these were not called but the chief of them as Earls who possessed twenty Knights Fees and Barons which had to the value of thirteen Knights Fees and a third part of one 3. That because these were too many some of them were call'd to Parliament some omitted and only such as were called were counted Barons the rest not 4. This being taken ill the Barons caused King John adigere to covenant under the Broad Seal to summon severally by so many Writs the Arch-Bishops Abbots Earls and the greater Barons of the Kingdom 5. Yet Henry the Third so little regarded that compact that he called and kept a Parliament with an hundred and twenty Spiritual and only twenty five Temporal Lords though he had numbred two hundred and fifty Baronies in England 6. Edward the First omitted divers of those whom Henry the Third had summoned So that it will be a very difficult thing to rectifie or reduce unto the first institution this House as distinct from that of the Commons For it should be known 1. What kind of persons must constitute this other House 2. What their Priviledges be 3. What they must do which the House of Commons may not must not do section 15 By all this something of the nature of the Parliament may be known But then what is the power of this assembly either severally considered without the King or jointly with the King And that they may make Orders and Ordinances pro tempore will be granted and also which is far more if the King have no Negative voice the Legislative and Judicial power is in them and their ultimate Resolves and Dictates in all matters of Counsel must stand And if so then reason will conclude that if the King refuse to be personally or virtually present and to act with them they may do any thing for the good of the Kingdom without him which they may do jointly with him Yet because Laws and Judgment are ineffectual without execution therefore the King being trusted with the execution was required to give his consent that he might take care of the Execution For to that end was he trusted with the Sword of Justice and War that he might protect the people and see that Laws and Judgments be executed If we consider the Parliament as consisting of King Peers and Commons jointly it is the first subject of Personal Majesty and to it and it alone belongs all the Jura Majestatis personalis They have the power Legislative Judicial Executive to exercise it in the highest degree and may perform all acts of administration as distinct from the Constitution They are the highest assembly for Legislation the highest Counsel for advice the highest Court for Judicature section 16 This is the power of the Parliament which can do many and great things yet some things they cannot do for they are limitted not only by the Laws of God but also by the Laws of the Constitution Sir Roger Owen tells That the Parliament cannot do all things For 1. Many Acts are Voted for errors in matter of fact and for contrariety in words and sometimes they have idle and flattering proviso's 2. A Parliament hath not power to ordain that a Law shall not be abrogated for the space of twenty years for a latter Parliament may repeal their Acts. 3. That a Parliament cannot Enact that if there were no Heir to the Crown that the people should not be able to chuse a new King. 4. It cannot change the form of our Policy from a Monarchy to a Democraty 5. It cannot take away divers Prerogatives annexed to the Crown of England or that the King should not be able to dissolve the Parliament at will and pleasure yet in another place he tells us that he cannot dissolve the Parliament at will and pleasure and again he is not above the Parliament because he cannot be above himself and in Parliament he is Maxime Rex He further informs us that the common Law is the King's Inheritance and how the Parliament may wither away the Flowers of the Crown The true reason why the Parliament cannot do some of these things nor others not mentioned by him is because they have not real but personal Majesty They cannot alter the Government nor take away divers things belonging to the Crown because they did not give the Prerogatives of the Crown at the first the Commons of the Realm gave them as he confesseth The form of Government was first constituted by the Community of England not by the Parliament For the Community and people of England gave both King and Parliament their being and if they meddle with the Constitution to alter it they destroy themselves because they destroy that whereby they subsist The Community indeed may give a Parliament this power to take away the former Constitution and to frame and model another but then they cannot do this as a Parliament but as trusted by the people for such a business and work nay they may appoint another assembly of fewer or more to do such a work without them They may set up a Consilium sapientum which may determine what matters are fit to be proposed to the Parliament and in what order and also contrive a Juncto for all businesses which require expedition and secrecy which may act without them whether the Parliament it self can do such things or no may justly be doubted What may be done in extraordinary cases is one thing what may be done in an ordinary way another When he saith that the Parliament cannot change the form of Policy from a Monarchy he presupposeth our State of England to be a Monarchy yet if he distinguish not between the Constitution and the administration he may be guilty of an error For it 's not a Monarchy but only in respect of the Executive part in the Intervals of Parliaments Our Ancestors abhorred absolute and arbitrary Monarchs therefore before they did establish a King they made a bridle to keep him in and put it upon him This is plain from Bracton Fortescue the Coronation Oath and the Mirror section 17 From all this we may conjecture what the Constitution of England was It was no absolute Monarchy that 's plain enough Neither was it a State of pure disposition but mixt Neither were the Jura Majestatis divided some to the King some to the Lords some to the Commons it was of a far better mould The personal Majesty primary was in King Peers and Commons jointly in the whole assembly as one body this may appear several ways as 1. From this that it was a Representative of the whole Nation and as it was a general Representative of all England and no ways else was it invested with this personal Sovereignty It must represent the whole Community all the Members thereof of what rank or condition soever not only the Laity but the Clergy too these are words used in our Laws and good enough though disliked by
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
of the name few know because they little understand the thing It 's not called so as many think because the Jura Majestatis are divided and given some to the Peers some to the people and some in some States to the Prince For this tends to confusion and doth not well suit with the Nature of Sovereign Power Therefore it 's the cause of many Quarrels and Dissentions But it 's called mixt because either three or at least two of the States are mixt together so as that the Sovereignty is jointly in them all and in the whole and of these there are two Sorts For some time there is no Prince in the Administration and then it 's in the Commons and the Peers not in Peers and in Commons severally but in both jointly Sometimes it 's in omnibus in Prince Peers Commons Yet these in the Administration may have their several parts and different manners of acting Therefore we must not judge of States according to the manner of Administration though the Administration will give great light and help us to understand the Constitution This kind of Government is called a Free State a popular State a Republick or the Republick and may be the best State of all others where Majestas is tota in toto yet there may be several kinds of this manner of Government which by the Philosopher as some think is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Polity Machiavel informs us That Experience of the Inconveniencies of pure States put men on work to find out this and for the most part it may be so If either of the two or any of the three States be predominant in the Administration the State is denominated from the prevailing part For where the Prince hath the Title of King and is predominant in the Exercise of the Power it 's called a Kingdom or Monarchy where the Peers it 's an Aristocraty where the Commons a Democraty and yet if it be a right mixture it can be none of these And in this particular many are deceived For where the whole Power is wholly in the whole there Populus that is King Peers and Commons are the proper subject of Majesty in the Constitution by and in which if any be predominant it cannot be a Free State. Such a Government the German Empire and the State of Venice seem to be Yet in this latter the great Council which some tell us consists of Peers is counted and judged to have the supream Power Yet if we may believe Machiavel the Families out of which they are chosen were at the first Constitution the whole People The Lacedaemonian State is thought by many to be mixt and some say the mixture was ex Democratia praedominante Aristocratia diminuta yet this is very improper and cannot be true The State of Rome seems in the time of the Kings to be a Monarchy After that an Aristocraty in the Senate and the Patricii But when Plebs did jubere Leges then it was a Democraty in the judgment of many Yet upon diligent search it will be found otherwise For though the King was the chief Pontiff and did call the Assemblies had the chief and sole command in War for they gave him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet Halicarnassaeus lets us know That this Form was taken from the Lacedaemonians where the Kings had not absolute Power they were not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but were limitted by their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or great Council and amongst the Romans by their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is their Senate They must not do what they will but what the Senate did determine Yet we shall often find this mixture very imperfect or very much altered in tract of time from what it was at first To say nothing of Platonick and Vtopian Commonwealths which are not practicable nor people capable of them the summ of all this Head is this That God hath given to Men in their several Communities a power to protect the Just and punish Offenders according to wise Laws and just Judgment and also a power to preserve themselves and justly maintain their own Right against all Enemies and Invaders Yet he hath left them at Liberty to dispose of it several ways and trust it in the hands of one or more who if they once take it upon them must exercise it and be just For he that ruleth over men must be just ruling in the fear of God 2 Sam. xxxiij 3 section 10 After 1. The generals premised 2. The several ways and manners of disposing Majesty in a certain subject handled I proceed to say something of the Constitution of the State of England which hath long been governed by Kings and Parliaments There was indeed a time even after the Saxons were setled in this Nation when there was no King but Forty Lords who at length chose a King which should have no Peer And there was a time when there were many Kings And after that we find one King and Parliaments and this before the Conquest For this model of ours began in the time of the Saxon Kings and was brought to perfection some say before some say in Edward the Confessor's time What the power of these Parliaments and of these Kings were is the great Question For that once known the Constitution will be evident There was a Power of Kings and also of Parliaments severally and a power of them jointly considered we find the real Majesty in the People and personal Majesty in King and Parliament jointly and a secondary personal Majesty sometimes greater sometimes less in the Kings in the intervals of Parliament But to observe a method and proceed more distinctly I will 1. Presuppose some things 2. I will say something of the Kings 3. Something of the Parliaments severally 4. Something of them both jointly 1. Therefore I will suppose the Government of England to have been by King and Parliament before the Conquest and to have continued so till our days And whosoever will not grant this must either be very ignorant or very partial 2. I will take for granted That there have been extraordinary cases wherein the Rules of the Constitution either have not or could not be observed 3. This is also true that sometimes when they might have been followed yet either the constitution of the Parliament or the carriage of the Kings was such as that they have violated the same 4. Wise and intelligent men will not deny but that in our days the Government was so altered and corrupted that the first constitution was hardly known and it was a difficult thing either to reform it or reduce it to the ancient form section 11 These things supposed in the second place I will examine 1. How the King acquires his power 2. What his power acquired is 3. How far it 's short of a plenary personal Majesty 1. The manner of acquiring this Power and Title is either by deriving it from the first investiture or
of the same and Scotland vanquished In all our sad divisions which happened from first to last and are not wholly yet ended to this day Two things are worthy the serious consideration of wiser men than I am 1. What party for time past hath been most faithful to the English interest 2. What course is to be taken for to setle us more firmly for time to come For the first we must understand what the English interest is The interest of England is twofold Civil and Ecclesiastical for we are English men and Christians The Civil interest is salus populi Anglicani there is no doubt of that for the peace safety liberty happiness of our dear Country is the end whereat we are all bound both by the written and natural Laws of God to aim The interest Ecclesiastical is the Protestant Religion and the perservation of the substance thereof Prelacy Presbytery Independency much less Antipaedobaptism and other Sects are not essential but accidental to it This being the interest of England we cannot judge of the faithfulness either of the King 's or Parliaments party by the quality of the persons of either side For there were both good and bad on both sides who had their several grounds of adhering to this or that party and their several ends and neither their grounds nor ends good Nor can any man justifie all proceedings and actings of either side both had their errours Nor must we judge of them according to their protestation for both could not by such contrary means attain the same end as both sides protested to maintain the King the Parliament the liberty of the Subject the Laws and the Protestant Religion Neither in this particular must the Laws of the English Constitution and Administration be the rule for both acted not only above the Laws but contrary to the latter of them at least For no Laws could warrant the Parliament to act without the King or the King without the Parliament much less was it justifiable that there should be in one Kingdom two not only different but contrary commands supreme and from different heads and persons This was directly against the very nature of all Common-Wealths which have only one first mover and one indivisible supreme power to animate and act them section 19 The Rule therefore must be the Laws of God as above the Laws of Men and we must consider according to these divine Rules what was the state of the Controversie the justice and equity of the cause made evident and the just necessity of doing that which was done Neither must we look at the cause only as just in it self but also how it 's justly or unjustly maintained For men may use such means as shall never reach the just end intended but also such as may be destructive of the cause it self and raze the very foundation of it Besides all this before a perfect judgment can be made the secret counsels contrivances designs hidden actings of the chief Actors should be known yet these many times lie hid and are not known or if known yet to very few and some of these few cannot found the bottom Many things are charged upon the King as acting against the English interest as Civil as that he dissolves Parliaments without just and sufficient cause that he intermits Parliaments for sixteen years together that having signed the Petition of Right he acts contrary to it imposeth Ship-money calls a Parliament signs the Act of Continuance deserts it calls the Members from it calls another Parliament at Oxford challengeth a negative Voice to both the Houses raiseth a War against it though he was informed that this tended to the dissolution of the Government that whosoever should serve to assist him in such Wars are Traitors by the fundamental Laws of this Kingdom and have been so adjudged in two Acts of Parliament 11 Richard 2. and 1 Henry 4. And that such persons ought to suffer as Traitors These with other particulars charged upon him seem directly contrary unto the civil Interest of the Kingdom Again to Marry a Popish Lady upon Articles directly contrary to the Laws of England and the Protestant Religion established by Law to entertain Twenty eight Popish Priests with a Bishop to tolerate Mass in the Court to receive Three Agents from the Pope one after another Pisano Con Rosetti to maintain the Queen-mother to engage the generality of the People of England to retard the relieving of Ireland to admit divers of the Popish Irish Murtherers and Rebels into his Army to call our English Forces sent to relieve the poor distressed Protestants of Ireland out of that Nation and employ them against the Parliament of England to suffer some of the Heads of the Irish Rebels to be so near his Person to endeavour to bring in the Duke of Lorrain with his Forces into this Nation to contract with the Irish Rebels upon condition to enjoy their Religion to furnish him with Ten thousand Irish Rebels to strengthen his party in England with divers other acts like unto these is conceived to be not only inconsistent with but plainly destructive of the English Protestant Interest And if this be true it must needs be so Yet it might be said that the King endeavoured to maintain his own regal Power the Episcopacy and Liturgy established by Law and that he did not oppose the Parliament but a seditious party in the Parliament and other Sectaries whose principles were destructive both of all civil and also Ecclesiastical Government and without the judgment of able Lawyers and learned Divines he did not undertake the War either against Scotland or England or any other It 's true that of those who adhered to the King and liked not the Parliaments proceeding there were some consciencious persons who judged the King an absolute Monarch and did not like many things done by that party yet they thought it the Duty of Subjects to suffer and that it was no ways lawful to resist But the Casuists say That Ignorantia excusat a tanto non a toto their Ignorance might make their Crime less yet no ways free them from all Guilt It was not Invincible they might easily have known that the King of Enland was no absolute Monarch seeing he could not impose any Subsidy upon the Subject nor make or repeal a Law without the Parliament neither could he by his Letters or personal Command revoke the Judgment of any Court. And though they might be Civilians or read Foreign Writers which take our Kings for absolute Sovereigns yet no ancient Lawyers no Parliaments did declare them to be such Nay they might have known that they themselves obeying the King 's personal Commands disobeyed him as King and that serving him in the Wars they were guilty of High Treason against the Kingdom and against the King's Crown and Dignity Of these Royalists some have been high and cruel against their Brethren the Parliamenteers and have censured them
conduce to that end Or else we are wilfully divided and no way will serve the turn but our own The first is the cause of our difference in Judgement the second of our disaffection and without an unity of the whole or at least of the major part the business will hardly be effected For we are not in any immediate capacity of a general Unity till time hath wasted and consumed some of our divisions and also the bitter enmity and rancour which continues in the Spirits of many to this day Therefore our settlement must begin in generals and necessaries and proceed by degrees 2. The Foundation to be laid is first to find out the ancient Constitution before it was corrupted too much and understand the great Wisdom of our Ancestors gained by long experience in the constitution of this our State. This may be done by some experienced Statesmen and Antiquaries in Law and that as well if not better out of Parliament than in Parliament For a Parliament it self must have some Foundation and certain Rule of their very being before they can act steadily and regularly and not spend their time of every sevâ—â—al Parliament in molding their Government a new It 's a vain and presumptuous imagination to think that we have attained to a greater measure of Wisdom than our Ancestors attained unto And let us not undo what is already done if it be consistent with the best model 3. Let no man think that the publick interest either Ecclesiastical or Civil of England is the interest of any one person or Family or any few persons or Families much less of any Sect Party Faction It cannot be denied but whilst the Succession of our Kings was limited to a Family the succession was more certain For so the next successour was more easily known and competition which in this case is so dangerous was more easily avoided Yet even this could not prevent the difference between the Houses of York and Lancaster And when the issue of Henry 8 failed we had been in greater danger if the King of Scots had not been a Protestant and one who was conceived would prove firm to the English Protestant Interest But when this limited succession shall prove as it may do inconsistent with the publick interest it s not so much to be regarded For why should the honour or priviledge of one Family prejudice the universal safety of a Nation We know that vast Empires and Kingdoms have by an unlimited Election continued long And that which might help much in this Case is that policy of the German Empire in the Interregnum to have an administrator General 4. In modelling the Government we must have a special eye unto the Constitution that it be such as that it may not only be consistent with but effectually conduce to the promoting of peace and righteousness in the administration of the State and also to the advancement of the Christian Religion in the Church And I conceive our ancient Government for these ends was excellent and did also preserve and regulate the liberty of the people and also wisely limit the supream Magistrate 5. The Parliament being a general Representative of the whole Nation and now of three and trusted with our liberty estates lives and in some measure with the Religion we profess should consist and be made up of eminent and wise men Therefore the Election of them for the manner should be more regular and orderly in respect of the Electors and better limited and more strictly tied to a right Qualification of the Persons elected which should neither be unworthy nor unfit It may indeed fall so out that in these irregular and sometimes tumultuous Elections some wise and eminent persons may be chosen and the same may prove predominant and leading Members in that great Assembly but this is but a chance and no certainty nor use of right reason in it 6 When a Parliament is once assembled and begins to act if there be any thing that concerns the preservation and continuance either of the being of the State or of the Substance of the Protestant Religion that must be first dispatched and the next the punishment of crying Sins which are the Ruines of States 7 As for Religion so far as it concerns the State it 's fit that there be some general Rule both of our Profession and Worship but the Rule of profession must be brief and grounded upon plain Scriptures and so near to ancient Confessions as that no rational Christian who acknowledged the Scriptures to be the Word of God could or would scruple The Rule of Worship also must be plain and Clear. Let nothing be imposed upon all which any rational Christian as such may not recive without scruple As for Discipline as I have begun so I will go on in the next Chapter But these things have been and will be considered by far wiser men therefore I will not enlarge section 23 I might have said something more of the manner of disposing Soveraign power and with Besoldus have observed that as there may be two persons who make but one Monarch so there may be one King of two or more distinct and several Kingdoms This latter disposal was debated much in Calvin's case by the Sage Judges of the land in which debate some of them especially Chancellour Egerton did little less than make the King an absolute Monarch and the two Kingdoms in effect one but the Parliament was of another mind And the matter was far above their Courts and Cognizance the union could not be determined but by the Parliaments of both Kingdoms neither could this be done by them if the union made any alteration in the Constitution of either Kingdom In respect of mine intention this Chapter is very large in respect of the matter very brief and my desire is that others would more seriously and impartially enquire into this subject so far as it concerns our own Constitution which no doubt may be found out and if it prove defective may be perfected if men were peaceable and sought the publick good CHAP. IX Of the disposition of Ecclesiastical Power and first whether it be due unto the Bishop of Rome section 1 THe most difficult point in Politicks is that of the Jura Majestatis and the right disposal of them in a fit subject and concerning the nature of Civil power the manner of acquiring and disposing of it I have already spoken and also of Ecclesiastical power and the acquisition thereof now it remains I say something of the manner of disposing the power of the Keys in the right subject This is a matter of great dispute in these our times Therefore when I expected to find all clear because a Jus divinum grounded on the Scriptures was pretended on all hands I found it otherwise As when one of our Worthies had disemboked the Megellanick straits and was entred into that sea they call Pacificum he found the word Pacifick
effectual comfortable and lasting it will prove This union is not made either by Baptism or profession but it presupposeth both And though it may be made by a free and voluntary consent yet all Vicinities of Christians who by Divine Providence have an opportunity to associate are by a Divine Precept bound to unite and consent to such an Union And this Union is so firm not because of Man's Consent but God's Precept and Institution to which it shall be conformable From this a multitude of Christians become morally one Person spiritual and as such may act and do many things And every particular Member of this Body is bound to seek the good of the whole and every part and the good of this particular Society more than of any other though he must endeavour the good of all so far as God shall enable him Upon this Union therefore follows a Communion For as they all partake in all things and priviledges and rights which are common to all so they must communicate their Gifts Cares Labours for the promoting of the general good of all and particular good of every one As by this Union they become one Person so they receive a Power and Ability to act as one Person for the special good of themselves Yet it doth not give them power to separate either from the Universal Church or from other Communities in any thing God hath made Common either to the Universal Church or other particular Communities section 5 By this time you understand that a Community Christian is a society of Christians yet this is not all it must be a Society of Christians fitted for and immediately capable of an external form of Government Spiritual and the same Independent For in a Common-wealth of necessity there must be a Supreme and Independent Power otherwise it hath not the Essence and Being of a Common-wealth Therefore in Politicks both Civil and Ecclesiastical we speak of a Community as it is actually the Subject of a form of Government or fitted immediately to be such otherwise we shall be haeterogeneous or at least exorbitant Take notice therefore that this Community is not a Civil Society nor the Society of all Christians living at the same time on the Earth which make up the Body of the Church Universal or Visible as subject to Christ nor of a Family or Congregational or any petty Christian Society but of such a Society Christian as is immediately capable of an Independent Discipline 2. Though some Acts of Discipline may by a Paternal Spiritual Power be performed and so likewise in a Congregation some degrees of Power Ecclesiastical may reside and be exercised yet this is not sufficient to make them such a Society as we speak of 3. In this Community and Independent Power of Discipline is virtually contained 4. This cannot be except it consist of such Members as are fit both to model a Common-wealth and manage a supreme Power of the Keyes 5. This Community before a form of Government be introduced is but like a homogeneal or similar Body and then becomes Organical when it 's the actual subject of a Common-wealth and a formal visible Polity And besides the consent required to the constitution of a Community there must be another consent to make it a Politie and the latter is distinct and really different from the former For a multitude of Christians as such are not the immediate matter of a Spiritual Visible State but a Community and a sufficient Community as such is the subject of this Political Form. 6. That Company of Christians which is not sufficiently furnished with Men of Gifts and Parts and yet presumes to set up an Independent Judicature must needs offend For where God gives not sufficient Ability he gives not Authority That every petty Congregation which enjoys Word Sacraments Ministry have an entire Intensive Independent Judicative Power in it self and therefore may refuse to associate with others is the opinion of some which can hardly be proved out of the Word of God. section 6 Thus I have explained the Definition and in the next place proceed to shew the Original of this Community and how particular Persons become Members of the same Whether any are incorporated by Election or Birth yet both the Matter and Form of this Society is from God. For we read in the Books of the New Testament that the first Original of Societies of Christians was this 1. The Apostles endued with the Holy Ghost from above preached That Jesus of Nazareth was crucified at Jerusalem for our Sins rose again was made Lord and King and that Remission of Sins and Eternal Life was granted to all such as should repent and believe in him Such as heard the Doctrine believed it professed their Faith and promised to live accordingly were baptized and so admitted as visible Subjects of Christ's Kingdom So they were made Christians and remote materials of this Community 2. When they were once multiplied so as to make several Congregations for Worship and there were found fit Men to be Pastours Pastours were ordained and set over the Flocks and these became Societies for Christian Worship 3. When there was a competent number of such in a Vicinity as were able to manage a Supreme Independent Power they associated and combined together in one Body for to introduce a form of external Government If any after they became a Community or a Politie were converted within their precincts and did manifest his conversion so far as man might judge of it he was Baptized and was admitted a Member of their Community This was the manner of entring into and being incorporated into this Body And now if any Pagans Jews Mahometans by the Doctrine of the Gospel be reduced to the Christian Faith then they must enter in this manner they must be admitted This Association and Incorporation is not from the Laws Decrees and meer consent of Men but from the Power or Commandment and Institution of God who requires that such as are once made Christians should Associate and that others in whose Power it is should admit them These are like Branches ingrafted not Natural but are made Members by Election And whosoever is thus incorporated he is first made a Member of the Universal Church and a Subject to God the Father Son and Holy Ghost before he can be a Member of any particular Society For he must of necessity be first a Christian before he can be a Member of a Christian Society for the matter is before the form If his Profession be sincere presently upon his conversion he is made a living member of Christ and an heir of Glory far greater priviledges than to be a visible member of any visible spiritual polity And though there is a certain priority of Order yet one and the same person may be made a living member of Christ a member of a Christian Community and of a visible spiritual polity at one and the same time section 7 As
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
by inheritance or election For the first investiture I find none to insist upon it though the rule of investing if there be any should be sought in the fundamental Charter If the Crown be hereditary to the Kings and they have it as their own Fee they may dispose of it and of themselves appoint their Successor whom they please and King Henry 8. might without any Act of Parliament have designed by will which of his Children should succeed him And Queen Elizabeth might have nominated either the King of Scots or any other besides him for her Successor Some may demand what right she had to nominate or any other after her death to proclaim her Successor One answer to this demand may be That her wise Council did forsee that this was an effectual if not the only way to prevent greater mischiefs and effusion of blood which in all probability might have followed if this course had not been taken And in an extraordinary case some extraordinary thing tending to the publick good may lawfully be done Yet this is not to be made an ordinary rule and followed as an ordinary Example A third way of acquisition is by election and consent of the people Thus the first King as the Mirrour tells us in express words was elected So were the Saxon Kings till Edward the Confessor the last King of the Saxon Race So was William the second Henry the first Stephen John. The manner and form of the Coronation which contains in a few words much of the Constitution determines the Succession to be by Election Those words of Fortescue to the Prince Non habes potestatem regiam sed a populo effluxam imply so much The Conqueror himself who as a Bastard could not inherit the Crown confesseth that he possessed not the Crown Jure haereditario To this purpose the old book of Caen is alledged These things are above me and out of my element therefore to be judged of by the learned Antiquaries in Law. But suppose it be granted to be elective yet it 's elective in a certain line for such hath been the practice for a long time which is conceived to be more convenient Yet the Author of the due Rights of the Kingdom saith That if a King had such Children so qualified and so educated that they were above others in virtue wisdom and true worth or at least caeteris pares they were the most likely Candidates for the Crown section 12 But let the manner of acquiring this regal Power be either by and from the first investiture or by inheritance or by election the second point and the same of more importance is to know what this power once acquired and possessed is For the Roman Emperors acquired their power by election and yet it was absolute as is pretended and very great And here I do not intend to say any thing of his excellent Dignity his Scepter Sword Throne Crown Robe Titles the Honour due unto them for these are not so material as the Prerogatives of the King of England Prerogatives saith Sir Roger Owen are the Flowers which by time immemorial the Commons of this Realm have granted the Kings thereof If this be true he hath no Prerogatives but such as are granted him and that by the Commons of England But Judge Crook is no flatterer he speaks plainly and saith he knows no Prerogatives the King hath but this that he cannot do wrong This may be understood either as it agrees to all Sovereigns or as to the Kings of England in a more special manner It 's true that no Sovereign though absolute and Despotical can do wrong For Id quisque potest quod jure potest The meaning is they ought not to do wrong for to do wrong is contrary to the Laws of God whereby they hold their Crowns and also to the very end for which God instituted civil Government Yet there is a more special reason why the Kings of England can do no wrong because they are Kings by Law they cannot bind by their personal commands but by their Regal which are not Regal if not Legal Again he doth all things like an Infant in his minority by his Ministers of State to whom he can grant no Power or Commission to act but according to Law. Therefore if any wrong be done as much is it 's done by them and they not the King are chargeable with it and questionable for it Yet he hath power and great power and it 's not the less but rather the greater and more like unto Gods because it 's limitted by Law. He Summons Parliaments makes Officers conferrs Honours sends and receives Embassadors and gives them answer makes Leagues with other States and other things formerly mentioned when I spake of the second king of personal Majesty Yet if we may believe Bracton he hath all this from the Law. For Lex facit Regem and he is but trusted with the exercise of it for the protection of the people and the execution of the Laws in which respect it seems to follow that if the Law be above him they who make the Laws must needs be above him section 13 But in the third place though the King hath great power yet there is some power in the Kingdom which he hath not For he cannot abolish Parliaments he cannot refuse to call them either when the Laws or the ardua Regni require them he cannot exercise the Militia but according to the Laws neither can he make or repeal Laws without the Parliament he cannot command the Purse he cannot alienate the Crown or the Crown-Revenue nor dispose of the Crown as his own hereditary Fee divers other things there are above his power Yet the Kings of England have challenged and exercised far greater power than the Laws and Constitution gives them But that was matter of fact and cannot found a Right We read that King Richard the second was charged as with other things so with these two 1. That he said the Laws were in his head and his breast that is he had the Legislative power solely to himself 2. That he denied to approve the Laws made by the Parliament that is he challenged a negative Voice In both these Arnisaeus undertakes to maintain his cause as just and that he did but challenge his due Lib de authoritate principum in populum semper inviolabili Cap. 4. Yet all his whole answer is but petitio principii For presupposing the King of England to be an absolute Monarch which we know he is not he takes upon him to answer the whole charge which he might easily do if he take for granted that which he can never prove nor English Men especially Antiquaries in Law will never grant him that he wrote against Rebellion and Treason and maintained the just and lawful authority of Princes he did well but that he should write as a Pensioner to the King and so presumtuously judge of the Constitution of a Foreign
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
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
New Testament where it s used a hundred and eleven times at least and in all these places signifies an Assembly or Society Religious except in Acts 19.32 39 41. where it signifies both a tumultuous and also an orderly Assembly or Society or Convention as a civil Court of Judgment which signification is here applied by our Saviour to a Spiritual Judicatory for Spiritual Causes Though this be a special signification yet it signifies the number and Society of Believers and Disciples who profess their Faith in Christ exhibited and this is this Church-Christian and the People of God. Yet it signifies this People under several Notions as sometimes the Church of the Jews sometimes of the Gentiles sometimes the Universal Church sometimes particular Churches sometimes the Militant Church either as visible or mystical sometimes the Church Triumphant sometimes a Church before any form of Government be introduced sometimes under a form of Government so it 's taken and supposed by our Saviour here Grotius his Conceit that our Saviour in these words alludes to the manner of several Sects Professions as of Pharisees Sadduces Essenes who had their Rules of Discipline and their Assemblies and Convention for the practice of them may be probable Yet without any such Allusion the place is plain enough from the context and other Scriptures Erastus upon the place is intollerable and most wofully wrests it so doth Bishop Bilson in his Church-Government and is point-blank contrary to D. Andrews who in his Tortura Torti doth most accurately examine interpret and apply the words and most effectually from thence confute Bellarmine One may truly say of that Book as he himself said of Austin's Treatise De Civitate Dei it was opus palmarum For Civil Common Canon-Law Politicks History School Learning the Doctrine of the Casuists Divinity and other Arts whereof he makes use it is one of the most learned and accurate of any put forth in our times By his Exposition of this Text he utterly overthrows the immediate Jus Divinum of Episcopacy in matters of Discipline and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction He plainly and expresly makes the whole Church the primary subject of the Power of the Keys in foro exteriori Therefore suppose the Bishops were Officers by a Divine Right as he endeavours to prove tho' weakly in his Letters to Du Moulin yet at best they can be but the Churches Delegates for the exercise of that Power And it is observable that divers of our Champions when they oppose Bellarmine's Monarchical Government of the Church peremptorily affirm the Power of the Keyes to be in the whole Church as the most effectual way to confute him yet when they wrote against the Presbyterian and the Antiprelatical party they change their Tone and Tune But to return unto the words of Institution 1. The word Church here signifies an Assembly 2. This Assembly is an Assembly for Religion 3. The Religion is Christian. 4. This Assembly is under a form of External Government 5. This Government presupposeth a Community and Laws and Officers Ecclesiastical These presupposed it 's a juridical Assembly or a Court. 6. Because Courts are Inferiour Superiour and Supream it signifies all especially Supream 7. It determines no kind of Government but that of a free State as shall more appear hereafter 8. Christ doth not say Dic Regi tell the Prince or State nor Dic Petro tell Peter or the Pope as though the Government should be Monarchical either Civil or Ecclesiastical nor Dic Presbytero tell the Elders nor Dic Apostolis Episcopis aut Archiopiscopis that the Government should be purely Aristocratical nor Dic Plebi that the Government should be purely Democratical nor Dic Synodo tell the Council general or particular But it saith tell the Church wherein there may be Bishops Presbyters some Eminent Persons neither Bishops nor Presbyters There may be Synods and all these either as Officers or Representatives of the Church and we may tell these and these may judge yet they hear and judge by a power derived and delegated from the Church and the Church by them as by her Instruments doth exercise her Power As the body sees by her eye and hears by the ear so it is in this particular but so that the similitude doth not run on four feet nor must be stretched too far This being the genuine Sense favours no Faction yet admits any kind of Order which observed may reach the main end For this we must know and take special notice of that Christ will never stand upon Formalities but requires the thing which he commands to be done in an orderly way Yet it 's necessary and his Institution doth tend unto it to reserve the chief Power in the whole Body otherwise if any party as Bishops or Presbyters or any other part of the Church be trusted with the power alone to themselves they will so engross it as that there will be no means nor ordinary jurisdiction to reform them Of this we have plain Experience in the Bishops of Rome who being trusted at first with too much Power did at length arrogate as their own and no ways derived from the Church and so refused to be judged For if the Church once make any party the primary subject of this power then they cannot use it to reduce them Therefore as it is a point of Wisdom in any State to reserve the chief power in the whole Community and single out the best and wisest to exercise it so as if the Trustees do abuse their power they may remove them or reform them so it should be done in the Church If any begin to challenge either the whole or the Supream power as Officers many of these nay the greater part of them may be unworthy or corrupted and then the Church is brought to straits and must needs suffer Some tell us that the King of England by the first Constitution was only the Supream and Universal Magistrate of the Kingdom trusted with a sufficient power to govern and administer the State according to the Laws and his chief work was to see the Laws executed Yet in tract of time they did challenge the power to themselves as their own and refused to be judged Yet in this Institution if Peter if Paul tho' Apostles do offend much more if Patriarchs Metropolitans Bishops Presbyters do trespass we must tell not Peter not Paul not an Apostle not a Bishop not any other but the Church No wit of Men or Angels could have imagined a better way nor given a better expression to settle that which is good and just and prevent all parties and factions and yet leave a sufficient latitude for several orderly ways to attain the chief end section 7 The Judge being known the Judicial Acts of this Judge must be enquired into in the fifth place and these are two the first is binding the second loosing For all Judgment passed upon any person is either against him and that is binding
sanctified person is a Priest to offer spiritual Sacrifice to God. Yet this doth not make any such person a Minister and publick Officer of Christ who must sequester himself from worldly business more than other men to tend his Calling to which he is consecrated and solemnly devoted With this distinction agrees that of the Clergy and Laity Whence the name Clerus the Clergy for the Ministry should have its original is uncertain The people of Israel sanctified and consecrated unto God were call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Lot or Inheritance of God and the Priests and Ministers were the eminent party of this Lot and people For the people as distinct from the Pastours are called the Clergy Lot or Heritage of God 1 Pet. 5.3 in which it cannot be proper to the Ministers It 's true that the first Officer made by the Church after that Christ was glorified was made by Lot For the Lot that is Cleros fell upon Matthias Acts 1.26 From whence some think the system of Presbyters and Deacons were called the Clergy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify one made and an Officer by Lot. As for Laity we find often in the Old Testament the people as distinct from the Priests and Levites called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Laity The Apostle and seventy Disciples were distinguished from the rest of the Disciples and Believers The Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastours and Teachers were different orders from the rest of the Church The twenty four Elders which signifie the Priests and Levites divided into orders by Lot were distinct from the four Beasts that is the main body of the Church but these are days of confusion and disorder Every one will be a Prophet and a Teacher either presuming upon their gifts yet scorning to engage themselves for the service of Christ in the poor and much despised Ministery or pretending blasphemously to the Spirit which God never gave them There is another distinction of Subjects in Nobiles Plebaeos Some are Noble some of a lower Form and Rank Nobilis is any Gentleman well descended Yet there is a difference inter Nobilem Generosum for though Omnis Generosus sit Nobilis yet Omnis nobilis non est Generosus because Generosus is not only one well born but also one vertuous In this respect the word of a Gentleman is more than the word of a Nobleman nay than the word of a King yet Nobility with us is taken more strictly and is given to none under a Baron and Peer of the Kingdom which hath right of suffrage in Parliament as one of the House of Lords The ancient Nobility of England is much diminished and decayed and many of their Estates alienated and the late Barons created by Patent do much obscure them and if these as Barons have their suffrage in the House of Lords by vertue of their Honour and not their Vertue and Wisdom I do not see how the Parliament should be Wittena Gemott the Meeting of Wise Men. It were wisdom by some strict Law to limit Jus Nobilitandi unto Vertue and Wisdom For Honours should be conferred rarely and upon merit and worth for they have great priviledges which should not be made so common and prostituted to the Lust and Ambition of every one that can pay for them The subjects of lower Rank if Freeholders have also their priviledges and one principal is a power to Elect the Knights of the County to represent in Parliaments There be other accidental differences of less moment which I pass by section 14 After these distinctions follows a division of the whole body of the Subjects into parts and this is necessary especially in respect of the Administration For without an orderly division the subjects cannot be well governed Israel was divided into Tribes Tribes into Families Families into Housholds Housholds into Persons Thus they were divided and according to this order Achan was discovered Josh. 7.16 17 18. and they had their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heads of their Tribes and their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heads of their Hundreds as Masius upon the place observes The Romans were also divided in Tribus Tribus in Curias and after these we read of Centurias and Decurias We read that Alfred divided England into Counties Counties into Hundreds the Hundreds into Allotments In some Counties we find Ridings and Wapentakes yet Sir Henry Spelman under the word Hundreds understands by Wapentake an Hundred which in the Welsh is called Cantreda where he adds that the Counties were divided into Tithings Rapes and Laths and Hundreds were divided into Tithings and Friberges Upon this division made it 's said that Justice was administred with that ease exactness and severity that any man's goods might at any time be secure in any place Yea they might hang golden Bracelets in the High-way-side and in open view and none durst meddle with them To this head belongs the numbring the people by pole enrowling their Names and Estates without which Taxations cannot be justly imposed The end of this distribution was to reduce the people into a certain order according to which the equal parts were to co-ordinate one with another as Counties with Counties Hundreds with Hundreds so that one had no Jurisdiction over another The unequal were less or greater and were subordinate the less to the greater which had Jurisdiction over the less and all the parts were subject to the whole This was necessary for Judicial proceedings that Actions in Law might proceed according to the subordination of Courts For anciently with us Actions did commence in the Courts held by the Lords of the Mannors if the cause were too high or could not there be determined or Justice had Appeal was made to the Hundred Court from thence to the County Court from thence to the King's Court. In the word Comitatus Sir Henry Spelman observes this was the ancient Order and thinks it an abuse and great disorder that in our days every petty Business and Cause is brought into the King's Court at Westminster What the Division of this Nation was under the Romans is not so well known except we may conjecture of it by the ancient Division of the Provinces and the Cathedral Seas and Diocesses which much differ from these of latter times Cambden finds some divisions of England in the time of the Romans yet they are not clear and certain Under the Saxons he finds several divisisions 1. Some according to certain proportions of Lands 2. He makes the Heptarchy an argument that it was divided into seven parts At length he concludes his political Division with that of Counties which he as Sir Henry Spelman ascribes to the King Alfred But I have read that it was thus divided before his time and this is more probable because the Myrrour informs us of Counties and of Counties before there were any Saxon Kings Vt subditi section 15 distinguuntur sic distincti dividuntur educantur