many The Clergy and Ministry of England were never represented by the Knights of the Counties before our times neither could the Parliament without the personal presence of some of themselves impose Subsidies much less Ecclesiastical Canons upon them They are as free English men as any other and by the Laws of the Land have their privileges and immunities distinct from those of other mens which are now taken from them and it 's an hard case that they may have none of their own faculty and capacity as their proper Representatives to maintain them and speak reason for them They are willing enough to part with any thing formerly they had if not agreeable to Scripture 2. To prove this mixture the King's Coronation Oath might be alledged for he swears to corroborate the just Laws and Customs quas vulgus elegerit where two words require some explication 1. Vulgus 2. Corroborare That we may know what they mean. Vulgus some think doth signifie the Commons and then the Lords as of a distinct House can have no share in the Legislation except as some tell us they were represented by the Knights of the Counties whom with the rest of the Free-Holders they did anciently elect and contribute to their Charges whilst they sat in Parliament Vulgus in Latin is the same that Folk in Saxon and now remains in English from whence Folk-mote the City or Shire-meeting as the Parliament is the great meeting of all the Counties in England In this place it must be the Representative of the whole Community of England in one body all the members of the Wittena Gemote as united and distinct from the King. The word Corroborare doth not signifie to give the essence to the Law as though it were not a Law before or not a Custom but it signifies to guard keep defend observe the just Laws and Customs in the administration and to see them executed according to judgment It may be the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek which doth not give the being to a Will and Testament for it must be a Will before it be confirmed and so made effectual Confirmation is extrinsecal and accidental not essential to the Will or Testament The reason why the Kings did swear to corroborate the just Laws and Customs made approved chosen by the people was because that upon the dissolution of the Parliament the sword remained in his hands for to see the Laws executed which were ineffectual would lie dead be in vain without execution These words explained the matter to be observed is that if by Laws and Customs we understand the rules of administration not only as including a binding force but also as to be made effectual then it follows by the tenour of that Oath that the Legislative power which is the foundation and rule of all acts of administration was in King Peers and Commons jointly this is a mixture and a free State. 3. This mixture will farther appear from the manner of enacting for that was the manner in our days Be it therefore enacted by the King 's most excellent Majesty by and with the assent and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons in this present Parliament Assembled and by authority of the same Neither is this new for the substance of it is ancient as Sir Edward Coke doth manifest in the cause of the Prince as Duke of Cornwall The Collection of the Statutes will manifest it for four hundred years For what if other terms were used yet they were in sense the same Neither did this begin in the Reign of Richard the Second or Henry the Third King Edward the Confessor's Modus tenendi Parliamentum will confirm the same to which my Lord Chief Justice Coke tells us the Conqueror bound himself Though Sir Roger Owen thinks this book but a Pamphlet yet my Lord Coke as good a Lawyer and Sir Henry Spelman as good an Antiquary as he were of another mind and thought better of it Nay it 's not only thus in making Laws but also in judgments which pass into an act And this kind of Judgment is the highest from which there lies no appeal This is the nature of the Constitution so far as my poor understanding is able to judge section 18 It remains I add something of our present condition since the times of our sad divisions After a long continued peace the light of the glorious Gospel many blessings and great deliverances from Heaven such was our unthankfulness so great the corruptions of Church and State that when God expected better fruits our sins were ripe for vengeance so that some fearful judgment if not the ruine of the three Nations did seem to approach or rather to be fatal and unavoidable And some of our Teachers and Watchmen seriously considering the eternal rules of providence and divine proceedings with the World in former times and knowing our present distempers did foresee this and gave us warning from those words of our Saviour Except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish Luke 13.3 Yet no warning given either by our watchmen from the Scriptures or the judgments of God upon Germany and the neighbour Nations round about us whom from our own shores we might behold wallowing in their own blood would be taken And even then when there was no danger from any enemy without and we were secure as enjoying the sweetest and most happy peace that could be expected on earth God looked down from Heaven with indignation and as though he had sworn to be avenged on such a Nation and so ungrateful a people he sent a spirit of giddiness amongst us and set the Egyptians against the Egyptians and made us Executioners of his own Judgment upon our selves for from our selves our miseries did arise For after a first and second pacification between England and Scotland the long continued Parliament began to reform both Church and State but found the corruptions so generally diffused and deeply rooted in the whole body that there was a greater fear of ruin than hope of Reformation and this some of our wise Statists had formerly observed was likely to be the issue They acted vigorously at the first but as some wise men thought too hastily and too high and seemed somewhat to encline to an extreme In the mean time no man suspecting no man fearing it brake out that bloody barbarous massacre in Ireland wherein two hundred thousand English Protestants are said to be murthered in one month In this the actors were Irish Papists and the sufferers English Protestants This could not quench the fire of dissention in England which began to manifest it self in the Parliaments Militia opposed to the King's Array which proceeded to a bloody battel at or near Keinton which continued till the King's party was wholly subdued in England himself put to death his posterity dispossessed of the Crown Ireland reduced with the ruin of almost all the chief and ancient Families
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
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
had not the power of the Keys What meant by those words of the Oath of Supremacy Erastians worthy of no answer because they mistake the state of the Question and do not distinguish between the power of the Sword and the power of the Keyes CHAP. XI Whether Bishops be the primary subject of the power of the Keys The different Opinions concerning the Definition and Essence of a Bishop as also concerning the first Institution of Episcopacy St. Hierom's opinion in this point Spalatensis his Arguments to prove the divine Right of Bishops as invested with the Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction examined and answered Dr. Andrew's judgment in this point After the primitive and also the Hierarchical Bishop which differ much the English Episcopacy different from both the former in some things proper to its self is examined Though some Episcopacy be grounded upon a divine general Precept yet it 's not the primary subject of the power of the Keys neither is Episcopal Government proved to be necessary by any special Evangelical Precept of universal and perpetual Obligation CHAP. XII Whether Presbytery be the primary Subject of the power of the Keys The abolition of Episcopacy and Surrogation of Presbytery in several reformed Churches The nature institution and distinction of Ecclesiastical Presbyters The places of Scripture whereon the Divine Right of Law or Rulong Elders is grounded examined The Reasons why Presbyters cannot be the primary Subject of this Power The Arguments of the Authors of Jus Divinum Ecclesiastici Regiminis insufficient to prove it The English Presbytery as intended and modelled by the Parliament with the Advice of the Assembly of Divines inquired into the perfections and imperfections of the same as modelled by the Parliament without the King. Certain reasons which may be imagined why the Parliament would not trust the Ministers alone with this power CHAP. XIII Whether the power of the Keys be primarily in the People The Opinion of Morellius and the Brownists of Blondel of Parker and his mistake in Politicks applyed to the Church to make it a mixt Government The judgment of the Author concerning the Power of the Keys to be primarily under Christ in the whole Church exercised by the best and fittest for that work The explication of his meaning concerning the Power the Subject of the power and the manner how this power is disposed in this Subject The Confirmation of the Proposition that the power of the Keys is in the whole Church both by the institution and exercise of this power Where is premised a confutation of Mr. Parker's Opinion grounded upon two several places as he understands them The principal places of Scripture concerning Church-Government in foro exteriori explicated to find out where this power is by institution for Legislation Jurisdiction and making of Officers CHAP. XIV Concerning the extent of a particular Church The several extensions of the Church in excess according to the opinions of such as subject all Churches particular to that one Church of Rome of such as subject all to a general Council Whether Mr. Hudson is justly charged by Mr. Hooker and Mr. Ellis and divers others as guilty of Popery in asserting the Vnity of the universal Church The Congregational extent what Congregations are How they are gathered Whether the primary subject of an Independent power The Arguments of Mr. Parker and the Dissenting Brethren from Scripture and Politicks answered A National extent examined What means to be used for to compose our differences and to settle peace amongst us CHAP. XV. Of Subjection Civil What Subjection in general is the degrees of it What a subject in a Civil State is the definition explained What the duties of Subjects be What offences are contrary to this subjection what Rebellion and Treason the several degrees of Treason What Vsurpation is whether any subjection be due to usurped Powers When a power is dissolved How far the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance bound the English subject Whether the Civil War did dissolve the Government Whether the late Warlike Resistance made against the King's party and his Commissions was Rebellion or no Something of the Question Whether upon any cause it be lawful for the Subjects to resist or take up Arms against their lawful Soveraign as it 's handled by Arnisaeus Whether after the War said to be between King and Parliament was commenced there was any ordinary Legal power which could induce an Obligation to subjection Whether the Act of alteration or any other Form since proposed could introduce an Obligation Whether it be lawful to submit unto an extraordinary power when no Legal power according to the Fundamental Constitution can be had The distinction division and education of Subjects CHAP XVI Of Subjection Ecclesiastical What Ecclesiastical Subjection is The distinction of Ecclesiastical Subjects The qualification of a Church-member Something of separation from a Church The alterations divisions made and the Errors Blasphemies professed in the Church of England in these late times The manner of admission of Church-Members The ancient and also the modern division of Ecclesiastical Subjects and their subordination The Hierarchical Order The Education of Church-members LIB I. CHAP. I. Of Government in General and the Original thereof section 1 PRropriety is the ground of Power and Power of Government and as there are many degrees of Propriety so there are of Power Yet as there is but one Universal and absolute Propriety so there is but one supream and universal Power which the most glorious blessed and eternal God can only challenge as his due For he contrived all things by his wisdom decreed them by his will and produced them by his Power and to this Day worketh all things according to the counsel of his will Ephes. 1.11 In this respect he is worthy to receive Glory and Honour and Power because he hath created all things and for his pleasure they are and were created Rev. 4.11 By Creation he began by Conservation he continued to be actually the Proprietary of all things for he made them of nothing and gave them being and existence so that they wholly always depend upon him and are absolutely his Therefore he hath power to dispose of them as he pleaseth and to order them to those ends he created them This ordination of them which began immediately upon Creation continueth and shall continue to the end and is either General of all things or Special of some special more noble and more excellent Creatures Such are Men and Angels endued with understanding and Free-will and capable of Laws rewards and punshments both Temporal and Eternal The ordination of these is more properly and strictly called Government which is a part of divine Providence The Government of Angels no doubt is excellent and wonderful though we know little of it because not revealed section 2 That of men is more fully manifested to us as men in that Book of books we call the holy Scriptures the principal subject
and expedient aecording to the general Rules of order decency unity and edification according to that distinction of Laws into declarative and constitutive section 8 After Laws are made and established they must be put in execution otherwise though they be both wisely and justly enacted and in themselves very excellent yet they are in vain and to no purpose This cannot be done without Officers therefore there must needs be a power of making Church-Rulers Under this Head we must comprehend Election Examination Ordination Suspension Degradation and whatsoever concerns the making reforming or disposing of Offices When Canons are made Officers with power of jurisdiction be constituted yet all is to no purpose except they proceed to hear and finally determine all Causes and Controversies within their Spiritual jurisdiction Therefore there must be Jus jurisdictionis cum ultima provocatione Hitherto appertain all Ecclesiastical Tribunals Judges judicial proceedings the discussion of all causes within their Cognisance sentences of Authoritative admonition Suspension Excommunication Absolution and Execution of all Besides all these because the Church whilest on Pilgrimage towards her Heavenly City hath need of these earthly and temporal goods neither can the publick Worship of God or her Officers be maintained nor her poor Saints relieved without them therefore every particular Church should be furnished with a Revenue and have a kind of publicum aerarium of her own which is not to be disposed of according to the will and pleasure of any private person or persons But there must be a power as to make Officers for other things so for this particular to receive keep and dispense the Church's Treasure this of themselves without publick consent they cannot do Therefore though the making of Deacons belong unto the second part of this Independant power yet jus dispensandi bona Ecclesiae publica is a distinct power of it self Christ and his Apostles had a common purse Joh. 13.29 so had the Church Act. 6.1 2 3 c. For this end they had their Collections at set times 1 Cor. 16.1 2. This Treasury belonged to the Church not to the State and did arise from the free gifts of such as were of ability and well disposed before there was any Tenure in Franke Almoigne as afterwards there was section 9 Before I conclude this Point concerning power lest instead of a well-composed body I make an indigested lump of heterogeneous stuff I will enquire how far it doth extend what be the limits wherewith it 's bounded what measure and degrees thereof a particular Church as such by Scripture-Charter may challenge For this purpose we may take notice of the subject of Power which is primary or secondary In the primary it 's primitive total supreme In the secondary it 's derivative partial and subordinate The power in both is the same essentially yet in the one as in the Fountain in the other as in several Channels This seems to be intimated by that submission required by the Apostle unto the King as supreme or unto Governours sent by him 1 Pet. 2.13 14. The King is Emperour who was the immediate subject of Supremacy Governours were Presidents and Vicarii Magistratus who are the instruments of the supreme as principal in government Coincident with this seems to be that distinction so frequent with Mr. Parker inter statum exercitium According to which he defines the government of the Church quoad statum to be Democratical because the power of the Keys is in the whole Church which with him is a Congregation as in the primary subject But quoad exercitium to be Aristocratical in the Rulers who derive their power from Christ by the Church This shall be examined hereafter This difference of the primary and secondary subject is to be observed lest we make every one who hath power and is trusted with the exercise thereof the prime and immediate receptacle of Church-power from Christ which is not to be done section 10 In the second place we must repeat a distinction taken up in the beginning of this Treatise which may briefly be contracted in this manner Ecclesiae Regimen est Internum Externum Vniversale Particulare formale Objectivum The Internal is Gods. The external Universal as such Christ doth justly challenge The external particular formally and properly Ecclesiastical is committed to particular Churches The external particular materially considered is the Christian Magistrate's due because the matters of the Church in this respect are an object of his Civil Power That distinction of Cameracensis potestas est ordinis aut Regiminis the same with that of Biel and many other Schoolmen hath some affinity with this For the power of Order with them is the power of a Minister as an Officer under Christ of the Universal Church and is exercised in foro poenitentiali or interiori The power of Government and Prelation which Defensor pacis saith the Bishops had per accidens is the same with this external Government of the Church as exercised in foro exteriori Mat. 18. 1 Cor. 5. Rev. 2.2 or judiciali as they term it All the power of a particular Church is confined to matters Ecclesiastical as such in that particular community and is exercised only in foro exteriori This must needs be so because the internal Government of the Church which by the Word and Spirit immediately rules the conscience so as to cast the impenitent both soul and body into Hell belongs to God as God. The external government of the Universal Church as Universal is purely Monarchical under Christ in which respect all particular Churches are meerly subjects and no ways independant no nor governing section 11 Yet in the third place if this be not so manifest and satisfactory the point may be illustrated if we parallel the Government of the Church with that of Israel As that was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the Theocratie of Israel God was pars imperans and the absolute Monarch and reserved to himself the jura Majestatis For he made their Laws appointed their chief Officers Generals Judges he anointed their Kings proclaimed their Wars concluded Peace and received last Appeals Yet in many petty causes and matters of State and that often he trusted their Elders Officers and Princes and committed to them exercise of power and actual government And their Kings were but a kind of Vicarii Magistratus under him So Christ hath retained to himself the government of the universal Church as such as also the Legislative power of particular Churches in all Essentials and Necessaries and hath enacted general Statutes for Accidentals and Circumstantials He hath the principal power of making Officers for he determines how many kinds of necessary Officers there should be limits their power prescribes their qualification sets down their duty and gives them their Commission Their judicial proceedings run in his name and their sentence is so far valid on earth as he shall
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
Scot and the Independent began to clash So the state of the controversie seemed to be altered For both these Parties at the first professed themselves enemies only to Popery and arbitrary Government which all true English Protestants were bound to oppose and by the Laws of the Land might justly do it But neither Presbytery nor Independency could be for our true interest but rather against it The truth is they were not unanimously resolved what they should build up though they agreed well enough in pulling down And surely it 's not wisdom to pull down and raze to the ground an old House which being repaired might serve the turn before they had a new one and the same better ready to set up or rather finished to their hands Yet this was not all the difference between the Parties but after the Conquest of Hambleton and all the Royal party rising and ready to joyn with him yet some of them who were real and cordial and did really joyn together laying aside for the time the difference of Presbytery and Independency in subduing the Adversary were willing to joyn with the King upon certain terms in the Isle of Wight They thought that such an agreement if it might be made was the only way to settle us in peace Others conceived that such an agreement if once made was destructive of all former designs and proceedings and that if the King was guilty of so much blood and other crying sins as the Parliament and especially the Kirk of Scotland had charged them withal then to agree with him was to destroy the English interest and bring innocent blood upon themselves and the Nation Therefore in an order for a solemn Thanksgiving made by the Kirk one particular mercy to be remembred in that Service was that the Treaty with the King in the Isle of Wight did not take effect From this fearful guilt if justly charged upon the King and his party some would dare to conclude That they who attempted to make an agreement with the Enemy so guilty could not be so faithful as those who refused all such reconciliation and endeavoured to take away all causes of future danger Yet if these latter after a full and final ruine of the malignant party as they called them should not proceed impartially to reduce the Government to the primitive Constitution and labour to settle the Protestant Religion for the substance and the good Laws of the Common-wealth they might prove more faithful in destroying than in building and laying the Foundation of our future happiness For to pull down one arbitrary Power to erect another and neglecting the substance of the Protestant Religion to protect Sectaries and erect new models of their own brain can be no act of fidelity I will not enter upon particulars nor reflect upon any person or persons for my intelligence is not so perfect as to know the secret designs and hidden motions of several parties which if I did know I might the better regulate mine own judgment in this point though I could not satisfie others Therefore I will leave all to the judgment of the Eternal God and pray for future peace and humbly request him for to bless and prosper all such as with an upright heart have endeavoured and do still labour to establish a wise and just Government And I further desire all those whom God hath preserved and blessed with great success to make a right use of God's mercies lest in the end they suffer the same or like judgments as God by them hath executed upon others for their sins Though it be material to know who have been most faithful and by whose means under God for the present we enjoy peace and the Gospel yet it may be of more moment and also more useful to take notice of the errours mistakes and miscarriages both of Parliament and Army from first to last For by the knowledge hereof we gain some advantage and wise men may easily understand how to avoid the like and to prevent such miseries for time to come as we have suffered in time past 2. To observe God's proceedings and the order which he hath observed in all our confusions and the end whereat he aims and the duties he expects after so many judgments executed 3. To consider what Families and persons God hath punished in these sad times and for what sins and if we after so great success fall into the same sins we must expect the like punishments 4. Not to mention the great alterations in the Dominions of Spain Turkey China of late days let 's consider in brief the strange works and proceedings of the Almighty with us in this corner of the world To this end let us take a short view of the Wars 2. The Parliaments 3. The King. 4. The Civil Government 5. The Church 6. Our present condition 1. The Wars are Civil or Foreign Civil in England Ireland Scotland The Royal Standard of England marcheth into Scotland where an Army is ready to oppose Yet no blow given no blood shed After this we see two potent Armies in England and only a little skirmish at the first a pacification is made the National League concluded both the Armies disbanded But after this no man fearing it a bloody massacre of two hundred thousand in the space of one month besides many thousand slain and butchered afterwards begins the Tragedy in Ireland Forces are sent to revenge that blood and thousands of the bloody Irish are sacrificed to expiate the former murthers At length a Civil War is commenced in England the same very bloody continues long many thousands are slain the Sword rageth in every corner the cry goes up to Heaven The Parliament desiring not only to defend it self but to relieve bleeding Ireland is brought very low is ready to submit calls in the Scot recovers prevails beats the King's party in the field reduceth all their Garrisons and obtains a total Victory in England Ireland almost lost is recovered again first in field-battel then by reducing all their Garrisons And in that Kingdom from first to last millions are slain the ancient great Families cut off and the Land for the greatest part made desolate which was a dreadful judgment of the most just Judge of Heaven and Earth Scotland where the fire began to smoke at first scaped long at last felt the bottoms and cruelty of a bloody War managed against them by Montross who at first was one of their Covenantiers Yet this fire is quenched They invade England twice and are twice scornfully foiled and shattered to pieces in England and at length wholly subdued by our English Forces in Scotland and remain subject to our Power to this very day Never so many fearful Judgments executed never so many bloody Wars in so short a time can we read of in all our former Histories Before these Wars are ended they beat the Netherlanders the most potent people by Sea in the World. 2. Parliaments
strains and far from being any ground either of Logical or Theological proofs 2. Such as were proper might agree to that Church for that time when it was honoured with persons of eminent piety and learning which were found in it as being the seat of the Empire And such things might be true of that Church then which do not agree unto it now 3. It 's found by the searching of the ancient Manuscripts that some things have been foisted into the Books of these ancient Authors in favour of that Church For they who could even before the fourth Century was ended corrupt the Copy if not the Latine Original of the Nicene Council and put in a Canon for to warrant receiving appeals from Africk which was not found in the Greek Original are not much to be trusted 4. Suppose many or all of those ancient commendations which were proper should be true yet they will not amount to that plenitude of power which in after times was exercised and to this day is challenged by the Bishops of that See. 5. None of those honourable testimonies are of Divine authority or firmly grounded upon the Scriptures And what the Scriptures give them that we will not deny them 3. As for their arguments from Scriptures I have wondred that any rational man should ever use them as they are by them applied to the Pope To argue That because Christ said to Peter to thee I give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and if thou lovest me feed my Sheep therefore the present Bishop of Rome is the Head and absolute Monarch of the Universal Church and invested with plenitude of power is very irrational There is such a vast distance between these Scriptures and the conclusion and so many mediums to be used before they can come at it and the same so uncertain that no man that will make use of his reason can assent unto the conclusion when all is said that can be said in behalf of this Universal Vicar from these Texts If we should maintain our cause against them by such arguments they would reject us with scorn and indignation Let his party plead and plead again for his Universal and transcendent power I am sure of one thing that if he loved Christ as Peter professed he did and had a mind sincerely bent to feed his Flock he would never challenge much less exercise such vast power That Christ left a power sufficient to the Church we verily believe but that he delegated so great a power or delegated it unto him we utterly deny and have great reason for it Yet because we will not submit unto his papal Majesty we must be condemned as Schismaticks and Hereticks deprived of all hope of Salvation as having no Communion with that Church whereof he is Head and lodged in Hell the lowest Hell. And all this is done upon the weakest grounds that ever rational man did use But we appeal to Heaven where Christ will be our Advocate and plead our cause and carry it too If it were needful I would single out the chiefest arguments used by them of Rome to maintain this Title and answer them distinctly But this is done already by many worthy and learned men Therefore I will take it for granted as that which hath been made good and evident that the Pope is not the first and proper subject of the power of the Keys CHAP. X. Whether the Civil State have any good Title to the Power of the Keys section 1 YET if the Pope cannot have and hold this power yet the Princes Soveraigns and civil States especially Christian will assume it and they have the strongest and the surest way of all others if they once get possession for to keep it and that 's the Sword. King Henry 8. did not only refuse to submit unto the Roman supremacy but took it to himself and became within his own Dominions over all persons in all causes as well Ecclesiastical as Civil supream Head and Governour So the Priest by the Prince was divested of a considerable part both of his power and also his Revenue But whether he could be the proper subject of this spiritual Power or make good his Title to it was much doubted and that by many As King he was but caput regni non Ecclesiae and as such he might have some Civil but no Ecclesiastical Power at all Yet though it was called Ecclesiastical yet it was not such Grammatice sed Rhetorice not properly but by a Trope a Metonymie of the adjunct for the Subject circa quod For the power of a State Temporal is only Civil if properly and formally considered yet the Civil Soveraign had always something to do in matters of Religion concerning which it may make Laws pass Judgment and execute the same yet the Laws the Judgments the Execution were Civil not strictly Ecclesiastical Therefore such as maintained the Regal Supremacy in Ecclesiasticals were so wise as to say that it was but materially and objectively in the Crown In which sense it was always due to Civil Powers as Civil as appears from Deut. 13. and many other places of Scripture as also from many Examples not only of the Kings of Judah but of Ninivy Babylon and Persia. That many of these Heathen Princes and also of the Kings of Israel did abuse this power for the establishment or exercise of a false Religion and Idolatry is no argument to prove they had it not but that they did not use it aright 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 circa sacra did always belong and that by divine institution to the Civil Higher Powers section 2 For the better understanding of this point several things are to be observed 1. That as there is no people so barbarous but profess and practise some Religion so there is no State or orderly Government but acknowledgeth some Deity or Divine Power upon which they conceive their publick Peace Safety Prosperity and good Success doth depend as we may by the very Scriptures and also by other Histories be informed For every Nation had their publick gods besides their Family-tutelar Deities It 's true though by the light of Nature considering the Glorious works of Heaven and Earth they might have known the true God yet they changed the Glory of God into a Lye or false God and conceived that to be a God which was no such thing 2. The supream Governours of these States had a special care to order the matters of that Religion which they publickly received They made Laws appointed Priests for the Service and Worship of their Gods. This is also evident from Scripture and from other Histories too This ordering of Religion as publick was always held a right of the publick Power 3. Yet they had no power to establish or observe any Religion or Worship but that which God had instituted according to the Laws of Nature or divine Revelation if they did they abused their Power For that very power as from
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
Subject as a Subject The Question is therefore Whether he that is a Soveraign may not be in some case resisted by the people and if he may in what case a resistance is lawful and free from the guilt of Rebellion Our Case in England is extraordinary and not easily known by many of our own much less by strangers not acquainted with our Government The Resistance in the late Wars was not the first that was made against the Kings of England by the people of England though it differed from all the former The difference was between the King and Parliament whereof he was a part yet severing himself from the whole body And the Parliament was no Subject considered as a Parliament for then the King himself being an essential part thereof should be a Subject As he was divided willingly or wilfully from it he could be no King no Soveraign For if the power was in the King and Parliament joyntly it could not be in him alone Besides when there is no Parliament we know he is a King by Law and the Kingdom is Regnum pactionatum non absolutum If he make himself absolute by that very act he makes himself no King of England For the common and fundamental Law knows no such King. Yet this was all either he or his party could say to justifie themselves If he say the Militia was his the Parliament will say it 's theirs as well as his and except he be absolute it must needs be so For if the supream power be in King Peers and Commons joyntly the Militia which is an essential part of this power could not be his alone The Parliament conceived that when he left them he left his power with them if that could be made good by the Fundamental Constitution then all England was bound to subject to them for the time and obey their just Commands And if it were not so how could all such as took up Arms with the King against them be adjudged Traytors as they were If these things be so there could be no Rebellion upon the Parliaments side because according to the Rules the Parliament was no Subject the King then separated from the Parliament refusing to Act with them Acting and Warring against them was no Soveraign The Question in the time of those bloody and unnatural Dissentions was stated several ways as Whether it was Rebellion in Subjects Commissioned by the Parliament to resist evil Counsellours Agents Ministers of State and Delinquents sheltring themselves under the King as divided from the Parliament and acting against the Laws by his Commissions or Whether the Parliament of England lawfully Assembled where the King virtually is may by Arms defend the Religion established by the same Power together with the Laws and Liberties of the Nation against Delinquents detaining with them the Kings seduced person or Whether the Parliament might not grant a Commission to the Earl of Essex by a force to apprehend Delinquents about the King to bring them to a due Tryal and this even against the personal will of the King Or whether after the Parliament had passed a Judgment against the King they might not lawfully give Commission to General Fairfaxe to apprehend the Kings person and bring him to the Parliament or Supposing the King to be an Absolute Monarch whether any of these things could be done by any Commission from the Parliament as the Condition of the Kingdom stood at that time Thus and several ways was the Question then stated and debated But the Truth is that if the Fundamental Government be by King Peers and Commons joyntly and that neither the Parliament consisting of these three States nor the Parliament as distinct from the King nor the King as divided from the Parliament could alter this Constitution nor lawfully act any thing contrary unto it then so soon as the Commission of Array on one side and of the Militia on the other were issued out and were put in Execution the Subjects in strict sense were freed from their Allegiance And if they acted upon either side their actings were just or unjust as they were agreeable or disagreeable to the Fundamental Laws and the general and principal end of Government For even then their subjection to the Laws of God and Fundamental Constitution of the Kingdom did continue and they were even then most of all bound to endeavour with all their power the good and preservation of their Country bleeding and conflicting with the pangs of Death And in that cause no man was bound too scrupulously to observe the petty Rules of our ordinary administration which were proper for a time of Peace which could not help but hinder her recovery In such an extraordinary case many extraordinary things if not in themselves unjust might have been done to prevent her ruine And if the Parliament had gone at first far higher than they did they had prevented the ruin of the King the dis-inherison of His Children and very much effusion of blood which followed afterwards The business then was easie which afterwards became difficult and could not be effected but with the loss of many thousands and the hazard of themselves for their Cause at first was well resented and had many advantages but was much prejudicial by too much intermedling with Religion and making some alterations in the Church before the time section 9 The next Question is whether since the Commencement of the War there was any certain ordinary legal Power which could induce an Obligation or there was any such Power after the Wars was begun it continued after the War was ended till the secluding of the Members and upon that seclusion ceased The answer unto these two Questions seems not to be difficult For there neither was nor could be any such certain ordinary legal Power which could in the strict letter of the Law bind all English Subjects to subjection For during a Parliament this binding power is in King Peers and Commons joyntly in the Intervals of Parliament it s in the King acting according to the Laws of Administration But all this while nay to this day there is no such Parliament no such King. And both in the time of the Wars and after both King and Parliament acted not only above but contrary to many of our Laws which in the time of Peace are ordinarily observed Neither of them could give us any Precedent for many things done by them and those few Precedents alledged for some of their Actions were extraordinary and Acts of extraordinary times If the Counties and People of England had not been ignorant and divided the division of King and Parliament did give them far greater power than they or their Forefathers had for many years But it did not seem good to the Eternal Wise and Just Providence to make them so happy Punished we must be that was his sentence and punished we have been yet few of us receive correction or return to him that Smote us Some
from an inferiour to a provincial Synod and from the Provincial to the Patriarchal which was the highest Court except the Christian Emperours call a General Council And that was said to be a General Council which extended beyond the bounds of one Patriarchate especially if it included all 9. After these Patriarchates began to be such eminent places many ambitiously sought them and there was great contention amongst themselves who should be greatest and have the precedency Neither could General Councils by their determinations prevent them for time to come 10. The Patriarch of Rome though but at the first one of the three and afterwards of the five and according to some of the seven if you take in Justiniana Prima with Carthage did challenge the precedency and preeminency of them all And though the Council of Chalcedon gave the Constantinopolitan See equal priviledges with his yet he would not stand to their determination but afterward challenged greater power then was due began to receive Appeals from Transmarine parts beyond the bounds of his Diocess and to colour his Usurpation alledged a Canon of the Nicene Council which was not found in the Greek Original He will be President in all General Councils no Canons must be valid without his Approbation His Ambition aspires higher when the title of Universal Bishop had been denied the Patriarch of Constantinople by Gregory the Great Boniface his Successour assumes it And by degrees they who follow him usurpe the Power and at length the civil Supremacy is arrogated and the Roman Pontiffe must dispose of Kingdoms and Empires and will depose and advance whom he pleaseth And is not he the Man of Sin and the Son of Perdition who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God shewing himself that he is God 2 Thes. 2.3 4. From all which words he that goes under the name of M. Camillas defines Antichrist in this manner Antichristus est Pontifex maximus Elatione vicariatu assimulatione Christo oppositus lib. 1. c. 3. de Antichristo As the Roman State subdued and subjected unto themselves the former Empires and Monarchies of the World and this in themselves after that became Vassals and Servants unto one Absolute Imperial Monarch and by him Rome-Heathen raigned over the Kings of the Earth Revel 17.18 So in tract of time Rome-Christian usurped Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical over all Churches and her Patriarch swallowing up all the power of the former Patriarchs became Universal Monarch and Visible Head of the Universal Church The occasions true causes of this Usurpation and the means whereby he by degrees aspired to this transcendent power are well enough known Some will tell us that Episcopacy or rather Prelacy was the occasion at least of the Hierarchy and the Hierarchy of the Papacy For if there had not been a Bishop invested with power in himself and a provincial Jurisdiction given to one Metropolitan and many Metropolitans subjected to one Patriarch the Bishop of Rome could have had no advantage nor colour for his Usurpation This makes many prudent men jealous of Episcopacy especially as many understand a Bishop to be one invested with the power of Ordination and Jurisdiction and that by divine Law without the Presbytery Division and Subordination which are essential to Government could be no proper cause of the Papal Supremacy But the trusting of power Ecclesiastical in one man extending and enlarging the bounds of one particular Church and independent Judicatory too far and subordinating the People and Presbyters to the Monarchical Jurisdiction of one Bishop the several Bishops to one Metropolitan the several Metropolitans to one Patriarch and several Patriarchs to one Roman Pontiffe did much promote and effectually conduce to the advancement of one man to the Universal Vicarage At the first institution of the Hierarchy neither the people nor Presbytery were excluded the Patriarchates were of a reasonable extent the Patriarchs independent one upon another and the end intended was Unity and the prevention of Schism and the subordination seemed to be made out of mature deliberation Yet humane Wisdom though never so profound if it swerve from the Rules of divine Institution proves Folly in the end Let not all this discourage any Ecclesiastical Community or disswade them from division co-ordination subordination if so be they keep the power in themselves as in the primary Subject and reserve it to the whole and not communicate it to a part and keep themselves within a reasonable compass From all this we may conclude that a Secession from Rome and the rejection of his Ecclesiastical Supremacy if so be we retain the true Doctrine and pure Worship of God is no Schism especially in England For 1. there were many Provinces out of the great Patriarchate and no ways subject to any of them but they had their own proper Primates and Superindendents Amonst these England was one and by the Canon of Nice had her own Jurisdiction and was under no Patriarch but a Primate of her own 2. The Bishop of Rome was at first confined to that City and after he was made Patriarch he had but the ten Suburbicarian Provinces and the rest of the Provinces of Italy had Milan for their Metropolis 3. That after the Conversion of the Saxons that that Bishop should exercise any power in England was a meer Usurpation And to cast off an usurped power and the same Tyrannical could be no Schism at all There is a Book printed at Oxford in the year 1641 wherein we find several parcels of several Authors bound up in one The first Author is Dr. Andrews the second Bucer the third Dr. Reynolds the fourth Bishop Usher the fifth Mr. Brerewood the sixth Mr. Dury the seventh Mr. Francis Mason The design of the whole is to maintain Episcopacy and in part to prove the Hierarchy 1. Some of the formentioned Authors do grant with Hierome that the Church was first governed by the common advice of Presbyters though this position in strict sence is not true as hath been formerly proved 2. Some grant that at the first Institution of Bishops a Bishop was nothing else but a President or Moderator in Presbyterial Meetings 3. That afterwards these were constant and standing with a power of Suderintendency not only over the people but the Presbyters within a City and the Territory thereof 4. That when a Church was extended to a Province in the Metropolis thereof they placed a chief Bishop called a Metropolitan who had the precedency of all the other City Bishops 5. That these Bishops could do no common act binding the whole circuit without the Presbytery 6. That there were such Bishops and Metropolitans in the Apostles times thus Dr. Usher doth affirm and he quotes Ignatius to this purpose 7. That there was an imparity both in the State and Church of Israel under the Old Testament and so likewise
and the parts the Soveraign and the Subject According to this method though mine ability be not much I have spoken of a Community both Civil and Ecclesiastical and of a Common-wealth 1. Civil then 2. Ecclesiastical In both the first part is the Soveraign where I enquire 1. Into his power civil and then into the spiritual power of the Keys in the Church 2. I proceed to declare how the Civil Soveraign acquires or loseth his power and how the Church derives her power or is deprived of it 3. The next thing is the several ways of disposing the power civil in a certain subject whence arise the several forms of Government civil and the disposal of the power of the Keys the primary subject whereof is not the Pope or Prince or Prelate or Presbyter or People as distinct from Presbyters but the whole particular Church which hath it in the manner of a free State. Here something is said of the extent of the Church After all this comes in pars subdita both Civil and Ecclesiastical where I speak of the nature of subjection and of the distinction division and education of the Subjects both of the State and Church All this is done with some special reference both to the State and Church of England desiring Peace and Reformation If any require a reason why I do not handle Ecclesiastical Government and Civil distinctly by themselves without this mixture the reasons are especially two 1. That it might be known that the general Rules of Government are the same both in Church and State for both have the same common principles which by the light of Reason Observation and Experience may be easily known but especially by the Scriptures from which an intelligent Reader may easily collect them Therefore it 's in vain to write of Church-Government without the knowledge of the Rules of Government in general and the same orderly digested The ignorance of these is the cause why so many write at random of Discipline and neither satisfie others nor bring the Controversies concerning the same unto an issue 2. By this joynt handling of them the difference between Church and State Civil and Ecclesiastical Government the power of the Sword and Keys is more clearly as being laid together apparent For this is the nature of Dissentanies Quod juxta posita clarius elucescunt This is against Erastus and such as cannot distinguish between the power of ordering Religion for the external part which belongs unto the civil Soveraigns of all States and the power of the Keys which is proper to the Church as a Church Yet if these two Reasons will not satisfie and some Reader may desire and wish they had been handled dictinctly he may read them as dictinct and several even in this Book I my self had some debate within my self what way I should handle them yet upon these reasons I resolved to do as I have done section 12 A Common-wealth once constituted is not immortal but is subject to corruptions conversion and subversion The Authors of Politicks following the Philosopher make these accidents the last part of their Political Systems and some speak of them more briefly some at large and declare the causes and prescribe the Remedies both for prevention and recovery Corruption is from the bad constitution or male-administration and both Soveraign and Subject may be and many times are guilty The conversion and woful changes and also the subversion and ruine is from God as the supream Governour and just Judge of Mankind who punisheth not only single and private Persons and Families but whole Nations and Common-wealths Of these things the Scripture humane Stories and our own experience do fully inform us But of them if it may be useful I shall speak more particularly and fully in the second Book the subject whereof in general is Administration in particular Laws and Canons Officers of the State and of the Church and Jurisdiction both Civil and Ecclesiastical The reasons why I desire to publish this first and severally from the latter part are partly because though the first draught of that latter part was finished above half a Year ago yet I intend to enlarge upon the particulars partly because I desire to know what entertainment this first part may meet withal for if it be good I shall be the more encouraged to go forward but chiefly because the most material Heads and Controversies are handled in this which is far more difficult The latter will be more easie yet profitable and useful especially if some of greater ability would undertake it The God of Truth and Peace give us Humility Patience Charity and the Knowledge of his Truth that holding the Truth in Love we may grow up unto him in all things which is the Head even Christ to whom be Honour Glory and Thanks for ever Amen FINIS * vid. Comin de bell Neap. lib. 5. Scope of the Work. Means to prevent Errors Sect. 1. The reason of differences in Church-Affairs What a Common-wealth in general is Foundation of the Work. Constitution Community in general De C. D. lib. 19. Cap. 21. Cap. 22. What Community Civil is Original of community Members of a Community Ecclesiast Community A good ground of Childrens right to Baptisme What hinders Reformation A Community formed is a Commonwealth De C. D. Lib. 19. cap. 13. Neighbour a notion of Society Majesty in the People really c. Real Majesty greater than Personal The mistake of Junius Brutus Buchanon Heno A Parliament cannot alter a form of Government A happy Community Majesty Personal Acts of Personal Majesty 1. Without Within Soveraigns must order Matters of Religion Civil matters Properties of Majesty Fundamental Charter of Civil Majesty Power how got Justly got extraordinary How Kings must govern Ordinarily By Election Best Government By Conquest Vsurpation Subjects may defend their Rights What destroys Personal Majesty Bracton Kings duty Binds not posterity Majesty when forfeited When Subjection ceases a Isa. 22.2 Vers. 21. b Rev. 1.18 1 Cor. 3.7 d Mat. 16.29 e Joh. 20.22 23. f 1 Cor. 5.12 g Ibid. h Ibid. 13. 11 Quaest. in vesperiis Dib 4. dist 8. Quaest. 2. What a King is What the King cannot do Parliament best Assembly Parliament Members qualified Wittena Gemote What the House of Commons is The End of calling the House of Lords What Barons called to Parliament Power of Parliament without the King. Why Kings Consent required First subject of Personal Majesty What the Parliament cannot do Who gave Crown Prerogatives and Parliament-being Kings of England no absolute Monarchs Cause of England 's Miseries What observable in our sad Divisions How to judge of our Divisions What charged on the King. Disobedience to King unlawful Parliament accused acquitted The cause changed Treaty at the Isle of Wight The 〈◊〉 works 〈◊〉 God among us Sect. 22. What may be the best way of settlement Qualification of Parliament members What to be looked into by a Parliament first * Non assumit Rex vel jus clavium vel censurae sed quae exterioris politiae Tort. Torti pag. 318. Rex qua Rex habet primatum Ecclesiasticum objective qua Christianus effective qua Rex actu primo qua Christianus secundo Mason de Minist Angl. l. 3. pag. 312. Primitive Bishop His Power Hierarchical B. B. His Power Hierarch Jure Humano * De Repub Eccles. lib. 2. c. 3. sect 7 8 9. Sect. 7. * Act. 8.14 * Ludovicus Arabelensis Lewis Arch-Bishop of Arles President in the Council of Basil. English Bishops What Dean and Chapters were English Bishops not Jure Divino * Lib. 3. c. 3 4. Tit. de praescript adversus haereticos Job 37.12 Prov. c. 12.5 * Gal. 1.1 * De. polit Ecclesiastica l. 3. c. 7. p. 26. * Tort Tor. p. 41. * Vignierus de excommunicatine venatorum The Church the Subject of the Keyes As in the Fundamental Office of Christ. Church-government what Who guilty of Schism Who Schismaticks Parish no Congregation Christian What Church the primary subject of the Keys The supposed end of the Congregational notion The subject of the whole Treatise * Isa. 49.23 Chap. 60.16 22. * Chap. 55.34 * 1 Cor. 11.34 * In his Book of the Church c. 8. p. 63. Best means to reform and unite a Church Divided What 's the chief interest of a Nation as Christian. Soveraign real Personal Measure of subjection rightly bounded The rational part of a people the heir of real Majesty The Sacrament what Education What makes a Church-Member Who a Visible Saint Division Subordination of that Church when Subordination of Bishops prudential Episcopal Hierarchy not of Divine Authority Bishops over Presbyters uncertain The Pope the Man of Sin c. Prelacy the occasion of Hierarchy and that of Papacy England under no foreign Primate What a Bishop was at first No Divine Testimony for Bishops Bishops of good use not of necessity A special Work of the Levite