A97353:362
The second part of The nonconformists plea for peace being an account of their…
The second part of The nonconformists plea for peace being an account of their principles about civil and ecclesiastical authority and obedience ... : mostly written many years past, and now published to save our lives and the kingdoms peace, from the false and bloody plotters ... / by Richard Baxter.
London: printed for John Hancock, 1680
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.
I. We reject the inhumane opinion of Spinosa in Tract▪ ⟨p. 64⟩Theol. Polit. and such other Infidels, who hold that sensuality is mans chief interest, and that every man hath right to any thing that he desireth if he can but get it, and that he is bound to keep his Oaths and Covenants no longer than it is for his own interest, and that he hath as good title as the Governor or possessor had, if he can but get his place or possessions, and may destroy any if he can, that hinder his desires.
I. We reject the inhumane opinion of Spinosa in Tract▪ ⟨p. 64⟩Theol. Polit. and such other Infidels, who hold that sensuality is mans chief interest, and that every man hath right to any thing that he desireth if he can but get it, and that he is bound to keep his Oaths and Covenants no longer than it is for his own interest, and that he hath as good title as the Governour or possessor had, if he can but get his place or possessions, and may destroy any if he can, that hinder his desires.
II. I do (with due reverence to the persons) reject the opinion of many Authors of Politics, and great Lawyers, who say that the Majestas realis is in the people, and the Majestas Personalis in the King, and that Governing Power is but the Collation of each mans singular power over his own person and estate, and the committing it to one for the Common safety. And that the people give the power, and may question the Prince, and resume it when there is cause. And so we reject the doctrine of Mr. Richard Hooker in his Eccl. Polit. lib. 1. and 8. (with due respect to his judiciousness) and all other Episcopal Divines of his mind, who saith that [By the natural Law whereto God hath made all subject, the lawful power of making Laws to command whole societies of men, belongeth so properly to the same entire societies, that for ANY Prince or Potentate, of WHAT KINDSOEVER upon earth, to exercise the same of himself, and not either by express Commission immediately and personally received from God, or else by Authority derived at first from their consent upon whose persons they impose Laws, it is no better than mere Tyranny: Laws they are not which public approbation hath not made so.] He maketh the peoples [giving Authority] necessary, where their Consent to the family or person that shall receive it from God is enough: And […] maketh