not keep the Lordsday after the Jewish manner, which they prescribe, and which is condemned for Judaisme by all even of the Presbyterian persuasion in the world, but those of England and Scotland only.  
XV. If a People that by Oath and Duty are obliged to a Sovereign, shall sinfully dispossess him, and contrary to their Covenants, choose and Covenant with another, they may be obliged by their latter Covenant notwithstanding their former; and particular subjects that consented not in the breaking of their former Covenants, may yet be obliged by occasion of their latter choice to the person whom they choose. Thes. 181.  
XVI. If a Nation injuriously deprive themselves of a worthy Prince, the hurt will be their own, and they punish themselves; but if it be necessarily to their welfare, it is no injury to him. But a King that by war will seek reparations from the body of the People, doth put himself into an hostile State, and tells them actually that he looks to his own good more than theirs, and bids them take him for their Enemy, and so defend themselves if they can. Pag. 424.  
XVII. Though a Nation wrong their King, and so quoad Meritum causae, they are on the worse side, yet may he not lawfully war against the public good on that account, nor any help him in such a war, because propter finem he hath the worse cause. Thes. 352.  
And yet as he tells us (pag. 476.) we were to believe the Parliaments Declarations and professions which they made, that the war which they raised was not against the King either in respect of his Authority, or of his Person; but only against Delinquent Subjects, and yet they actually fought against the King in person, and we are to believe (saith Mr. Baxter pag. 422.) that men would kill them whom they fight against.   

Mr. Baxter's Doctrine concerning the Government of England in particular.  
HE denies the government of England to be Monarchical in these words.  
I. The real Sovereignty here amongst us was in King, Lords, and Commons. Pag. 72.  
II. As to them that argue from the Oath of Supremacy and the title given the King, 
He might have referred them to himself, pag. 460. where he gives the same answer to the same objection.  I refer them (saith Mr. Baxter) to Mr. Lawson's answer to Hobb's Politics, where he showeth that the Title is often given to the single Person for the honour of the Commonwealth and his encouragement, because he hath an eminent interest: but will not prove the whole Sovereignty to be in him: and the Oath excludeth all others from without, not those whose interest is implied as conjunct with his— The eminent dignity and interest of the King above others allowed the name of a Monarchy or Kingdom to the Commonwealth, though indeed the Sovereignty was mixed in the hands of the Lords and Commons. Pag. 88  
III. He calls it a false supposition, 1. That the Sovereign power was only in the King, and so that it was an absolute Monarchy. 2. That the Parliament had but only the proposing of Laws, and that they were Enacted only by the King's Authority upon their request. 3. That the power of Arms and of War and Peace was in the King alone. And therefore (saith he) those that argue from these false suppositions, conclude that the Parliament being Subjects, may not take up Arms without him, and that it is Rebellion to resist him; and most of this they gather from the Oath of Supremacy, and from the Parliaments calling of themselves his Subjects; but their grounds (saith he) are sandy, and their superstructure false. Pag. 459, & 460.  
And therefore Mr. Baxter tells us, that though the Parliament are Subjects in one capacity, yet have they their part in the Sovereignty also in their higher capacity, Ibid. And upon this false and traitorous supposition he endeavours to justify the late Rebellion, and his own more than ordinary activeness in it. For,  
IU. Where the Sovereignty (saith he) is distributed into several hands (as the Kings and Parliaments) and the King invades the others part, they may lawfully defend their own by war, and the Subject lawfully assist them, yea though the power of the Militia be expressly given to the King, unless it be also expressed that it shall not be in the other. Thes. 363.  
The conclusion (saith he) needs no proof, because Sovereignty, as such, hath the power of Arms and of the Laws themselves. The Law that saith the King shall have the Militia supposeth it to be against Enemies and not against the Commonwealth, nor them that have part of the Sovereignty with him. To resist him here is not to resist power, but usurpation and private will; in such a case the Parliament is no more to be resisted than he. Ibid.  
V. If the King raise War against such a Parliament upon their Declaration of the dangers of the Commonwealth, the people are to take it as raised against the Commonwealth. Thes. 358.  
And in that case (saith he) the King may not only be resisted, but ceaseth to be a King, and entereth into a state of War with the people. Thes. 368.  
VI Again, if a Prince that hath not the whole Sovereignty be conquered by a Senate that hath the other part, and that in a just defensive War, that Senate cannot assume the whole Sovereignty, but supposeth that government in specie to remain, and therefore another King must be chosen, if the former be incapable. (Thes. 374.) as he tells us, he is, by ceasing to be King, in the immediately precedent Thes.  
VII. And yet in the Preface to this Book he tells us that the King withdrawing (so he calls the murdering of one King and the casting off of another) the Lords and Commons ruled alone; was not this to change the species of the Government? Which in the immediate words before he had affirmed to be in King, Lords and Commons; which constitution (saith he) we were sworn, and sworn, and sworn again to be faithful to and to defend. And yet speaking of that Parliament which contrary to their Oaths changed this Government by ruling alone, and taking upon them the Supremacy, 
Vid. Preface to the Holy Common wealth. p●g. 6.  he tells us that they were the best Governors in all the world, and such as it is forbidden to Subjects to depose upon pain of damnation.  
What then was he that deposed them? one would think Mr. Baxter should have called him a Traitor, but he calls him in the same Preface, the Lord Protector, adding, That he did prudently, piously, faithfully, and to his immortal honour exercise the Government, which he left to his Son, to whom (as Mr. Baxter saith pag. 481.) he is bound to submit as set over us by God, and to obey for conscience sake, and to behave himself as a Loyal Subject towards him, because (as he saith in the same place) a full and free Parliament had owned him: thereby implying, That a maimed and manacled House of Commons, without King and Lords, and notwithstanding the violent expulsion of the secluded Members were a full and free Parliament; and consequently that if such a Parliament should have taken Arms against the King he must have sided with them. Yea, though they had been never so much in fault, and though they had been the beginners of the War, for he tells us in plain and express terms,  
VIII. That if he had known the Parliament had been the beginners of the War and in most fault, yet the ruin of the trusties and Representatives, and so of all the security of the Nation being a punishment greater than any faults of theirs against the King could deserve from him, their faults could not disoblige him (meaning himself) from defending the Commonwealth. Pag. 480.  
And that he might do this lawfully, and with a good Conscience, he seems to be so confident, that in his Preface, he makes as it were a challenge, saying, that if any man can prove that the King was the highest power in the time of those Divisions, and that he had power to make that war which he made, he will offer his head to Justice as a Rebel.  
As if in those times of Division the King had lost or forfeited his Sovereignty, and the Parliament had not only a part, but the whole Sovereignty in themselves.  
IX. Finally Mr. Baxter tells us, Pag. 486. That having often searched into his heart, whether he did lawfully engage into the War or not, and whether he did lawfully encourage so many thousands to it; he tells us, I say, that the issue of all his search was but this,— That he cannot yet see that he was mistaken in the main cause, nor dares he repent of it, nor forbear doing the same, if it were to do again in the same state of things. He tells us indeed in the same place, that if he could be convinced he had sinned in this matter, he would as gladly make a public recantation, as he would eat or drink: which seeing he hath not yet done, it is evident he is still of the same mind, and consequently would upon the same occasion do the same things, viz. fight, and encourage as many thousands as he could to fight against the King for any thing that calls itself, or which he is pleased to call a full and Free Parliament: as likewise that he would own and submit to any Usurper of the Sovereignty as set up by God, although he came to it by the murder of his Master, and by trampling upon the Parliament. Lastly, That he would hinder as much as possibly he could the restoring of the rightful Heir unto the Crown. And now whether a man of this Judgement, and of these affections, aught to be permitted to Preach or no, Let any, but himself, judge.   
FINIS.