B. and C. The only valid argument is, that Charles
had by acts of his own ceased to be a lawful King.
Ib. p. 40.
And that the authority and person of the King were inviolable, out of
the reach of just accusation, judgment, or execution by law; as having
no superior, and so no judge.
But according to Grotius, a king waging war against the lawful
copartners of the 'summa potestas' ceases to be their king, and if
conquered forfeits to them his former share. And surely if Charles had
been victor, he would have taken the Parliament's share to himself. If
it had been the Parliament, and not a mere faction with the army, that
tried and beheaded Charles, I do not see how any one could doubt the
lawfulness of the act, except upon very technical grounds.
Ib. p. 41.
For if once legislation, the chief act of government, be denied to any
part of government at all, and affirmed to belong to the people as
such, who are no governors, all government will hereby be overthrown.
Here Baxter falls short of the subject, and does not see the full
consequents of his own prior, most judicious, positions. Legislation in
its high and most proper sense belongs to God only. A people declares
that such and such they hold to be laws, that is, God's will.
Ib. p. 47.
In Cornwall Sir Richard Grenvill, having taken many soldiers of the
Earl of Essex's army, sentenced about a dozen to be hanged. When they
had hanged two or three, the rope broke which should have hanged the
next.
Pages:
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93