A26982:163
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.
28. I did believe that if the King by such an Army as he had, should Conquer the Parliament, the Legal and all Probable Security of the Nation, for Life Property, Liberty and Religion, was in all likelihood gone; If it should lye on the King's Will only, thereby it were gone: For what then were our Constitution, or Parliaments for; and what differ we from Slaves? And were he willing (and those with him that meant well) he would not be able to Master such an Army.
29. I did believe that if the Parliament were certainly more faulty than they were, the Kingdoms Security was not therefore to be forsaken by the Subjects; nor all Parliaments and Government to be left to the Will of the King, who had for so many years interrupted Parliaments, and dissolved them still in Displeasure, and had raised Taxes called Ship-money by himself without them, and on the same account might command all the rest: Therefore I owned not any of the discerned Miscarriages of the Parliament, but only thought I was bound to defend the common Good and Safety, as it was the End of Government. My judgment yet is, That if the King of England wrongfully begin a War against France, the Subjects ought by Arms to help him, not owning his wrong Cause, but to save the Kingdom, which would be lost and enslaved if he were Conquered. So the fault of the Parliament could not disoblige the People from labouring to secure the Constitution of the Kingdom, and therein their Posterities, Properties, Liberties and Safety. And the bare Promise of a King is no such Security.
30. I did believe that if there were a Controversy in these Cases, the Supreme Council and Judicature of the Kingdom, had the most satisfying Power of Determination to particular Persons: As the Judgment of a General Council is preferable to any lower Judges, and the Judgment of the College of Physicians is more authoritative than of a single Dr. And the Judgment of the University is more than of the Vice-Chancellor's or one Man. And tho yet it may fall out that the Dissenter may be in the right, the unlearned that cannot confidently judge, are more excusable for not resisting the higher Judges.