A26982:140
Richard Baxter's penitent confession and his necessary vindication in answer to a book called…
Richard Baxter's penitent confession and his necessary vindication in answer to a book called The second part of the mischiefs of separation, written by an unnamed author with a preface to Mr. Cantianus D. Minimis, in answer to his letter which extorted this publication.
London: printed for Tho. Parkhurst, 1691
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
9. Grotius and common reason convinced me that where the summa potestas is in King and Senate, each part hath right to defend its own true Part therein: It can be no part in Sovereignty which is merely at the Will and Mercy of the other part.
9. Grotius and common reason convinced me that where the summa potestas is in King and Senate, each part hath right to defend its own true Part therein: It can be no part in Soveraignty which is meerly at the Will and Mercy of the other part.
10. I did and do believe that the Constitution fixing the chief power in King and Parliament united as one Politic Person; it supposeth that they must not be divided: And that neither part hath power against the other as such: (The King hath power over them as Subjects, but not as Legislators or exempted Proprietors.) So that separating them by fixed opposition is dissolving the Constitution: As separating Soul and Body, Husband and Wife, dissolve Man and Matrimony.
10. I did and do believe that the Constitution fixing the chief power in King and Parliament united as one Politick Person; it supposeth that they must not be divided: And that neither part hath power against the other as such: (The King hath power over them as Subjects, but not as Legislators or exempted Proprietors.) So that separating them by fixed opposition is dissolving the Constitution: As separating Soul and Body, Husband and Wife, dissolve Man and Matrimony.
11. Therefore I did and do believe that neither King nor Parliament had any right, to raise an Offensive War against each other! None but unavoidably defensive could be lawful. Therefore the first assailant was the culpable beginner.