therefore termed Despoticum herile Imperium And such a Monarch seems to be that which by Aristotle is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There be Princes invested with Majesty who challenge the Legislative power unto themselves will by a Proclamation or Edict command the goods of their Subjects and imprison their persons at will and pleasure These though they be limited by the fundamental Constitution and their Oaths are in the exercise of their power as absolute as the former This kind of Government may do well where the Subjects are turbulent insolent and unruly or of a base and servile spirit or rude and savage But where the people are ingenuous tractable and of a better disposition it 's very unreasonable for it will either cause Rebellions and Seditions or much debase their spirits This kind of Monarchy is apt to degenerate into a Tyranny of one person Yet if this kind of Sovereign be wise just and vertuous the people may live happily under his protection Yet such a power and so unlimited is not fit to be trusted in the hands of every one And if it be hereditary woe to the people that live under it Yet this power may be trusted in the hands of one yet so as that it may be allayed limited and justly and wisely poised and the Sovereign as a King. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Hebrew signifies a Governor in general 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek is a word of great latitude and so is Rex in Latin and also Sultan in the Arabick and Mauritanian Language Yet some are such imperious Dictators and Masters of words that the word King must needs signifie an absolute Monarch That it often signifies a Monarch and one that hath the title of Majesty there is no doubt But the bare word or title not distinctly inform us of the power or the manifold differences of Kings which must be known another way as by the constitution of those particular States where the chief and most eminent Governours have that title For there is a great difference and that in respect of power between the Kings of Spain and France and the Kings of Poland Swethland and Denmark Neither doth the King of England in this respect exactly agree with any of them But if the word cannot the definition surely of a King should determine his power Yet neither will the common usual definition do it For thus he is commonly defined A King is a Monarch who governeth free men justly according to the Laws to the good of the Common-wealth The Genus is that he is a Monarch And if such in strict senc◠as such he can have neither Superiour nor Peer in his Kingdom The specifical difference is taken from the Subject the rule the end of his Government For his proper act is Regere to govern The subjects of his Government are Freemen The Rule is just Laws The end the publick good Abstract the specifical difference and lay the word King and Monarch aside and it agrees to all Governours Civil whatsoever For Civil government being grounded upon the eternal moral Law Love thy Neighbour as thy self and more particularly upon the fifth Commandment no person or persons invested with Sovereign power can be defined any other way and neither their power nor the exercise thereof is good further than it agrees with this definition And the more their government swerves from this Rule the more of the Tyrant is in them and if the violation of it be more than their observation and that habitually too then they are really Tyrants in exercitio For denominatio fit a parte praedominante But I have wondred why Authors have made this the specifical difference of a King which certainly it cannot be Yet this definition leaves many things doubtful For it determines not what liberty is and whether it can be perfect without propriety Nor doth it tell us what these Laws are according to which he must govern whether the Laws of God only or the Laws also of men and if of men whether the Laws of constitution or administration if of administration whether they must be made by himself alone or by some others without him or with him For if the Laws be made by him alone he is an absolute Despotical Sovereign if by others either with him or without him he is not such For there may be a King at least in name above Law and a King by Law and such as cannot command or bind the meanest Subject nor judge him but according to Law. Such a King is not a pure Monarch which I now treat of Therefore a King that is a pure Monarch differs from a Despotical Sovereign in respect of his Subjects and the measure of his power and according to this definition in the exercise of it The Subjects of the one are free and have propriety of person and goods the Subjects of the other have neither The power of the one is more absolute and of larger extent or rather more intensive The exercise of the power of the one is bounded by just Laws the power of the other is not limitted or directed by Laws and so tends not so much to advance the weal of his Subjects as his own greatness and in this respect can be no lawful and good Governour if he act according to his absolute and arbitrary power which God never gave him And Despotical Sovereigns if wise and just will do as Trajan did that is act according to the Rule of Justice and of a limitted power though they be not bound by man to do so section 6 An absolute and pure Monarchy is a very dangerous form of Government and very inclinable and propense to Tyranny and such a Sovereign as is invested with such transcendent power degenerates and turns Tyrant Experience in all times and places makes this evident Monarchy indeed in some respects is the best Government Yet such is the imperfection and corruption of man that it proves not to be so If Monarchs were like God or Saints and Angels it might be better But in a succession whether elective or hereditary we find in tract of time few good many bad and very wicked In Israel the first King was not right the fourth too bad and after the Kingdom was divided into the Tribe of Israel and Judah in Judah we find few like David many very wicked in the Kingdom of Israel not one good Yet the Laws both Civil and Ecclesiastical were made to their hands and that by God himself Sovereign power is a weighty burthen and requires much strength and excellent abilities Moses himself cannot bear it alone he hath need of one hundred and Seventy Elders and the same endued with the spirit of government to be his assistants If a Sovereign be imprudent or weak of understanding not able to judge of good counsel or negligent or timorous or wilful or destitute of good Agents and Instruments for Administrations the Government begins to
had already sworn could have found as many reasons against it as against the Covenant especially if it had been new as the Covenant was Many wise men at the first did scruple it and some suffered death for refusal Amongst the rest Sir Thomas Moor a learned and a very prudent man could not digest it and though he might have an high conceit of the Papal Supremacy yet that might not be the only reason of his refusal but this because he knew the Crown had no Ecclesiastical power properly so called Though this was not thought to be the true but only the pretended cause of his death For in his Vtopia he seems to dislike the Indisputable Prerogative which was a Noli me tangere and to touch it so roughly as he did might cost dear as it did Yet I have taken the Oath of Supremacy in that sense as our Divines did understand it and I was and am willing to give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's section 4 That which hath been said in this point in brief is this That though the Civil Powers have a right to order matters of Religion in respect of the outward part and so far as the Sword may reach it according to Divine Law yet they have no power of the Keys which Christ committed to the Church For if we consider all the power exercised in matter of Religion by David Solomon and the pious Kings of Judah by the Christian Emperours and Princes by the Kings of France and England it was but civil Neither is the power of our Parliaments any other For though they make Acts concerning the publick Doctrine and Discipline yet these are but civil They are not Representatives of the Church but of the State whether the Convocation was an essential part of the Parliament or a full representative of the Church I will not here debate I find some great Lawyers which deny both And if their denial be true then England had no general Representative of the Church in latter times As for Erastians and such as do give all Ecclesiastical power of Discipline to the State and deny all power to the Ministers but that of dispensing Word and Sacraments it 's plain they never understood the state of the Question and though a Minister as a Minister have no power but that of Word and Sacraments yet from thence it will not follow that the Church hath not a power spiritual distinct from that of the State in matters of Religion CHAP. XI Whether Episcopacy be the primary subject of the Power of the Keys section 1 THE Prelate presumes that the power of the Keys is his and he thinks his title very good and so good that though he could not prove the institution yet prescription will bear him out For he hath had possession for a long time and Universality and Antiquity seem to favour him very much Yet I hope his title may be examined and if upon examination it prove good he hath no cause to be offended except with this that I of all others should meddle with it But before any thing can be said to purpose we must first know the nature and institution of a Bishop which is the subject of the Question Secondly Put the Reader in mind that the Question is not in this place whether a Bishop be an Officer of the Church either by some special or some general Divine Precept but whether he be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the primary subject of the power of the Keys For he may be an Officer and yet no such subject Concerning a Bishop the subject of the Question two things are worthy our consideration 1. What he is 2. How instituted at the first The Definition and Institution seem rather to belong unto the second part of Ecclesiastical Politicks where I shall entreat of Ecclesiastical Officers and the constitution of them Yet I will here say something of both in order to the Question though I be the briefer afterward section 2 What a Bishop is may be difficult to know except we do distinguish before we do define For we find several sorts of Bishops in the Church Christian. There is a Primitive a Prelatical or Hierarchical and an English Bishop distinct and different in some things from both the former for whom I reserve a place in the end of this Chapter The Primitive Bishop is twofold 1. A Presbyter 2. A President or Superintendent 1. A Presbyter in the New Testament is a Bishop For the Elders of Ephesus were made by the Holy Ghost Bishops or Superintendents over God's flock Acts 20.28 And the qualification of a Bishop 1 Tim. 3.1 2 3 c. is the qualification of an Elder Tit. 1.5 6 7 c. For whatsoever some of late have said to the contrary yet Presbyter and Bishop were only two different words signifying the same Officer And this is confessed by divers of the Ancients who tell us that the word Bishop was appropriated to one who was more than a Presbyter in after-times 2. A Bishop signified one that was above a Presbyter in some respects as a Moderatour of a Classis or President of a Synod But such a Presbyter might be only pro tempore for the time of the Session and after the Assembly dissolved he might return to be a bare Presbyter again For to be a Moderatour or President was no constant place The word in this sense we find seldom used if at all 2. A President was a kind of Superintendent with a care and inspection not only over the people but the Presbyters too within a certain precinct and this was a constant place and the party called a Bishop and by Ambrose and Austine with divers others called primus Presbyterorum and these were such as had no power but with the Presbytery joyntly and that without a negative voice And the Presbytery might be a Representative not only of the Presbyters strictly taken but of the people too For we may read in Cyprian and other Authours that these Bishops in more weighty matters of publick concernment did nothing without the counsel and consent not only of the Presbyters but the people This I call a primitive Bishop not only because he is ancient but also because the place or office is agreeable to the rules of Reason of Government and the general Rules of the Apostles concerning Order Decency Edification There is also an Hierarchical Bishop who may be only a Bishop or an Archbishop and Metropolitan or a Patriarch and these challenge the power of Ordination and Jurisdiction and in Jurisdiction include and engross the power of making Canons This kind of Episcopacy is ancient as the former This last Bishop is he upon whom Spalatensis and many others do fix and though they grant that he should do nothing without the Counsel of the Presbytery yet they give him full power without the Presbytery which they joyn with him only for advice The English Bishop is in
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
some sort commanded by the Prophet Jeremy as sent from God to submit unto the King of Babylon and come under his protection section Majestas continuatur successione per electionem liberam indeterminatam astrictam familiae ubi mares solum foeminae quoque jure quasi haereditario succedant After a Title is once established by the Fundamental Charter and the first investiture care is taken how this Title may be continued that so not only the present but the future Sovereign and subject of personal Majesty may be determined and not only the State but the Sovereign thereof may become perpetual and immortal This can no ways be done but by Succession and this depends upon Election at least of the first Constitutors of the State which determines the successive Sovereigns to acquire their Title by Election or Birth or both If by Election only that many times is left free to the Electors to chuse out of what Family or Country they please Thus the Roman and also the German Emperors and the Kings of Poland acquire and receive their Power Sometimes the Election is confined to a Family or Line In this respect the Title is said to be Hereditary which is not to be understood as though the personal Sovereigns were absolute proprietaries of the Crown or had power of alienation but because they are like those who in civil Law are called Haeredes sui Heirs natural by Law and Birth who succeed into and by Birth acquire the right which their Predecessors justly had This Succession is sometimes tyed to the Males as in France sometimes is indifferent to Male or Female Children Thus it is in England where the Kings and Queens are said to have their Heirs which if we may believe the great Lawyer Sir Edward Coke upon Magna Charta are nothing but the Successors For Heirs saith he are Successors Yet surely he means Successors not only by Election but Blood. In this kind of Succession sometimes the present Sovereigns if they have Children may determine and declare which of them shall succeed them Thus David chose Solomon Sometimes it 's otherwise because by the Constitution it 's entailed upon the first-born or next of Blood. This seems to be the ancient right and custom of this Nation This may be the reason why King Henry VIII though he took upon him much of an absolute Prince would not presume of himself to define his Successor but desires an act to be made in Parliament for to enable him by Will to dispose of the Crown Yet such an act could not make void the Election used at the Coronation which hath something of the Constitution in it though it was made a meer formality section 5 Injuste usurpata dolo malo pecunia homicidio alio modo As Power may be justly so it may be unjustly acquired and this is usually called Usurpation which is the taking and keeping possession of that which is not our own or which we have no Right unto It 's true that in Civil Law it 's defined to be praepossessio juris controversi Yet in this manner of Usurpation that Right is seldom doubtful but for the most part clear enough The Power is always good because from God and the act thereof which is Government is good yet the manner of acquiring may be bad And it 's observable that many who have ill acquired have well used their Power It 's generally held That usurped Right and Power is no Right or Power because it 's not in his proper subject Therefore it 's conceived that Tyrannus in titulo such every Usurper is said to be cannot command and bind the people nor do any acts of Government which is valid and may justly be removed before the people acknowledge him or swear fealty to him And many think it unlawful to submit unto or act under an usurped Power Sometimes it may be so yet there are cases when we may nay we must submit and act too If Christians under the Heathen Emperors had stood upon such terms as some do in our days their condition had been far worse than it was For though they liked not Usurpation and the cursed means whereby many acquired their power yet this was their principle Non multum interest sub quorum imperio vivit homo cito moriturus si qui imperant ad impia vel iniqua nos non cogant Aust. de L.D. Blood Bribery Treason Rebellion unjust Invasions they abhorred as abominable and detested them as unfit means to ascend an Imperial Throne Yet it was not in their power to dispossess them once possessed and to establish better They knew God had reserved this unto himself Neither did they think that by submitting unto their power though unjustly gotten yet justly exercised that they were guilty of their sinful and unjust manner of Usurpation Concerning this unjust Acquisition of personal Majesty many things may be observed 1. There are few titles now especially such as are successive in a Line which did not at first begin in Usurpation 2. That the power it self with the just exercise thereof is a different thing from the manner of acquiring it 3. That one that hath the right in reversion may unjustly prepossess it and with us as the Lawyer tells us if the Heir apparent by murther or some other way remove the present just Soveraign yet so soon as he is possessed of the Crown he cannot be questioned and indemnity presently follows upon the possession Richard the Third is called an usurper and was so at the first yet his Laws and Judgments and other Acts of Government were and are judged valid after the Parliaments received him Henry VII cannot be acquitted from usurpation till the Parliament acknowledged him Neither his Victory nor Marriage with the right Heir could give him a good Title though this might conduce to his quiet possession He did never stand upon that Marriage as the foundation of his right unto the Crown for he knew well enough that if that had been his best and only Title that though it might make the Power good unto his Children yet while she was living he must hold the Crown in her Right not in his own and if she died before him it was lost 4. Many Princes have invented Oaths for to secure not only the form of Government but the Crown unto their own Posterity and Family And here it is to be considered whether these Oaths do not necessarily presuppose an higher Obligation of fidelity not only unto God but their own native Country to which they are bound to be faithful under any form of Government or personal Sovereign whatsoever If their present Allegiance cannot stand with the universal good it 's surely unlawful and unjust For the good of the whole is to be preferred before the good of a part and we are bound to love the whole body of the Community more than any Family or some particular persons Again it may prove sometimes impossible to
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