God was nothing but jus ad recte agendum a right to do right in matters of Religion If they did otherwise they abused their power they lost it not And if an Heathen Prince or State should become Christian they acquire no new Right but are further engaged to exercise their power in abolishing Idolatry and establishing the true Worship of the true God. This may be signified by the Titles of Nursing-Fathers of the Church Defenders of the Faith Most Christian Most Catholick King. All which as they signified their Right so they also pointed at their Duty which was to protect the true Church and maintain the True Christian Catholick Faith. 4. Though Regal and Sacerdotal power were always distinct and different in themselves yet they were often disposed and united in one Person Thus Melchisedeck was both King and Priest Thus Romulus was Prince and the chief Pontiffe For he is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Halicar Antiqu. Rom. lib. 2. The succeeding Kings took the same place After the Regal power was abolished it was an high Office. When Rome became Imperial the Emperours took the Title of Supream Pontiffe and some of them after they became Christian retained it Yet still as the Powers so the Acts were distinct For Melchisedeck as King ruled his People in Righteousness and Peace as Priest officiated received Tithes and blessed Abraham As they were sometimes united so they were divided For God entailed the Sacerdotal power upon the house of Aaron and afterwards the Regal power upon the family of David Neither did Christ or his Apostles think it fit to make the Ministers Magistrates or the Magistrates Ministers Yet in this Union or Division you must know that this Sacerdotal and Ministerial power was not this Civil power of Religion which always belonged to the Civil Governours even then when these two powers were divided 5. If Civil powers stablish Religion and that by Law call Synods order them ratifie their Canons divest spiritual and Ecclesiastical persons of their temporal priviledges or restore them yet they do all this by their civil power by which they cannot excommunicate absolve suspend much less officiate and preach and administer Sacraments In this respect if the civil power make a civil Law against Idolatry Blasphemy Heresie or other scandal they may by the same power justly punish the offenders by the sword and the Church censure them by the power of the Keyes 6. This jus Religionis ordinandae this power of ordering matters of Religion is not the power of the Church but of the State not of the Keyes but of the sword The Church hath nothing to do with the sword nor the State with the Keyes Christ did not say tell the State and whatsoever ye bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven c. Neither did he say of the Church that she beareth not the sword in vain Therefore he must needs be very ignorant or very partial that shall conceive that the State is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the power of the Keyes section 3 These things premised give occasion to consider how the Oath of Supremacy is to be understood especially in these words wherein the Kings or Queens of England were acknowledged over all persons in causes as well Ecclesiastical as Civil all supream head and because that word Head was so offensive it was changed into Governour For the clearing hereof it 's to be observed 1. That by these words it was intended to exclude all foreign Power both Civil and Ecclesiastical especially that which the Bishops of Rome did challenge and also exercise within the Dominions of the Crown of England 2. That the Kings and Queens of Enland had no power supream in making Laws and passing judgements without the Parliament Therefore by supream Governour was meant supream Administratour for the execution of the Laws in the intervals of Parliament In this respect the Canons and injunctions made by the Clergy though confirmed by royal assent without the Parliament have been judged of no force 3. That by Ecclesiastical causes are meant such causes as are materially Ecclesiastical yet properly civil as before For matters of Religion in respect of the outward profession and practice and the Parties professing and practising are subject to the civil power For by the outward part the State may be disturbed put in danger of Gods judgements and the persons are punishable by the sword even for those crimes Yet neither can the sword reach the soul nor rectifie the conscience except per accidens That by Ecclesiastical is not meant spiritual in proper sense is clear because the Kings of England never took upon them to excommunicate or absolve neither had those Chancellours that were only Civilians and not Divines power to perform such acts Yet they received their power from the Bishops and it was counted Ecclesiastical 4. In respect of these Titles those Courts which were called Spiritual and Ecclesiastical derived their power from the Crown And the Bishops did correct and punish disquiet disobedient criminous persons within their Diocess according to such authority as they had by Gods word and as to them was committed by the authority of this Realm These are the words of the Book of Ordination in the consecration of Bishops The words seem to imply that they had a mixt or at least a twofold power one by the word as trusted with the power of the Keyes the other from the Magistrate or Crown and that was civil Such a mixt power they had indeed in the high Commission Yet though this may be implyed yet it may be they understood that their power by the word of God and from the Crown were the same The act of restoring the ancient jurisdiction to the Crown 1 Eliz. 1. doth make this further evident For it 's an act of restoring the ancient jurisdiction in Ecclesiasticals especially to the Crown for that 's the Title Where it must be observed that the power was such as the Parliament did give 2. That they did not give it anew but restore it 3. They could not had no power to give it if it belonged to the Crown by the Constitution but to declare it to be due upon which Declaration the Queen might resume that which the Pope had usurped and exercised 4. It 's remarkable that not the Queen but the Parliament by that act did restore it as the act of the Oath of supremacy was made by a Parliament which by that act could not give the King any power at all which was not formerly due In respect of Testaments temporal jurisdiction Dignities Priviledges Titles as due unto the Church by humane Constitution and donation all Ecclesiastical causes concerning these were determinable by a civil power How tithes are a lay-fee or divine right hath been declared formerly Hence it doth appear that the Oath of Supremacy was not so easily understood as it was easily taken by many and the Oxford Convocation I believe but that they
commended or reproved and charged with divers sins and threatned with such punishments as must fall upon all After all these proofs from Scripture recourse is had to Antiquity and Universality as sufficient grounds of a prescription which is a good kind of title But 1. In divine things especially such as are of ordinary and universal obligation Antiquity and Universality without a Divine Institution will not serve the turn 2. The Hierarchy prescribes as much and as high as Episcopacy invested with power of Ordination and Jurisdiction as proper to it self yet it s confessed to be only of humane institution 3. What is it how is it defined What Divine Institution can be made evident of that which they say is so universal and ancient 4. Who are the witnesses by whose testimony this Antiquity and Universality is proved They are besides some of later times but few and all within the Roman Empire many of them Bishops themselves and some of them bitter Enemies one against another They are not one of an hundred amongst the Bishops not one of a thousand amongst others Yet the Church in the Apostles times was enlarged to the ends of the Earth And as then so now there were in every Century thousands that did never write or if they did they wrote not of Episcopacy and many of them might be as great Schollars as those whose books are extant 5. There was a special reason why there might be Bishops and the same Hierarchical in the principal parts of the Roman Teritory as shall be touched hereafter 6. Suppose these Bishops to have the power of Ordination and Jurisdiction yea the whole power of the Keyes which includes the Legislative in making Canons can any man prove that they had it always in all places and if so that they had it severally in their several precincts and not joyntly with their fellow Bishops as Representatives in Counsels and also with Presbyters and others too It s well enough known that other besides Bishops had their suffrage in Synods Arles President of the Council of Basil proves stoutly that Presbyters have their Votes and without them he could not have carried the cause against Panormitan and his faction section 8 After the primitive and the Hierarchical Episcopacy comes in the English which hath something singular He that will understand the nature of it more fully must read Dr. Zouch Dr. Mucket Dr. Cosens the Civilian his Tables with him who calls himself Didoclavius upon him By all whom we may understand 1. It was not the primitive Episcopacy 2. It was clearly Hierarchical for we had Bishops and two Arch-Bishops of York and Canterbury the one the Metropolitan of England the other of all England The Bishops took their Oath of obedience to the Arch-Bishops as appeareth by the book of ordination They did arrogate the power of ordination to themselves though Presbyters did in the ordination impose hands with them and some of them confessed they had it only with the Presbyter joyntly Yet we know how that by others is eluded 3. Not to say any thing of their Titles Dignity Revenue Baronies annexed to their Sea their place in the house of the Peers in Parliament and their priviledges they had cast off in effect not only the people but Presbytery For though the Presbytery had their Clerks both in the Convocation of York and also at London if the Parliament sat there yet they took upon them in the end to nominate these Clerks and deprive the Ministers of their right of Election As for the Deanes and Chapters which should have been eminent Persons and chosen by the Presbytery in every Diocess to represent them they were degenerate from their original Institution and the Bishops who should have done nothing but joyntly with them did all things without them They in effect though unjustly engrossed the whole power of Administration 4. Yet this is observable that 1. They could make no Canons but joyntly in one Assembly 2. That joyntly amongst themselves without the Presbytery they had not this power 3. That no Canons were valid without the Royal Assent 4. Neither by the Constitution was the Royal Assent sufficient without the Parliament 5. That they derived much of their Ecclesiastical power from the Crown For by the Oath of Supremacy is declared that the King of England is over all persons even in Ecclesiastical causes Supream Governour In which respect all their secular Power Revenue Dignity and also their nomination and confirmation with their investiture is from him He calls Synods confirms their Canons grants Commissions to exercise Jurisdiction purely Ecclesiastical In the first year of King Edward the sixth by a Statute they were bound to use the Kings name not their own even in their Citations and as before they must correct and punish offenders according to such Authority as they had by the Word of God and as to them should be committed by the ordinance of this Realm So that if the Popish Bishops derive their power from the Pope and the English from the King neither of them could be jure divino And by this the title of most Bishops in Europe is meerly humane and that in two respects 1. Because its Hierarchial 2. Derived either from an higher Ecclesiastical or an higher secular power section 9 Thus far I have enquired though briefly and according to my poor ability into the definition and institution of a Bishop the subject of the Question which is this Whether a Bishop or Bishops be the primary subject of the Keyes The meaning whereof is 1. Whether they be the primary and adequate sole subject of the whole power of the Keyes whereof the principal though not all the branches are making Canons and receiving last appeals without any provocation from them For they may be subjects and not primary they may be subjects of some part and not of the whole power 2. Whether they be such subjects of this power in foro exteriori For in foro interiori the Presbyters have as much as they 3. Whether they be such subjects of such power in foro exteriori quatenus Episcopi reduplicative 4. Whether as such they be such a subject by Divine Institution For solution hereof it s to be considered 1. That except there be an Universal consent and the same clearly grounded upon Scripture both what a Bishop is and 2. That made evident that his Title is of Divine Institution the affirmative cannot be proved 2. That though a Bishop could be clearly proved to have the power of Ordination and Jurisdiction yet it will not follow from thence that he is the primary subject of that power For the negative many things may be said 1. Neither the papal nor the English Bishop so far as the one derives his power from the Pope and the other from the Crown can be the primary subject of this power the secondary they may be 2. For such as derive not their power from
any means positive to destroy it yet they neglect it and if every one should do as they do sit still and look on and do nothing it would certainly come to ruin and fall into the hands of those who are their Mortal Enemies section 7 The late Civil Wars in England did not only tend unto the Dissolution of the Government but actually for that time dissolve it For if the first Supream Power personally was in King Peers and Commons joyntly then it follows that when the King forsook the Parliament and refused to act joyntly with them it was dissolved much more when he set up his Standard and granted the Commission of Array and fought against them For then there were two contrary Powers and Supream Commands and the Subjects in strict sense were not bound to obey either And the Parliament did declare that whensoever the King should make War upon them it was a breach of the trust reposed in him by his People contrary to his Oath and tended to the Dissolution of the Government If the Government was dissolved it will follow that the Subjects were freed from their Allegiance yet the Allegiance due to the Community of England did continue and every one was bound to adhere to the just party according to the Laws of God though in doing so they could not observe the Laws of men And whosoever did oppose that just party did render themselves for ever uncapable of the benefit of the English protection and were ipso facto Enemies to their own Country their own peace and safety Yet the Parliament did not declare that upon a War made upon them the Government was actually dissolved because though that War tended to the dissolution thereof yet they conceiv'd that the form did remain still in King Peers and Commons and a considerable party of the Lords and Commons remained in the place whither they were summon'd by the King and by vertue of the Act of Continuance continued a Parliament and that the King's power was virtually in the two Houses Yet in this they passed above the Letter of the Law and followed the Rules of Equity and Reason and perhaps they had some hopes of rectifying the King and had no intention to alter the form if they could preserve it and keep it up But all their Wisdom and Endeavours could not prevent the Judgment that God intended to execute section 8 Whether the warlike resistance made by the Parliament against the King against his Commissions against his party was a Rebellion The King did declare it to be Rebellion and proclaimed the Parliament-party Rebels and Traytors yet he did not declare the Parliament to be Rebellious For so to have done had been offensive to his own party and he had a considerable party perhaps in both the Houses and if he did acknowledge it to be a Parliament in condemning them he must have condemned himself because he was an essential Member of the same Neither did the Parliament profess they fought against but for the King. Yet if they fought against such as were commissioned by the King they fought against the King and if the King declared the Parliaments party to be Rebels and Traytors he must needs judge the Parliament guilty because as he in his War was the principal Agent so they on their side were too This gave occasion of curious distinctions For men did distinguish between Charles Stewart and the King betwen his regal and his personal Capacity and on the other side between the Parliament and a party in the Parliament though the whole Parliament did Commission and Arm. Thus they found a difference between the King and himself and the Parliament and itself These distinctions were not altogether false yet though Charles Stewart and the King and so the Parliament and a party in the Parliament might be distinguished yet they could not be separated And woe unto the people that is brought into such straights and perplexities For if they kill Charles Stewart they kill the King and if the King destroy that party in the Parliament he destroys the Parliament But to return unto the Question it 's one thing to be Rebellion another to be judged Rebellion For that may be judged Rebellion which is not such and the same thing may be justified by one and condemned by another Arnisaeus handles this matter at large and makes the Question in general to be this Whether upon any Cause whatsoever it is lawful for the Subjects to resist or take up Arms against their lawful Soveraign When he hath stated the Question he determines upon the Negative and proves it In stating the Question he seems to define a Subject to be one who hath given his Allegiance to his lawful Prince But what he means per fidem datam is not made so clear Then he distinguisheth of Princes For 1. There are Regna pactionata where Princes are made upon condition 2. There are Regna absoluta where the Princes are absolute 3. There are Tyrants and that of two sorts 1. In Title as Usurpers 2. In Exercise These distinctions being made he grants That Princes upon condition may be resisted for their ill Administration 2. That Tyrants in Title before the Subjects bind themselves unto them may be opposed 3. That Tyrants in Exercise may be deposed and that by their Tyranny excidunt jure suo etsi haereditario divests themselves of their power though hereditary 4. That absolute Soveraigns who have potestatem non delegatam sed transfusam cannot be resisted lawfully though they be vicious and their Administrations impious and unjust if it reach not Tyranny which is directly against the Laws and Rules of Government and tends to the destruction of the Common-wealth But in all this Discourse he doth not produce any Authentical Record Fundamental Charter for these absolute Soveraigns which have omnem omnimodam potestatem à populo transfusam As for that Roman transfusion of power upon the Emperours it 's an uncertain thing Lex Regia doth no where appear it 's doubted of many as it is denied by many And suppose that people should be so unwise what 's that to others He seems to contradict his own Definition of a subject which I formerly explained he mistakes most grosly the Constitution of some States wherein he instanceth Whosoever will determine this Controversie or debate it to purpose he must 1. Define Subjection and declare the several degrees of it according to the several Constitutions of Common-wealt 2. If he instance in a particular State he must certainly know the Fundamental Laws thereof and truly express them 3. He must put the case aright and state the Question hic nunc rebus sic stantibus This resistance if Rebellion must be an act of a Subject as a Subject and that cannot be but against his Soveraign as his lawful Soveraign according to the Laws of God and just Laws of Men. And no man is able to justifie the Resistance of a
nascenti pagina Romae Ne vacet Egeriam consuluisse Numae Nôsset Sparta isthaec duro formata Lycurgo Secula mansisset quot stetit illa dies Nec tibi Parthenope gemino quater amplius anno Mutâsset dominos plebs malefida suos Nec sibi foedâsset fastos tam turpiter Anglus Mille per incertas mobilis usque vices Quam bene Lawsoni magni dignissimus haeres Nominis ille salo jura dat ipse solo Qui regnare doces qui parere libenter Imperium calami cedimus ecce tibi Te tantum genuit vicus brevis angulus orbis Langcliff nascenti conscia terra mihi Eborac invideant vel Athenae debeo plura Jam pro te patriae pro patriâque tibi J. Carr M. D. The Arguments of the several Chapters CHAP. I. THE Propriety of God acquired by Creation and continued by Preservation the ground of God's Supream Dominion and Power which is Vniversal over all Creatures more particular and special over Men and Angels who are capable of Laws Rewards Punishments not only Temporal but Eternal The exercise of this Power over men immediate or mediate Mediate in his Government by men over men is either Temporal and Civil or Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Of the Government Spiriritual before Christ's incarnation and after his Session at the right hand of God. Of the Church Christian Triumphant Militant Mystical Visible Vniversal Particular The particular parts of the Vniversal Church as visible the principal subject of the following Discourse Of our Differences and the Causes thereof of hope of better times and the Author's disposition and intention CHAP. II. Of a Community Civil What Politica is what a Common-wealth the subject of Politica What the parts of a Common-wealth what a Community in general which is the subject of a Common-wealth the name and nature of it Of a Community Civil the matter and the form thereof the Original of Civil Communities the members both natural and naturalized whether they be imperfectly or formally or eminently such The capacity of this Association to receive the form of a Civil Government Liberty Equality Propriety Adjuncts to this Community CHAP. III. Of an Ecclesiastical Community The Definition of it the explication of the Definition The distinction of the Members less or more perfectly such the manner of Incorporation Liberty Equality and aptitude to receive a form of Discipline Proprieties of this Society Where something concerning Children born of Christian Parents whether they be members of the Church or no. CHAP. IV. Of Power Civil The parts of Politica Constitution and Administration what Constitution is and what the parts of a Common-wealth both Civil and Ecclesiastical which are two 1. Soveraign 2. Subjects What Power in general what Power Civil what Supream Power or Majesty Civil the Branches thereof which are called Jura Majestatis the multitude of them reduced to order by several Writers and by the Author The Properties of Majesty which is real or personal What Soveraign real and personal may do The subject of Real Majesty in England the personal Majesty of the Parliament and of the King. CHAP. V. Of the Acquisition of Civil Power and the Amission thereof Civil Power not essential but accidental to any Person It 's acquired in an extrordinary or ordinary way In an ordinary way by consent or Conquest justly or unjustly as by Vsurpation Vsurpation no good Title The Person Vsurping Power at the first by subsequent consent may acquire a good Title Succession and the several ways of Succession Amission of Power by violence or voluntary consent or death Whether any can be made Soveraign by condition Whether Soveraign Power once acquired may be forfeited how and to whom the forfeiture may be made CHAP. VI. Of Power Ecclesiastical The Power is Spiritual not Civil Why it 's called the Power of the Keys as different from that of the Sword. Binding and loosing the same with shutting and opening and both belong chiefly to Legislation and Jurisdiction This Power is Supream and Independent in every particular Church constituted aright according to the Rules of the Gospel The Branches and several Acts of it as making of Canons the constitution of Officers Jurisdiction disposing of the Churches goods Of the extent and also the bounds of the Power Certain distinctions of Spiritual Government as Internal External Vniversal Particular Formal Material or Objective CHAP. VII Of acquiring or losing Ecclesiastical Power The just acquisition of this Power extraordinary in the highest measure as in Christ or in an inferiour degree as in the Apostles How ordinary Churches derive it from Christ by the Gospel-Charter in an ordinary way The Power of the Church and Church-Officers unequal The several ways of Vsurping and also of losing this Power CHAP. VIII Of the disposition of Power Civil from the several manners of which arise the several forms of Government General Observations premised The several ways of disposing Majesty or Supream Power in a State. Pure Forms Monarchies Despotical and Regal Pure Aristocracies and Democracies Mixt Governments when the Power is placed in the several States joyntly The Constitution of England Our Kings and their Title Peers Commons Parliaments and the limits of their Power The limits of the King 's personal Majesty Our late divisions and confusions Whether King or Parliament as separate could be justified by the fundamental constitution of England By what Rule the Controversie must be tried Whether Party at the first was more faithful to the English Protestant interest How the state of the Controversie altered The high and extraordinary actings of all Parties The good that God hath brought out of our Disorders and Confusions Whom God hath hitherto most punished What is to be done if we intend a Settlement of State and Church CHAP. IX Of the Disposition of Power Ecclesiastical and whether the Bishop of Rome be the first Subject of it under Christ. The many and great differences about the first subject of the Power of the Keys The Pope the Prince the Prelate the Presbyter the People challenge it as due unto them by a Divine Right Their several pretended Titles examined Whether that of the Bishop of Rome be good or valid His greatness state and pomp The opinions of some Authors concerning him The power he challengeth is Transcendent The reasons to prove his title taken from Politicks Ancient Writers the Scriptures The insufficiency of them though some may seem to prove the possession yet none make good the Title CHAP. X. Whether Civil Soveraigns have any right unto the power of the Keys Their power and advantage to assume and exercise this power Their power not spiritual but temporal The power of ordering Matters of Religion what it is and how it differs from the power of the Keyes Jus Religionis ordinandae rightly understood belongs to all higher Powers The Kings and Queens of England though acknowledged over all persons in all causes both Civil and Ecclesiastical supream Governours yet
of the same and Scotland vanquished In all our sad divisions which happened from first to last and are not wholly yet ended to this day Two things are worthy the serious consideration of wiser men than I am 1. What party for time past hath been most faithful to the English interest 2. What course is to be taken for to setle us more firmly for time to come For the first we must understand what the English interest is The interest of England is twofold Civil and Ecclesiastical for we are English men and Christians The Civil interest is salus populi Anglicani there is no doubt of that for the peace safety liberty happiness of our dear Country is the end whereat we are all bound both by the written and natural Laws of God to aim The interest Ecclesiastical is the Protestant Religion and the perservation of the substance thereof Prelacy Presbytery Independency much less Antipaedobaptism and other Sects are not essential but accidental to it This being the interest of England we cannot judge of the faithfulness either of the King 's or Parliaments party by the quality of the persons of either side For there were both good and bad on both sides who had their several grounds of adhering to this or that party and their several ends and neither their grounds nor ends good Nor can any man justifie all proceedings and actings of either side both had their errours Nor must we judge of them according to their protestation for both could not by such contrary means attain the same end as both sides protested to maintain the King the Parliament the liberty of the Subject the Laws and the Protestant Religion Neither in this particular must the Laws of the English Constitution and Administration be the rule for both acted not only above the Laws but contrary to the latter of them at least For no Laws could warrant the Parliament to act without the King or the King without the Parliament much less was it justifiable that there should be in one Kingdom two not only different but contrary commands supreme and from different heads and persons This was directly against the very nature of all Common-Wealths which have only one first mover and one indivisible supreme power to animate and act them section 19 The Rule therefore must be the Laws of God as above the Laws of Men and we must consider according to these divine Rules what was the state of the Controversie the justice and equity of the cause made evident and the just necessity of doing that which was done Neither must we look at the cause only as just in it self but also how it 's justly or unjustly maintained For men may use such means as shall never reach the just end intended but also such as may be destructive of the cause it self and raze the very foundation of it Besides all this before a perfect judgment can be made the secret counsels contrivances designs hidden actings of the chief Actors should be known yet these many times lie hid and are not known or if known yet to very few and some of these few cannot found the bottom Many things are charged upon the King as acting against the English interest as Civil as that he dissolves Parliaments without just and sufficient cause that he intermits Parliaments for sixteen years together that having signed the Petition of Right he acts contrary to it imposeth Ship-money calls a Parliament signs the Act of Continuance deserts it calls the Members from it calls another Parliament at Oxford challengeth a negative Voice to both the Houses raiseth a War against it though he was informed that this tended to the dissolution of the Government that whosoever should serve to assist him in such Wars are Traitors by the fundamental Laws of this Kingdom and have been so adjudged in two Acts of Parliament 11 Richard 2. and 1 Henry 4. And that such persons ought to suffer as Traitors These with other particulars charged upon him seem directly contrary unto the civil Interest of the Kingdom Again to Marry a Popish Lady upon Articles directly contrary to the Laws of England and the Protestant Religion established by Law to entertain Twenty eight Popish Priests with a Bishop to tolerate Mass in the Court to receive Three Agents from the Pope one after another Pisano Con Rosetti to maintain the Queen-mother to engage the generality of the People of England to retard the relieving of Ireland to admit divers of the Popish Irish Murtherers and Rebels into his Army to call our English Forces sent to relieve the poor distressed Protestants of Ireland out of that Nation and employ them against the Parliament of England to suffer some of the Heads of the Irish Rebels to be so near his Person to endeavour to bring in the Duke of Lorrain with his Forces into this Nation to contract with the Irish Rebels upon condition to enjoy their Religion to furnish him with Ten thousand Irish Rebels to strengthen his party in England with divers other acts like unto these is conceived to be not only inconsistent with but plainly destructive of the English Protestant Interest And if this be true it must needs be so Yet it might be said that the King endeavoured to maintain his own regal Power the Episcopacy and Liturgy established by Law and that he did not oppose the Parliament but a seditious party in the Parliament and other Sectaries whose principles were destructive both of all civil and also Ecclesiastical Government and without the judgment of able Lawyers and learned Divines he did not undertake the War either against Scotland or England or any other It 's true that of those who adhered to the King and liked not the Parliaments proceeding there were some consciencious persons who judged the King an absolute Monarch and did not like many things done by that party yet they thought it the Duty of Subjects to suffer and that it was no ways lawful to resist But the Casuists say That Ignorantia excusat a tanto non a toto their Ignorance might make their Crime less yet no ways free them from all Guilt It was not Invincible they might easily have known that the King of Enland was no absolute Monarch seeing he could not impose any Subsidy upon the Subject nor make or repeal a Law without the Parliament neither could he by his Letters or personal Command revoke the Judgment of any Court. And though they might be Civilians or read Foreign Writers which take our Kings for absolute Sovereigns yet no ancient Lawyers no Parliaments did declare them to be such Nay they might have known that they themselves obeying the King 's personal Commands disobeyed him as King and that serving him in the Wars they were guilty of High Treason against the Kingdom and against the King's Crown and Dignity Of these Royalists some have been high and cruel against their Brethren the Parliamenteers and have censured them
New Testament where it s used a hundred and eleven times at least and in all these places signifies an Assembly or Society Religious except in Acts 19.32 39 41. where it signifies both a tumultuous and also an orderly Assembly or Society or Convention as a civil Court of Judgment which signification is here applied by our Saviour to a Spiritual Judicatory for Spiritual Causes Though this be a special signification yet it signifies the number and Society of Believers and Disciples who profess their Faith in Christ exhibited and this is this Church-Christian and the People of God. Yet it signifies this People under several Notions as sometimes the Church of the Jews sometimes of the Gentiles sometimes the Universal Church sometimes particular Churches sometimes the Militant Church either as visible or mystical sometimes the Church Triumphant sometimes a Church before any form of Government be introduced sometimes under a form of Government so it 's taken and supposed by our Saviour here Grotius his Conceit that our Saviour in these words alludes to the manner of several Sects Professions as of Pharisees Sadduces Essenes who had their Rules of Discipline and their Assemblies and Convention for the practice of them may be probable Yet without any such Allusion the place is plain enough from the context and other Scriptures Erastus upon the place is intollerable and most wofully wrests it so doth Bishop Bilson in his Church-Government and is point-blank contrary to D. Andrews who in his Tortura Torti doth most accurately examine interpret and apply the words and most effectually from thence confute Bellarmine One may truly say of that Book as he himself said of Austin's Treatise De Civitate Dei it was opus palmarum For Civil Common Canon-Law Politicks History School Learning the Doctrine of the Casuists Divinity and other Arts whereof he makes use it is one of the most learned and accurate of any put forth in our times By his Exposition of this Text he utterly overthrows the immediate Jus Divinum of Episcopacy in matters of Discipline and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction He plainly and expresly makes the whole Church the primary subject of the Power of the Keys in foro exteriori Therefore suppose the Bishops were Officers by a Divine Right as he endeavours to prove tho' weakly in his Letters to Du Moulin yet at best they can be but the Churches Delegates for the exercise of that Power And it is observable that divers of our Champions when they oppose Bellarmine's Monarchical Government of the Church peremptorily affirm the Power of the Keyes to be in the whole Church as the most effectual way to confute him yet when they wrote against the Presbyterian and the Antiprelatical party they change their Tone and Tune But to return unto the words of Institution 1. The word Church here signifies an Assembly 2. This Assembly is an Assembly for Religion 3. The Religion is Christian. 4. This Assembly is under a form of External Government 5. This Government presupposeth a Community and Laws and Officers Ecclesiastical These presupposed it 's a juridical Assembly or a Court. 6. Because Courts are Inferiour Superiour and Supream it signifies all especially Supream 7. It determines no kind of Government but that of a free State as shall more appear hereafter 8. Christ doth not say Dic Regi tell the Prince or State nor Dic Petro tell Peter or the Pope as though the Government should be Monarchical either Civil or Ecclesiastical nor Dic Presbytero tell the Elders nor Dic Apostolis Episcopis aut Archiopiscopis that the Government should be purely Aristocratical nor Dic Plebi that the Government should be purely Democratical nor Dic Synodo tell the Council general or particular But it saith tell the Church wherein there may be Bishops Presbyters some Eminent Persons neither Bishops nor Presbyters There may be Synods and all these either as Officers or Representatives of the Church and we may tell these and these may judge yet they hear and judge by a power derived and delegated from the Church and the Church by them as by her Instruments doth exercise her Power As the body sees by her eye and hears by the ear so it is in this particular but so that the similitude doth not run on four feet nor must be stretched too far This being the genuine Sense favours no Faction yet admits any kind of Order which observed may reach the main end For this we must know and take special notice of that Christ will never stand upon Formalities but requires the thing which he commands to be done in an orderly way Yet it 's necessary and his Institution doth tend unto it to reserve the chief Power in the whole Body otherwise if any party as Bishops or Presbyters or any other part of the Church be trusted with the power alone to themselves they will so engross it as that there will be no means nor ordinary jurisdiction to reform them Of this we have plain Experience in the Bishops of Rome who being trusted at first with too much Power did at length arrogate as their own and no ways derived from the Church and so refused to be judged For if the Church once make any party the primary subject of this power then they cannot use it to reduce them Therefore as it is a point of Wisdom in any State to reserve the chief power in the whole Community and single out the best and wisest to exercise it so as if the Trustees do abuse their power they may remove them or reform them so it should be done in the Church If any begin to challenge either the whole or the Supream power as Officers many of these nay the greater part of them may be unworthy or corrupted and then the Church is brought to straits and must needs suffer Some tell us that the King of England by the first Constitution was only the Supream and Universal Magistrate of the Kingdom trusted with a sufficient power to govern and administer the State according to the Laws and his chief work was to see the Laws executed Yet in tract of time they did challenge the power to themselves as their own and refused to be judged Yet in this Institution if Peter if Paul tho' Apostles do offend much more if Patriarchs Metropolitans Bishops Presbyters do trespass we must tell not Peter not Paul not an Apostle not a Bishop not any other but the Church No wit of Men or Angels could have imagined a better way nor given a better expression to settle that which is good and just and prevent all parties and factions and yet leave a sufficient latitude for several orderly ways to attain the chief end section 7 The Judge being known the Judicial Acts of this Judge must be enquired into in the fifth place and these are two the first is binding the second loosing For all Judgment passed upon any person is either against him and that is binding
sanctified person is a Priest to offer spiritual Sacrifice to God. Yet this doth not make any such person a Minister and publick Officer of Christ who must sequester himself from worldly business more than other men to tend his Calling to which he is consecrated and solemnly devoted With this distinction agrees that of the Clergy and Laity Whence the name Clerus the Clergy for the Ministry should have its original is uncertain The people of Israel sanctified and consecrated unto God were call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Lot or Inheritance of God and the Priests and Ministers were the eminent party of this Lot and people For the people as distinct from the Pastours are called the Clergy Lot or Heritage of God 1 Pet. 5.3 in which it cannot be proper to the Ministers It 's true that the first Officer made by the Church after that Christ was glorified was made by Lot For the Lot that is Cleros fell upon Matthias Acts 1.26 From whence some think the system of Presbyters and Deacons were called the Clergy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify one made and an Officer by Lot. As for Laity we find often in the Old Testament the people as distinct from the Priests and Levites called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Laity The Apostle and seventy Disciples were distinguished from the rest of the Disciples and Believers The Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastours and Teachers were different orders from the rest of the Church The twenty four Elders which signifie the Priests and Levites divided into orders by Lot were distinct from the four Beasts that is the main body of the Church but these are days of confusion and disorder Every one will be a Prophet and a Teacher either presuming upon their gifts yet scorning to engage themselves for the service of Christ in the poor and much despised Ministery or pretending blasphemously to the Spirit which God never gave them There is another distinction of Subjects in Nobiles Plebaeos Some are Noble some of a lower Form and Rank Nobilis is any Gentleman well descended Yet there is a difference inter Nobilem Generosum for though Omnis Generosus sit Nobilis yet Omnis nobilis non est Generosus because Generosus is not only one well born but also one vertuous In this respect the word of a Gentleman is more than the word of a Nobleman nay than the word of a King yet Nobility with us is taken more strictly and is given to none under a Baron and Peer of the Kingdom which hath right of suffrage in Parliament as one of the House of Lords The ancient Nobility of England is much diminished and decayed and many of their Estates alienated and the late Barons created by Patent do much obscure them and if these as Barons have their suffrage in the House of Lords by vertue of their Honour and not their Vertue and Wisdom I do not see how the Parliament should be Wittena Gemott the Meeting of Wise Men. It were wisdom by some strict Law to limit Jus Nobilitandi unto Vertue and Wisdom For Honours should be conferred rarely and upon merit and worth for they have great priviledges which should not be made so common and prostituted to the Lust and Ambition of every one that can pay for them The subjects of lower Rank if Freeholders have also their priviledges and one principal is a power to Elect the Knights of the County to represent in Parliaments There be other accidental differences of less moment which I pass by section 14 After these distinctions follows a division of the whole body of the Subjects into parts and this is necessary especially in respect of the Administration For without an orderly division the subjects cannot be well governed Israel was divided into Tribes Tribes into Families Families into Housholds Housholds into Persons Thus they were divided and according to this order Achan was discovered Josh. 7.16 17 18. and they had their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heads of their Tribes and their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heads of their Hundreds as Masius upon the place observes The Romans were also divided in Tribus Tribus in Curias and after these we read of Centurias and Decurias We read that Alfred divided England into Counties Counties into Hundreds the Hundreds into Allotments In some Counties we find Ridings and Wapentakes yet Sir Henry Spelman under the word Hundreds understands by Wapentake an Hundred which in the Welsh is called Cantreda where he adds that the Counties were divided into Tithings Rapes and Laths and Hundreds were divided into Tithings and Friberges Upon this division made it 's said that Justice was administred with that ease exactness and severity that any man's goods might at any time be secure in any place Yea they might hang golden Bracelets in the High-way-side and in open view and none durst meddle with them To this head belongs the numbring the people by pole enrowling their Names and Estates without which Taxations cannot be justly imposed The end of this distribution was to reduce the people into a certain order according to which the equal parts were to co-ordinate one with another as Counties with Counties Hundreds with Hundreds so that one had no Jurisdiction over another The unequal were less or greater and were subordinate the less to the greater which had Jurisdiction over the less and all the parts were subject to the whole This was necessary for Judicial proceedings that Actions in Law might proceed according to the subordination of Courts For anciently with us Actions did commence in the Courts held by the Lords of the Mannors if the cause were too high or could not there be determined or Justice had Appeal was made to the Hundred Court from thence to the County Court from thence to the King's Court. In the word Comitatus Sir Henry Spelman observes this was the ancient Order and thinks it an abuse and great disorder that in our days every petty Business and Cause is brought into the King's Court at Westminster What the Division of this Nation was under the Romans is not so well known except we may conjecture of it by the ancient Division of the Provinces and the Cathedral Seas and Diocesses which much differ from these of latter times Cambden finds some divisions of England in the time of the Romans yet they are not clear and certain Under the Saxons he finds several divisisions 1. Some according to certain proportions of Lands 2. He makes the Heptarchy an argument that it was divided into seven parts At length he concludes his political Division with that of Counties which he as Sir Henry Spelman ascribes to the King Alfred But I have read that it was thus divided before his time and this is more probable because the Myrrour informs us of Counties and of Counties before there were any Saxon Kings Vt subditi section 15 distinguuntur sic distincti dividuntur educantur