would gladly know whether those Authors who are so zealous for absolute hereditary Powers can give us an instance of any wise and just people that at the first constitution did give their free and full consent to such a Government They never did nor I think ever can instance in this particular section 10 The second Question is Whether Majesty acquired can be forfeited Where you must note that to forfeit any thing is to lose the right unto it For it 's one thing to lose the right another to lose the possession For as before one may lose his right and retain the possession and lose his possession and yet retain his right Therefore the Question is not de possessionis sed de juris amissione 2. The Question is not Whether they may forfeit to God for that they undoubtedly may but whether they may forfeit unto men 3. Who those Men are to whom it may be so forfeited so as they may take the forfeit and that justly For solution of this Question 1. This I take as a certain rule that whatsoever is given and held upon condition that may be lost and forfeited 2. A right once forfeited falls to the party who gave it and set down the conditions 3. They who from God give Majesty to any person or family at the first before they had any right unto it are the people and community to be governed 4. There is no rational and intelligent people in the World will bind themselves to subjection but upon condition of a just protection No a people conquered will not yield to be the subjects of the Conqueror but upon this condition And though his Sword may take away their lives yet it cannot make them his Subjects without their voluntary submission 5. No wise people if they can do otherwise will so submit themselves as to lose the propriety of their goods the liberty of their persons the enjoyment of their Religion or to be governed by an Arbitrary Power without just Laws 6. Princes Kings and Conquerors may either by themselves or their Ministers of State insensibly encroach and usurp yet these encroachments and usurpations cannot constitute a Right contrary to the fundamental Laws And there can hardly be found any other way whereby many becom absolute and arbitrary Lords but this way 7. The party to which the forfeiture is made is not the Subjects as Subjects but the people and community who only can invest one or more with Majesty and constitute a Government Neither can Magistrates as Magistrates nor any Officers as such take the forfeiture Neither can Parliaments except such as participate in the personal Majesty do any such thing Yet if the Soveraign once forfeit the Subjects cease to be Subjects Nor can a great multitude of these if they make not the whole body either actually or mutually though they cease to be Subjects challenge the forfeiture By this you may easily understand how loosely the Question between Arnisaeus and his party and Buchanan Arthusius Heno Junius Brutus and their adherents is handled 8. It 's certain that Soveraigns by Law who have not the Legislative power in themselves solely and are bound by Oath to govern according to Laws which they themselves cannot make may forfeit 9. Such personal Soveraigns as constantly act not only against the Laws of God and nature but against the fundamental Laws by which they receive and hold their power may and do forfeit And this is one reason why all Tyrants in exercise do excidere jure suo etsi haereditario which Arnisaeus himself affirms Yet as he wisely observes it 's not safe always to take the forfeiture For it is better by petitions prayers to God or patient suffering for a while so that they suffer not the State in the mean time to come to ruine to seek and expect a redress than suddenly to involve the people in blood and hazard the Common-wealth and put it in such a condition as that it shall not be able in any due time to settle Yet a real necessity of defence doth alter the case Hitherto concerning the manner how Majesty may be acquired or lost CHAP. VI. Of Power Ecclesiastical section 1 THE former Rules may easily be applied to a particular Church for it 's a Spiritual Commonwealth and must as such have Governors and them invested with a Supreme Power yet such and of the same nature as the Church is that is Spiritual and Ecclesiastical This Power as all other in Civil States is derivative from Heaven and of a very narrow scantling And that I may be more perspicuous and direct the Reader by some line or thred of method I will say something of the Power 1. As it is Spiritual 2. As Supreme 3. As divisible into several Branches section 2 In the first place it's Spiritual and that in many respects as the Authors of Jus Divinum Ecclesiastici Regiminis have sufficiently demonstrated For the persons rule actions and end are to be considered not under a Civil but a Spiritual notion As stiled by Divines and that according to the Spirit 's language and the phrase of Holy Writ to be Potestas Clavium And the acts thereof are opening shutting or which are the same binding loosing These are Metaphorical terms taken out of the Old into the New Testament For our Saviour did love to use the Spirit 's words The first and chief place where we read these words in a Political sense with reference to Government is that of the Evangelical Prophet And the Key of the House of David will I lay upon his shoulder so he shall open and none shall shut and he shall shut and none shall open Where by Key is meant Dominatio or Potestas gubernandi So Fererius Schindler Mollerus according to the former use do understand it For there it 's said I will commit thy Government into his hand section 3 It 's not material to enquire whether the Power or Key of the House of David was a Power over the Family or of the Family over the Kingdom nor whether Eliakim was a Priest or a Prince over the Palace or the Temple It 's certain David was a type of Christ his House and Kingdom of the Church and his Regal Power of Christ's Regal Supremacy For he hath the Keys of Hell and Death even that Key of David which bindeth the soul and conscience and disposeth of mans spiritual and eternal estate and that by an irrevocable sentence This Power signified by Key or Keys is not Civil but that of the Kingdom of Heaven which he promised first and conveyed afterward upon the Apostles As for the acts of these Keys being exercised they are said to be sometimes shutting and opening sometimes binding and loosing And though these seem to differ yet they are the same and are acts of Government For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to open is to loose as Psal. 102.20 where it 's turned by the
and do yet condemn them both in Words and Writings as guilty of most horrible Treason and Rebellion which others will undertake to prove the censurers themselves deeply guilty of Wise and learned Men no whit inferior to them do certainly know that as they could not maintain their cause by dint of Sword so neither can they make it good by dint of Argument One of their learned Casuists delivers this as a positive truth That to disobey a lawful Sovereign is such an act as that no circumstances can make it lawful no not the Glory of God nor the saving of many Souls nor preventing the Ruine of a Nation This is high Divers who read this in his Books conceive that in this he toucheth the Cause and Controversie between King and Parliament I cannot charge him with any such thing But let his Application be what it will I will consider his Proposition in it self and will suppose it to be grounded upon that divine Maxime We must not do evil that good may come For that which God hath made sin nothing can make lawful But then the Question is What he means by Sovereign what by disobedience to a lawful Sovereign If he mean by Sovereign one invested with supream Power and an absolute Monarch it 's clear enough the Kings of England were not such For 1. They had no Legislative Power which is the greatest without this Parliament 2. That his personal Commands bound no Man for he could command nothing but according to the just Laws and Customs quas vulgus elegerat 3. The late King himself in his Answer to the Nineteen Propositions confessed That the Parliament had a share in the Legislative Power It 's true they had the Title of Sovereign and Majesty but in another sence than many take it As for the second Term Disobedience it might be twofold 1. In respect of absolute Sovereigns 2. In respect of the Kings of England In respect of the former a lawful Sovereign may command unlawful things and contrary to the Laws of God and in this case their Commands may nay must be disobeyed 1. If they command things lawful in themselves yet they may command them so as to be unlawful A man is bound to love Father and Mother by the Law of God and to do so is not only lawful but necessary Yet if this love come in competition with the love of Christ it 's plainly unlawful Therefore I will be so charitable as to think he understood the proposition of disobedience to lawful Commands of lawful Sovereigns otherwise he saith nothing but his proposition is false 2. In respect of the Kings of England their Commands are personal or legal His legal Commands if agreeable to the Laws of God ought to be obeyed and his Subjects are bound to submit unto his legal Power for other Power as King he hath none But as for his personal Commands they bind no Subject as a Subject and if they be contrary to the Law in obeying them we may be guilty of Disobedience to the Law nay of Disobedience to the King as King nay guilty of Treason against the Kingdom and the Kings Crown and Dignity And methinks such learned Men should not be ignorant of these things section 20 As for the Parliament it was charged with taking upon them the Militia seising upon the Navy securing the Ports making of a new Broad Seal creating of Officers abolishing of Episcopacy and Liturgy established by Law by which they lost many of their Subjects calling in the Scots proposing a Covenant to the people upon high terms and many other things and all these without the King nay contrary to the King's Command who had so graciously condescended unto them in granting many things unto them prejudicial as he thought to his Prerogatives and the ancient Rights of his Predecessours especially the Acts of continuance and of the Triennial Parliament 1. For the Militia it was alledged The King promised it and the Lawyers and learned Counsel informed them That if the King in such a time should neglect it they might take it and exercise it themselves without him and it 's reported that the very same parties who had given this Advise to the Parliament after they were come unto the King did counsel him to set on foot the Commission of Array in opposition to the Parliament's Militia 2. For seizing the Navy Ports and creating of Officers in a Declaration of the Lords and Commons upon the Treaty at Oxford is shewed the necessity of doing so and the antiquity of that practice for they instance in many Parliaments which have done the like and more too It was no new thing And though his Majesty affirmed these things were his by Law yet it was not his but by way of trust for the defence not the destruction of the Kingdom 3. For the Broad Seal there was a necessity of making a new one seeing that the former was surreptitiously against Law and Right carried and conveyed away Neither had the King as separate and divided from the Parliament any right unto it 4. The abolishing of Episcopacy and Liturgy is conceived might be justly charged upon the Scots who when the King and so many great Ones had deserted the Parliament would not firmly adhere unto them but upon such terms Otherwise the reformation of Bishops and Book of Common-prayer was far more for the Protestant interest than Presbytery which was rather inconsistent with it 5. The calling of the Scots was said to be done in extremity and grounded upon the National League according to which they were bound of themselves to have assisted the Parliament as some thought and judged 6. The Covenant is said to be more from the Scot than the English and what the design of the first Contrivers in it might be was known to few who took it It proved to be of bad consequence whether in respect of the nature of the Covenant or some other cause may be doubted for the Parliament of Scotland thought it a sufficient ground for Duke Hambleton to invade England and the English House of Commons judged them Rebels and Traitors who should joyn with him or assist Such is the frailty inconstancy and pravity of men 7. As for the high demands of the Parliament it 's alledged No King ever did such things or gave occasion to make such demands and he did but grant that which was reasonable and necessary for the time and less than former Laws required so that except as separated from the Parliament he was an absolute Monarch his denial of their demands was not consistent with the Constitution of the Kingdom section 21 But after that the Royal party was totally subdued there falls out a subdivision amongst the Anti-Royalists For they who could agree against a third Party could not agree amongst themselves For they began to play Scotch and English first and then the Presbyterian who much though not in all things inclined to the
Proposition I will 1. Examine two places alledged by Mr. Parker and many others for to manifest the Original of Church-discipline which I conceive are not so pertinent 2. I will most of all insist upon the words of Institution 3. I will enlarge upon those places which speak of the exercise of this power that from the manner of administration we may understand the constitution The two places are Matthew 16.19 and John 20.22 23. The first is concerning the promise the second concerning the donation of the power of the Keyes as they are by many expounded The words of the promise are these I will give unto thee the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven c. Many and different are the interpretations of this place as given by Writers both Ancient and Modern Popish and Protestant The difference is in two things especially 1. What this power should be 2. To whom it was to be given The power with many is the power of Discipline in foro exteriori with others the power of a Minister as a Minister 2. The person to whom this power is here promised no doubt is Peter but under what notion Peter must be considered is here the Question Some will have it to be Peter as a Monarch and Prince above the rest of the Apostles including his Successours the Monarchical Bishop of Rome Some will have Peter here considered as the mouth and representative of the Apostles and in them of all Aristocratical Bishops as their Successours Some will have him to represent the Ministers some the Elders some the Church it self And these again divide and cannot agree whether this Church here meant be the Universal Church or a particular if Universal whether Universal mystical or visible if visible whether this be the Church it self or a Representative of the same if Representative whether it must be represented by Bishops only or by Bishops and Presbyters or by Presbyters alone or by Bishops Presbyters and People If a particular Church whether it be Congregational or Diocesan or some other so that from this pronoun THEE we have Chymical extractions of all sorts of Governments Ecclesiastical pure and mixt Monarchical Aristocratical Democratical of all kind of Churches as Universal National Congregational of all kind of Governours as Popes Bishops Presbyters the People Yet I conceive this place is not meant of Discipline but rather of Doctrine The Church is the Universal against which the gates of Hell shall not prevail the Keyes are the Word and Sacraments accompanied with the power of the Spirit As building is conversion and edification so binding and loosing admission into or exclusion out of this Church The Architect and chief Master builder is Christ as he is the principal Agent in binding and loosing His Servants and co-workers are Apostles and Ministers of the Gospel amongst whom Peter was most eminent amongst the Jews Paul amongst the Gentiles For Christ used Peter first to convert the Jews Acts 2. then to convert the Gentiles Act. 10. And Paul laboured more abundantly than them all The binding and loosing in Heaven was the making of their Ministry by the power of the Divine Spirit to be effectual To this purpose D. Reynolds Spalatensis Causabon Cameron Grotius with divers of the Ancient and Mr. Parker himself who notwithstanding applies this to the power of Discipline intending thereby to prove the power of the Keyes to be Democratically in a Congretional Church Yet let it be supposed that Peter as receiving the Keyes doth represent the community of Believers Or if as such he represent them how will it appear that this Church or community is a single Congregation Or if it be such a single Congregation how will it follow from hence that the power is in this Congregation Democratically Mr. Parker should have considered that there is a great difference 1. Between Peter as professing that Christ was the Son of the living God for as such he was only a Disciple admitted by Christ into his Kingdom and Peter receiving the Keyes for as such he was above a Disciple and hath power to admit others into this Kingdom not as a Disciple but as a Minister of the Gospel section 4 The place for actual donation and performance of the former promise is said to be that of John 20.22 23. The words of Christ the Donour are these Receive ye the Holy Ghost whosoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them and whosoever sins ye retain they are retained These have been alledged as by him so by others to prove 1. The power of the Keyes in foro exteriori 2. That this power is in the Bishops alone 3. That the Priests have power upon auricular confession to absolve and here they ground their Sacrament of Penance and their sacerdotal power in foro poenitentiali From hence some of ours have endeavoured to prove the parity of Apostles and so of Bishops against the Popes Supremacy for here they find the power promised only to Peter by name given to all the Apostles For to understand these words the better we must observe in them Donation and in it the Donour the Donee the Power the Acts of the Power the ratification of these Acts. The Donour or Person giving is Christ the parties receiving this power immediately are Apostles as Extraordinary Servants and Officers the thing given and received was the Holy Ghost that is Ability and Authority Divine and Spiritual necessary and requisite for the place the Acts were remitting and retaining the same with binding and loosing Mat. 16.19 The ratification of these Acts was the making them effectual by the concurrence of the Divine Spirit For these Acts could not be Spiritual and Divine and so powerful upon the Immortal Souls of Men nor the Apostles so much as Ministerial and Instrumental Agents in this work without a Divine Power and Confirmation of the Supream Judge making their Sentence valid and executing the same Hence that sweetest Joy and admirable Comfort of those who are Remitted and the Terrours and Torments of those that are Condemned These Acts are performed by the Word and Sacraments and the Application of the Promises or Communications to particular Persons which Application is made either more at large to a Multitude at one time or to single Persons upon some Evidence of their Qualification and it may be made infallibly so far as God shall direct infallibly or fallibly for want of clear Evidence in which Case the Sentence must be passed conditionally by Man though absolutely by God. All this is nothing to external Discipline or if it should extend so far the party remitting and retaining are not the Church but the Officers of the Church and the Officers of a Church not under a form of outward Government but under another Consideration An Ecclesiastical external Common-wealth doth presuppose an Ecclesiastical Community and the same consisting of Believers and the same united and associated for Worship and Divine performances tending to Eternal Salvation and