Ib. p. 59.

It is easy to see from Baxter’s own account, that his party ruined their own cause and that of the kingdom by their tenets concerning the right and duty of the civil magistrate to use the sword against such as were not of the same religion with themselves.

Ib. p. 62.

They seem not to me to have answered satisfactorily to the main argument fetched from the Apostle’s own government, with which Saravia had inclined me to some Episcopacy before:  though miracles and infallibility were Apostolical temporary privileges, yet Church government is an ordinary thing to be continued.  And therefore as the Apostles had successors as they were preachers, I see not but that they must have successors as Church governors.

Was not Peter’s sentence against Ananias an act of Church government?  Therefore though Church government is an ordinary thing in some form or other, it does not follow that one particular form is an ordinary thing.  For the time being the Apostles, as heads of the Church, did what they thought best; but whatever was binding on the Church universal and in all times they delivered as commands from Christ.  Now no other command was delivered but that all things should conduce to order and edification.

Ib. p. 66.

And therefore how they could refuse to receive the King, till he consented to take the Covenant, I know not, unless the taking of the Covenant had been a condition on which he was to receive his crown by the laws or fundamental constitutions of the kingdom, which none pretendeth.  Nor know I by what power they can add anything to the Coronation Oath or Covenant, which by his ancestors was to be taken, without his own consent.

And pray, how and by whom were the Coronation Oaths first imposed?  The Scottish nation in 1650 had the same right to make a bargain with the claimant of their throne as their ancestors had.  It is strange that Baxter should not have seen that his objections would apply to our ‘Magna Charta’.  So he talks of the “fundamental constitutions,” just as if these had been aboriginal or rather ‘sans’ origin, and not as indeed they were extorted and bargained for by the people.  But throughout it is plain that Baxter repeated, but never appropriated, the distinction between the King as the executive power, and as the individual functionary.  What obligation lay on the Scottish Parliament and Church to consult the man Charles Stuart’s personal likes and dislikes?  The Oath was to be taken by him as their King.  Doubtless, he equally disliked the whole Protestant interest; and if the Tories and Church of England Jacobites of a later day had recalled James ii., would Baxter have thought them culpable for imposing on him an Oath to preserve the Protestant Church of England and to inflict severe penalties on his own Church-fellows?

Ib. p. 71.

  And some men thought it a very hard question, whether they should
  rather wish the continuance of a usurper that will do good, or the
  restoration of a rightful governor whose followers will do hurt.