Rulers of the World. And he makes use of Angels Men Armies all Creatures to execute his righteous Judgments 6. Majesty hangs very loosely upon such as do possess it they have no strong hold of it It 's easily separable from man and man from it and it 's more easily lost than acquired and acquired many times more easily than kept Therefore it is that a Scepter is so easily turned to a spade and a spade unto a Scepter 7. Here is the proper place to examine 1. Whether Majesty can be conferred upon any person or persons upon condition 2. Whether once conferred and received it can be forfeited Not to be conditionally given and received not to be liable to forfeiture are not Jura Majestatis as Mr. Hobbs improperly calls them but if they any ways agree to Majesty as it will be hard to prove they do they are rather adjuncts than any thing else For the first Whether they be given upon condition or no cannot be well determined except we distinguish of this Power as given by God and as given by Man. 2. Between Majesty real and personal 3. Between personal of the first and of the second degree 4. Between the Sovereign materially and formally considered 1. God never gave any Power or Majesty Real or Personal but upon condition 1. That the receiver use it well 2. That he may take it away at will and pleasure 2. Real Majesty cannot by Man be given upon condition to a Community as free and such in proper sense 3. A Community may give personal Majesty upon condition and by the Laws of God cannot give it otherwise And the Condition is that they use it well and for the good of the people according to the eternal Laws of divine Wisdom and Justice for that very end for which God ordained all higher Powers and civil Government And no good Sovereign will desire it upon any other terms Hence the Oaths solemnly administred to the Sovereigns of the World which the people impose upon them not as Subjects but as members of a Free Community and this imposing referrs to the first Constitution and the fundamental Law of Government This is clear enough in the first institution of a King in England as the Myrrour tells us The Conqueror received the Crown upon the same terms And some good Lawyers inform us that before the King had taken his Oath to the people he could not require an Oath of Allegiance from them Therefore Sir Edward Coke must be warily understood when he makes the Coronation but a formality For though the setting of the Crown upon their Heads which is but a sign of Dignity and Honour be but a Ceremony yet the matter of his Oath is essential to the making of him King and if that being the substance of the fundamental Contract be not presupposed as first consented unto he cannot be a King. Bracton who advanceth our Kings as high as any antient Lawyer saith Ipse autem Rex non debet esse sub homine sed sub Deo Lege quia lex facit Regem Attribuat igitur Rex Legi quod lex attribuit ei videlicet dominationem potestatem Non enim est Rex ubi dominatur voluntas non lex l. 1. c. 8. And here he seems to understand not only the Law of constitution but administration That he means the latter is plain when he saith Non debet esse major eo in Regno suo in exhibitione juris He formerly asserted that Rex non habet param in Regno suo which is true in respect of every single person otherwise we know the King may be judged With this agrees that of the Myrrour That it was the great abusion of all to say the King was above the Laws to which he ought to be subject And we know who makes these Laws Arnisaeus who is so zealous for absolute Monarchs confesseth with the Philosopher that ubi leges dominantur the King cannot be absolute He observeth three kinds of Oaths which Princes take The 1. Is to maintain Religion The 2. To do their Duty The 3. Whereby they subject themselves to the Laws Such are the Oaths to be taken by the Kings of Poland Swethland Denmark and England whose coronation-Coronation-Oath includes all the three Yet this very man having no better Author than Holinshed is bold to affirm that our Kings were absolute hereditary Monarchs Bodin and Bisoldus seem to be of the same mind And if they be such then saith Arnisaeus they are Kings before they take their Oaths and hereditary too But who told him so How will he prove it We know for certain it 's otherwise and our Antiquaries in Law will say that he is very ignorant and yet very bold if not an impudent flatterer That Bodin with him and others should make the King of France absolute there may be some colour if we look upon their practice for they act very highly as absolute Princes Yet if Hottoman a better Lawyer and a far greater Antiquary than either Bodin or Arnisaeus be true the Kings of France are made Kings and receive their Crowns from the first investiture and that upon conditions Neither is there any Government which hath a rational and just constitution which may be known by ancient Records or unwritten constant Customs but will manifest that the Sovereigns thereof receive their Crowns and keep them upon certain conditions different from the written and natural Laws of God. And it 's remarkable that no Constitution can be good or allowable which is not agreeable to those Laws It 's true that if a people design one or more Persons to be their Sovereign and promise absolutely to acknowledge them by that designation and promise they are bound to grant him or them all the power whereby he or they may be absolute Sovereigns and if they will keep their promise they must not they cannot put any conditions upon him or them which may tend to the diminution of the Power already given And they may give it so as that he may as absolutely transmit it and derive it to his Posterity Yet if any shall do thus and set up such an absolute Sovereign that very Person or his Successor may be considered materially as such or such men or formally as such Sovereigns Materially considered especially as such as not yet invested they may be bound to such conditions as upon the non-performance of them they may forfeit But consider them as actually and absolutely invested there can be no such Obligation neither can any Conditions or Oaths be imposed upon them except they be willing to accept of them Yet if any people constitute such a Soveraignty it 's to be examined how justly and wisely they have done and whether they have not enslaved both themselves and their posterity and laid the foundation of their own misery and ruine And if this Constitution be neither just nor wise I cannot see how it should bind posterity And I
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
on the other hand we must not be too scrupulous and pretend Conscience and yet make our Fancy or some humane Constitutions our Rule and adhere unto them as though they were Divine Institutions For some whilst they refuse either to submit or act under a power in their conceit usurped they become guilty of more hainous Sin and when they presume they are faithful to some personal Majesty they prove unfaithful to Real and their own dear Country preferring the Interest of some Person or Family or persons before the good of the whole body of the people to whom they owe more than to any other And whosoever will not be faithful unto his own Country cannot be faithful to any form of Government or personal Governours Yet whosoever will handle this point accurately must first define what Usurpation in general is 2. How many kinds and differences of Usurpation there be and 3. What the particular Usurpation is against which he argues and 4. State the particular Case with all the Circumstances section 5 The continuance and dissolution of a Legal Power is also to be observed As for real Majesty it always continues whilest the Community remains a Community and subjection to this is due till it be destroyed Subjection to personal Majesty in a Representative cannot in just things be denied till a latter Representative make their power void The personal Majesty of a King with us requires subjection whilst he lives and governeth according to Law but upon his Death or upon Tyranny likewise or acting to the dissolution of the Fundamental Constitution he ceaseth to be a Soveraign and the Obligation as to him ceaseth A Parliament turning into a Faction acting above their Sphere wronging King or People cannot justly require nor rationally expect for Subjection And though private persons cannot yet the people by a latter and well ordered Parliament may both judge them and call the Exorbitant Members to account When a personal Soveraign cannot protect his Subjects because their Lives Persons and Estates are in the power of another he cannot rationally require subjection but for the time at least he should be willing to free them from Allegiance and to let them make the best terms they can for themselves But voluntary Revolt or Rebellion cannot free them from this Obligation to their lawful Soveraign In a word so many ways as Majesty and Soveraignty may be lost so many ways this Obligation may be dissolved Yet in all these Dissolutions Subjects must remember that their Obligation to God and their Country doth continue when not only Personal Soveraigns but also the Forms of Government are altered There are just Causes and Reasons of the Dissolution of this Obligation and there are also unjust pretences and grounds of denying Subjection If any one of an innovating humour or desire of alteration or discontent with their present Governours or conceits of false Titles or an intention to advance some of their own party or a belief that any forraign Prince or Priest can absolve them from their Allegiance or that their Soveraigns are wicked or do not administer justly or are Tyrants when they are not or in any such like case shall seek to cast off the Yoke and think themselves free they must needs be guilty and cannot be excused Those are the greatest Offenders who are Enemies to Government it self under pretence of liberty or impunity in their Crimes vailed under the notion of self-preservation or a reformation of some things amiss section 6 The Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy could alter nothing in the Constitution and both did presuppose our Allegiance due to England according to the fundamental Laws and could neither take it away nor add any thing unto it The Parliament by them might declare what was the Duty of every Subject The occasion of them both are well known the end was to exclude all forraign Power in matter of Religion and civil Right in both which the Pope had usurped formerly and might do so for future times especially seeing many Subjects did incline so much unto the Sea of Rome They seemed to bind the Subjects taking them not only to the present Kings or Queens but their Heirs and Successors For the King might have Heirs and Successors and he might have no Heirs and yet have Successors For Queen Elizabeth had no Heir or Heirs but a Successor she had Yet because the Crown is not entailed by common Law and the fundamental Rule as some tell us therefore none is a Successor till he be designed and actually invested and acknowledged and till then the Oaths were not administred to be taken by any particular subject The Oath taken to the former Prince if once removed by Death or some other way though it expressed Heirs and Successors was not thought sufficient it must be taken anew unto the present Successor by Name Yet if the Crown had been entailed or the King 's proper Fee by Inheritance this seems to be needless One reason of these words inserted seems to be this that seeing Succession and Election was usually in a Line it was intended by them to exclude Pretenders and all Power of the Pope or any other to dispose of the Crown when the former Possessor was removed or deceased yet they did not so tye us to be faithful unto the Power of England to be exercised by King Peers and Commons as that it were unlawful to be true and faithful unto the Community of England though under another form The Obligation to our Country was far higher and fidelity to it was due by the Laws of God and Nature so that we must seek the good thereof though the Government was altered Fidelity unto the Community is first due Fidelity to it under some form of Government was the second Fidelity unto it as under that form by King Peers and Commons was the third Fidelity unto the person of the King is the last and presupposeth the former whosoever understands and takes them otherwise perverts the true meaning and makes them unlawful The Protestation and Covenant were made in a time of danger and distraction and did include or presuppose the former Obligations yet the Protestation superadded something concerning the Protestant Doctrine of the Church of England to be maintain'd and the Covenant something of Discipline as to be performed and both extended to the preservation of the peace and union of the three Kingdoms Neither of them did allow any unlawful means to compass these ends Neither of them could take away our Obligation to our Country and destroy our English Primary Interest but it remains entire and since all the alterations made afterwards we are as much as ever bound to seek and promote the same and whosoever will refuse to do so upon pretence of these Oathes the Protestation and the Covenant he is Traytor to the common good of the Nation For as there is a positive so there is a negative Infidelity For though such did not use
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
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