Politica sacra & civilis, or, A model of civil and ecclesiastical government wherein, besides the positive doctrine concerning state and church in general, are debated the principal controversies of the times concerning the constitution of the state and Church of England, tending to righteousness, truth, and peace / by George Lawson ...

CHAP. XV. Of subjection in general, and the subjects of a Civil State. (Book 15)

[section 1] IN the former part I have, according to my poor ability, declared. 1. What the Act of Government is. 2. That the subject of it being a Common-wealth both Civil and Ecclesiastical, it hath two parts: 1. The Constitution. 2. The Admini∣stration of the same. 3. That the matter of a Common-wealth is the Community, and the Form, and Order of Superiori∣ty and Subjection. 4. That there are two integral parts of a Common-wealth. 1. Pars imperans, the Soverain. 2. Pars subdita, the Subject. 5. What the power of a So∣veraign is, how it is acquired, how dispo∣sed, and that both in a Civil State and Church. Now according to order comes in Pars subdita, to be considered both in a Civil and an Ecclesiastical notion. What a Subject in a Civil State is cannot be known in particular, except we know the nature of subjection in general. The word in Greek, which signifies to be subject is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be subordinate. For sub∣jection presupposeth order, not physical and local, but moral of Superior and Inferiour. That which makes a Superiour is power,

and power over another, which is not in∣vested with it; in which respect he is infe∣riour in relation to him that hath power over him. And so soon as God hath made one Superiour to another instantly, the party inferiour is bound to subjection, which is a thing due unto this Superiour. God hath set him in a place under, not above, nor in the same rank; and by this very placing of him, he is made a subject by Di∣vine Ordination. And this is the first degree of subjection, from which follows an obli∣gation to active and voluntary submission. And this obligation ariseth not only from this, that the power over him is Gods, not as he is Creatour meerly and the Author of Nature, as Suarez doth express it, nor only as he is a Supream Lord by Creation and Preservation, committing some mea∣sure of his Power to man, but also from this, that he commandeth man to sub∣mit. Actual subjection is an acknowledg∣ment of this power in such a person, and a voluntary submission. This voluntary submission is a duty, and that which God requires in the word honour in the fifth Commandment, and the Apostle from God, when he saith, Let every soul be subject to the higher powers. This submissi∣on is. 1. A resigning up of their own un∣derstanding, will and power unto the un∣derstanding will and power of his Superi∣our, so far as God hath made him Superi∣our. By this submission he becomes his

Vassal and Servant, and renounceth other Lords and Masters in that kind. Upon this submission follows either an obligation to obey just commands, or to suffer upon dis∣obedience. There are several kinds and also degrees of this objection: there is a sub∣jection of Children to Parents, Servants to Masters, Wives to Husbands, Schollars to their Teachers, Souldiers to their Comman∣ders, People unto their Soveraigns, and of all unto God. And because he is Supream, and we are wholly both in his power and under it alone, therefore subjection in the highest degree, and a total and an absolute resignation of our selves unto him, and him alone is due. And the truth is, no submission or subjection is due to any other, but all to him. For, when we sub∣mit to other higher and lower lawful pow∣ers, we submit unto him in them, who participate some portion of his power, not of their own. For, there is no power but of God, nay, there is no power but which is Gods. This subjection is not meerly to be under the predominant force and strength, but also under the directing Wis∣dom, and the justly commanding will of another. Thus far of subjection in gene∣ral.

[section 2] The subjection in this place is subjecti∣on to a publick power, and the same is. 1. Civil. 2. Ecclesiastical. 1. Civil sub∣jection will be best known, if I first define a subject. 2. Consider how many degrees

and distinctions of Subjects there be. Bodin taking Civis and Subditus for the same, saith that Civis est liber homo, qui summae alterius potestati obligatur. De Rep. lib. 1. c. 6. Arnisaeus is more exact, for thus he defines Subjects; Sabditi sunt partes Reipublicae, quae summae potestati, quoad omnia, obligantur, pro quo omnibus juribus, & privilegiis fruuntur, Constit. Pol. cap. 12. As for Bodin, he mi∣stakes much by confounding Civis & sub∣ditus. For though every Subject be Civis, yet every Civis is not a Subject. A per∣son is said to be Civis as a Member of a Community, before any form of Govern∣ment be introduced. A Subject presuppo∣seth a Supream power determined, and thereupon being under that power be∣comes a Subject. The one is a Member of a Community, the other of a Com∣mon-Wealth. In the latter Definition we may observe. 1. The General. 2. The special Nature and Difference of a Subject. The general nature is, That Subjects are a part of the Common-Wealth. For, as you heard before, a Common-Wealth hath two parts: 1. The Soveraign. 2. The Subject. By parts, are meant Members or integral parts, which united, constitute and make up the Body of a State: wherein none can be found, but they are either Subjects or Soveraign. In this that they are parts, they differ not from the Soveraign, who is also a part, though the most eminent and prin∣cipal. In the special nature thereof we

may observe two things: 1. The duty of a Subject. 2. The benefit. The duty is implied in the Obligation, the benefit in the Enjoyment of some advantages. In the duty we may observe three things: 1. An Obligation. 2. The party to whom Subjects are obliged. 3. The measure of their Obligation. The Obligation, as I said formerly, follows upon a subjection, and the subjection upon the designing of a Soveraign. For in a designation of a So∣veraign by a general consent, according to reason and Gods Ordination, men deprive themselves of that unlimited liberty, which they had as Members of a Community, and bind themselves to a certain rule and order of inferiority: they divest them∣selves of some power, and take a lower place, and resign themselves up unto a Su∣periour will. Upon this resignation, and from it they become subject, and by their very place are bound to submit. So that this Obligation follows a kind of former subjection. But neither of the former Authors tell us, what the Act or thing is, to which they stand obliged, though both of them do imply it. And it is a con∣stant submission and fidelity, and both voluntary. And though they may per∣haps refuse to give this submission and fidelity, yet they are bound to yeild it. This is the Obligation. 2. The party to whom they are bound is the Soveraign, and they mean the Civil Soveraign. And be∣cause

they are bound unto this Soveraign in respect of his power, they express the pow∣er, and imply the party invested with this power, and he cannot be a Soveraign, ex∣cept his power be Supream and Universal in respect of the whole body of the Communi∣ty; therefore they say Subjects are bound to the Supream Power; for though they are under the power of Officers and Inferiour Rulers, yet the power of such is but the power of the Soveraign trusted in their hands for the exercise thereof. This Sove∣raign,* 1.1 as you heard before, may be either as the whole Community, reserving the chief and radical power to themselves; or personal, as a general representative, or a chief and universal Magistrate. 3. The measure is quoad omnia,* 1.2 in respect of all things, as their Goods, Persons, Lives, Acti∣ons in reference to the Publick good. Yet this Obligation must be legal as the Power is legal, regular and rightly bounded: For absolute submission is due to God alone, according to the first Commandment of the first Table, a limited submission is on∣ly due to man according to the first Com∣mandment of the second Table: For man is first bound to God, and then to man in an inferiour degree; and every Subject as bound to man, is first bound to real Ma∣jesty, and to seek the good of the whole, then to personal Majesty, so far as it ex∣tends to the benefit of the whole, and no further: for as Salus populi, the good of the

People is the chief end whereat all power should aim, so it's also the chief end of subjection. And according to the measure of the power is the measure of subjection: they must be Commensurable and Coade∣quate, neither less nor greater. As power must be just and conformable to the Laws of God, so subjection must be too, and we cannot be bound to submit in any thing that is unjust and unreasonable, neither ought we, neither is it wisdom to give too great, or an absolute power unto any, so as to destroy our propriety and just liberty. This is the duty.

[section 3] The benefit follows, for no subjection but should aim at some good, and it's ei∣ther unjust, or vain, if no benefit redound from it. The benefits here mentioned, are Rights and Priviledges. In every well constituted and well ordered State, there are certain general Rights, and also Privi∣ledges both real and personal, which are not due unto Strangers. No rational peo∣ple will subject themselves but upon con∣dition of Protection both from wrongs within the State, and from violence of Foreigners, and so to better their Estate: For power being ordained of God, was intended for the good of the parties to be governed; For the Sword is put by God into the hands of higher powers, for to punish the Unjust, and protect the Just in their rights and due. As for Priviledges, he understands them in an unusual sence;

For Priviledges being reckoned amongst Laws, which were favourable, as opposed to such are called odious, and bring grie∣vances, and charges upon the Subject, are usually made for the benefit of some single persons: For if they were general, as here they are taken, they were not priviledges properly, except in respect of Strangers of other States, which in that particular State none but the Subjects could enjoy. From this subjection it follows, that if the Soveraign require Fealty and Ho∣mage, he acknowledging his power must solemnly testifie it; and if it be deman∣ded, confirm it by oath. For as Princes and personal Soveraigns swear to the peo∣ple, so the people are bound to engage themselves to them again. And by this Oath of Fealty they renounce all other powers, not only Forreign but Domestick too. For upon what reason can protecti∣on be due, if the persons protected be not Faithful, and Loyal according to the con∣stitution of the State. By this subjection, if the Soveraign make Laws, the Subject is bound to obey or suffer. And if the command be unjust, he is not bound to obey, because he subjected himself accord∣ing to the Laws of Wisdome and Justice: Yet in such cases he being a subject, as a Subject, must be willing to suffer and not resist the power; for though the power be just, and we are bound to submit, yet we are not bound to obey the unjust Laws of

a just power. The Apostles would not o∣bey the unjust commands of their Rulers, yet they did not resist their power, but rather suffered, though unjustly persecuted. By this subjection, the Subject is bound to maintain their higher Powers for the pub∣lick good and safety. For this cause there∣fore (saith the Apostle) pay you Tribute also, for they are Gods Ministers, attending conti∣nually upon this thing, Rom. 13.6. By this Subjection he is further bound to hazard, not only his Estate, but his Life and Per∣son for the Soveraign, and the State in a time of publick danger. And all this must be done not for fear but Conscience sake. For subjection is a duty required by the Moral Law of God, and must be performed out of love, and in obedience unto God: and cannot be performed by any so fully as by a sincere Christian. And though we must pray for all men, yet espe∣cially must we pray for them, 1 Tim. 2.1. And in praying for them, we pray for our selves, and for our own peace. Honour also is due from Subjects to their Sove∣raigns by reason of their eminent Dignity, which ariseth from their power. Contrary to these are dishonouring, reviling, or vi∣lifying the Higher Power, disobedience to their just Laws, denying of Tribute and other dues; refusing to hazzard Per∣son or Estate for the Publick safety; revol∣ting and infidelity, keeping Intelligence with Enemies; open Rebellion and Re∣sistance

of their Power; secret Treasons and Conspiracies against their Person, or other ways directly or indirectly. And the greatest Treason and Rebellion, and Infi∣delity is that against the State it self and real Majesty; the next is that against per∣sonal Majesty in the general Representa∣tive of the whole Community; the next to that, is that against the person or per∣sons, upon whose safety the Peace and Happiness of the People much depends. And that which is against Government in general, is far greater than that which is only against this, or that form in particu∣lar. Treason against Laws is more hai∣nous than Treason against persons: and Treason against the Fundamental Laws, than Treason against Laws for Administra∣tion. This Treason against the Funda∣mentals was charged upon the Earl of Strafford; and the personal Commands of the King could no ways excuse him. Yet it was not thought fit that the Judgment past upon him, should be made a Prece∣dent for Inferiour Courts; because none but a Parliament could judge of and de∣clare the Constitution, and what was a∣gainst it, and what not.

[section 4] And here I might take occasion to speak of Subjection unto Usurped Power, and acting under it, of the continuance of this Obligation unto Subjection, and the disso∣lution of it, of the Obligation, of the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance, the Prote∣station,

the Covenant and Engagement in respect of such as have taken them. Of the Civil Wars of late, how far they tend∣ed unto the Dissolution of the Government, and how far they did actually dissolve it. Whether the warlike resistance made by the Parliament against the King's Commissions and his party was Rebellion: and whether there was any legal certain Power that could justly challenge Subjection, or induce an obligation to it, since the commencement of the War: or whether the Power con∣tinued in the Parliament till the Members thereof were secluded: whether the Act of Alteration was a sufficient ground of Obli∣gation: or whether any of the Alterations made since, can be sufficient for that pur∣pose. But the distinct discussion hereof would require a great Volume, which I in∣tend not. Neither if I should presume to deliver my judgment in these particulars, is there any probable hope of giving satis∣faction, seeing so many men of Eminent Parts and Learning do so much differ in them. I can, and I shall pray that God would open our Eyes to see the Truth, and unite our Hearts in Love one towards another. 1. For Usurpation, few do di∣stinguish between the Usurpation and man∣ner of Acquisition, and the power itself. For Power is Gods, and is always just, though it may be both acquired and exer∣cised unjustly. There are also several kinds o•• Usurpation, whereof some may be ap∣parently

unjust, and some doubtful: And there is scarcely any power now in the Kingdoms and States of this World but were Usurped, either by the present Pos∣sessors, or some of their Predecessors. Nei∣ther can the tract of time make them law∣ful without some rational consent either tacit or express, and something of Divine Providence besides. For supream power personal cannot be usurped and possessed by any man without the Will of God, not only permitting, but acting and giving it too: not that he approves mans sin, or can do any thing unjust, but for Reasons just and good, known many times only to him∣self and not to us. For God hath made use of Usurpers for to execute his judge∣ments, and to do as much Justice as many lawful Successors or Possessors, and may bless them temporally for their good ser∣vice, and yet punish them for their Ambi∣tion and unjust manner of seeking Power. By this he no ways doth warrant or encou∣rage, or give the least liberty to any one to usurpe power unlawfully. We must in this point put a great difference between those Usurpations which are contrary to the Moral Laws of God, and such as are only disagreeing with humane Institutions, which many times may be unjust. Sup∣pose we desire to have an Usurper, or U∣surpers removed, yet we must consider, whether removal may not do a far greater mischief than our submission can possibly

do. When we do submit, we must not so much look upon the unjust manner of ac∣quiring the power, as at the power itself, which is from God; and we must consider the necessity which Divine Providence hath brought us into, seeing he gives us no power, or opportunity to right our selves in respect of humane Titles, or free our selves from such as we conceive Usurpers, under whom he many times enjoys Protection, Peace, Justice, and the Gospel. It's no Wisdom to be so ready and rash as to call every one Usurper, which did not obtain his power according to the Fancies and I∣dea's of our own Brain, and to deny all power, when as they know, that if there should not be power, and in the hands of some, and the same exercised too, all would come to ruin, and they themselves could not escape. It may be observed, that the greatest Usurpers themselves are readi∣est to charge those with Usurpation which have justly dispossessed them. Yet for all this we must not justifie Usurpation that is truly and really Usurpation, neither must we swallow Gudgeons, comply with every party, and sail with every wind, as some are ready to do. Yet on the other hand, we must not be too scrupulous and pretend Conscience, and yet make our Fancy or some humane Constitutions our Rule, and adhere unto them, as though they were Divine Institutions. For some whilst they refuse either to submit or act under a pow∣er

in their conceit usurped, they become guilty of more hainous Sin, and when they presume they are faithful to some personal Majesty, they prove unfaithful to Real, and their own dear Country, preferring the In∣terest of some Person, or Family, or per∣sons before the good of the whole body of the people, to whom they owe more than to any other. And whosoever will not be faithful unto his own Country, can∣not be faithful to any form of Govern∣ment, or personal Governours. Yet, who∣soever will handle this point accurately, must first define what Usurpation in gene∣ral is. 2. How many kinds and differences of Usurpation there be: and 3. What the particular Usurpation is against which he argues; and 4. State the particular Case with all the Circumstances.

[section 5] The continuance and dissolution of a Legal Power is also to be observed. As for real Majesty it always continues, whilest the Community remains a Community; and subjection to this is due till it be destroy∣ed. Subjection to personal Majesty in a Representative cannot in just things be de∣nied, till a latter Representative make their power void. The personal Majesty of a King with us requires subjection, whilst he lives, and governeth according to Law, but upon his Death, or upon Tyranny likewise, or acting to the dissolution of the Fundamental Constitution, he ceaseth to be a Soveraign, and the Obligation as to

him ceaseth. A Parliament turning into a Faction, acting above their Sphere, wrong∣ing King or People, cannot justly require, nor rationally expect for Subjection: And though private persons cannot, yet the peo∣ple by a latter and well ordered Parliament may both judge them, and call the Exor∣bitant Members to account. When a per∣sonal Soveraign cannot protect his Subjects, because their Lives, Persons, and Estates, are in the power of another, he cannot ra∣tionally require subjection, but for the time at least he should be willing to free them from Allegiance: and to let them make the best terms they can for themselves. But vo∣luntary Revolt or Rebellion cannot free them from this Obligation to their lawful Soveraign. In a word, so many ways as Majesty and Soveraignty may be lost, so many ways this Obligation may be dissol∣ved. Yet in all these Dissolutions Subjects must remember, that their Obligation to God and their Country doth continue, when not only Personal Soveraigns, but also the Forms of Government are altered. There are just Causes and Reasons of the Dissolu∣tion of this Obligation, and there are also unjust pretences and grounds of denying Subjection. If any one of an innovating humour or desire of alteration, or discon∣tent with their present Governours, or conceits of false Titles, or an intention to advance some of their own party, or a be∣lief that any forraign Prince or Priest can

absolve them from their Allegiance; or that their Soveraigns are wicked, or do not ad∣minister justly, or are Tyrants, when they are not, or in any such like case, shall seek to cast off the Yoke, and think themselves free, they must needs be guilty, and cannot be excused. Those are the greatest Offen∣ders, who are Enemies to Government it self under pretence of liberty, or impunity in their Crimes, vailed under the notion of self-preservation, or a reformation of some things amiss.

[section 6] The Oaths of Allegiance and Suprema∣cy could alter nothing in the Constitution; and both did presuppose our Allegiance due to England, according to the fundamental Laws, and could neither take it away nor add any thing unto it. The Parliament by them might declare what was the Duty of every Subject. The occasion of them both are well known; the end was to ex∣clude all forraign Power in matter of Reli∣gion and civil Right, in both which the Pope had usurped formerly, and might do so for future times, especially, seeing many Subjects did incline so much unto the Sea of Rome. They seemed to bind the Sub∣jects, taking them not only to the present Kings or Queens, but their Heirs and Suc∣cessors. For the King might have Heirs and Successors; and he might have no Heirs, and yet have Successors. For Queen Elizabeth had no Heir or Heirs, but a Suc∣cessor she had. Yet, because the Crown

is not entailed by common Law, and the fundamental Rule, as some tell us, there∣fore none is a Successor till he be designed, and actually invested and acknowledged, and till then the Oaths were not admini∣stred to be taken by any particular subject. The Oath taken to the former Prince, if once removed by Death or some other way, though it expressed Heirs and Succes∣sors, was not thought sufficient: it must be taken anew unto the present Successor by Name. Yet, if the Crown had been en∣tailed, or the King's proper Fee by Inheri∣tance, this seems to be needless. One rea∣son of these words inserted seems to be this, that seeing Succession and Election was u∣sually in a Line, it was intended by them to exclude Pretenders, and all Power of the Pope, or any other to dispose of the Crown when the former Possessor was removed or deceased: yet they did not so tye us to be faithful unto the Power of England, to be exercised by King, Peers, and Commons: as that it were unlawful to be true and faith∣ful unto the Community of England, though under another form. The Obligation to our Country was far higher, and fidelity to it was due by the Laws of God and Na∣ture, so that we must seek the good there∣of, though the Government was altered. Fidelity unto the Community is first due; Fidelity to it under some form of Govern∣ment was the second; Fidelity unto it as under that form by King, Peers, and Com∣mons

was the third; Fidelity unto the per¦son of the King is the last, and presupposeth the former: whosoever understands and takes them otherwise, perverts the true meaning, and makes them unlawful. The Protestation and Covenant were made in a time of danger and distraction, and did include or presuppose the former Obligati∣ons: yet the Protestation superadded some∣thing concerning the Protestant Doctrine of the Church of England to be maintain'd, and the Covenant something of Discipline as to be performed, and both extended to the preservation of the peace and uni∣on of the three Kingdoms: Neither of them did allow any unlawful means to compass these ends: Neither of them could take away our Obligation to our Country, and destroy our English Primary Interest, but it remains entire: and since all the alte∣rations made afterwards, we are as much as ever bound to seek and promote the same; and whosoever will refuse to do so, upon pretence of these Oathes, the Prote∣station and the Covenant, he is Traytor to the common good of the Nation. For as there is a positive, so there is a negative In∣fidelity. For though such did not use any means positive to destroy it, yet they neg∣lect it, and if every one should do as they do, sit still and look on, and do nothing, it would certainly come to ruin, and fall into the hands of those who are their Mor∣tal Enemies.

[section 7]

The late Civil Wars in England did not only tend unto the Dissolution of the Go∣vernment, but actually for that time dis∣solve it. For if the first Supream Power personally was in King, Peers, and Com∣mons joyntly, then it follows, that when the King forsook the Parliament, and refu∣sed to act joyntly with them, it was dissol∣ved, much more when he set up his Stand∣ard, and granted the Commission of Ar∣ray and fought against them. For then there were two contrary Powers and Su∣pream Commands, and the Subjects in strict sense were not bound to obey either. And the Parliament did declare, that whensoever the King should make War upon them, it was a breach of the trust reposed in him by his Peo∣ple, contrary to his Oath, and tended to the Dissolution of the Government. If the Go∣vernment was dissolved, it will follow that the Subjects were freed from their Allegi∣ance, yet the Allegiance due to the Com∣munity of England did continue; and eve∣ry one was bound to adhere to the just par∣ty according to the Laws of God, though in doing so, they could not observe the Laws of men. And whosoever did oppose that just party, did render themselves for ever uncapable of the benefit of the Eng∣lish protection, and were ipso facto Enemies to their own Country, their own peace and safety. Yet the Parliament did not de∣clare, that upon a War made upon them, the Government was actually dissolved;

because though that War tended to the dis∣solution thereof, yet they conceiv'd that the form did remain still in King, Peers, and Commons; and a considerable party of the Lords and Commons remained in the place, whither they were summon'd by the King, and by vertue of the Act of Continuance continued a Parliament, and that the King's power was virtually in the two Houses: Yet in this they passed above the Letter of the Law, and followed the Rules of Equity and Reason; and perhaps they had some hopes of rectifying the King, and had no intention to alter the form, if they could preserve it, and keep it up. But all their Wisdom and Endeavours could not prevent the Judgment, that God in∣tended to execute.

[section 8] Whether the warlike resistance made by the Parliament against the King, against his Commissions, against his party was a Rebellion? The King did declare it to be Rebellion, and proclaimed the Parliament-party Rebels and Traytors, yet he did not declare the Parliament to be Rebellious: For so to have done had been offensive to his own party, and he had a considerable party perhaps in both the Houses: and if he did acknowledge it to be a Parliament, in condemning them he must have con∣demned himself, because he was an essen∣tial Member of the same. Neither did the Parliament profess they fought against, but for the King. Yet, if they fought against

such as were commissioned by the King, they fought against the King, and, if the King declared the Parliaments party to be Rebels and Traytors, he must needs judge the Parliament guilty; because as he in his War was the principal Agent, so they on their side were too. This gave occasion of curious distinctions. For men did distin∣guish between Charles Stewart and the King, betwen his regal and his personal Capacity: and on the other side, between the Parlia∣ment and a party in the Parliament, though the whole Parliament did Commission and Arm. Thus they found a difference be∣tween the King and himself, and the Par∣liament and itself. These distinctions were not altogether false: yet though Charles Stewart and the King, and so the Parlia∣ment, and a party in the Parliament might be distinguished, yet they could not be se∣parated. And woe unto the people that is brought into such straights and perplexities. For if they kill Charles Stewart, they kill the King; and if the King destroy that party in the Parliament, he destroys the Parliament. But to return unto the Que∣stion; it's one thing to be Rebellion, ano∣ther to be judged Rebellion. For that may be judged Rebellion, which is not such, and the same thing may be justified by one and condemned by another. Arnisaeus handles this matter at large, and makes the Question in general to be this: Whether up∣on any Cause whatsoever, it is lawful for the

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

Subjects to resist, or take up Arms against their lawful Soveraign? When he hath sta∣ted the Question, he determines upon the Negative, and proves it. In stating the Question, he seems to define a Subject to be one, who hath given his Allegiance to his lawful Prince. But what he means per fidem datam, is not made so clear. Then he distinguisheth of Princes. For, 1. There are Regna pactionata, where Princes are made upon condition. 2. There are Regna absoluta, where the Princes are absolute. 3. There are Tyrants, and that of two sorts: 1. In Title, as Usurpers. 2. In Exercise. These distinctions being made, he grants, That Princes upon condition may be resi∣sted for their ill Administration. 2. That Tyrants in Title, before the Subjects bind themselves unto them, may be opposed. 3. That Tyrants in Exercise may be depo∣sed, and that by their Tyranny, excidunt jure suo etsi haereditario, divests themselves of their power, though hereditary. 4. That absolute Soveraigns who have potestatem non delegatam, sed transfusam, cannot be resisted lawfully, though they be vicious, and their Administrations impious and unjust, if it reach not Tyranny, which is directly a∣gainst the Laws and Rules of Government, and tends to the destruction of the Com∣mon-wealth. But in all this Discourse he doth not produce any Authentical Record, Fundamental Charter for these absolute Soveraigns, which have omnem & omnimo∣dam

potestatem à populo transfusam. As for that Roman transfusion of power upon the Emperours, it's an uncertain thing: Lex Regia doth no where appear, it's doubted of many, as it is denied by many. And suppose that people should be so unwise, what's that to others? He seems to contra∣dict his own Definition of a subject, which I formerly explained, he mistakes most grosly the Constitution of some States, wherein he instanceth, Whosoever will de∣termine this Controversie, or debate it to pur∣pose, he must, 1. Define Subjection, and de∣clare the several degrees of it, according to the several Constitutions of Common-wealt. 2. If he instance in a particular State, he must cer∣tainly know the Fundamental Laws thereof, and truly express them. 3. He must put the case aright, and state the Question, hic & nunc & rebus sic stantibus. This resistance, if Rebellion must be an act of a Subject, as a Subject; and that cannot be but against his Soveraign, as his lawful Soveraign accord∣ing to the Laws of God and just Laws of Men. And no man is able to justifie the Resistance of a 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 peo∣ple 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 Sub∣ject, considered as a Parliament, for then the King himself being an essential part thereof should be a Subject. As he was di∣vided 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. Be∣sides, when there is no Parliament, we know he is a King by Law, and the King∣dom 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 ei∣ther he or his party could say to justifie them∣selves. 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 concei∣ved that when he left them he left his pow∣er 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, be∣cause according to the Rules the Parlia∣ment was no Subject, the King then, se∣parated from the Parliament, refusing to Act with them, Acting and Warring a∣gainst 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, Mini∣sters 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 Assem∣bled, 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 appre∣hend Delinquents about the King to bring them to a due Tryal, and this even against the personal will of the King? Or, whe∣ther after the Parliament had passed a Judg∣ment against the King, they might not lawfully give Commission to General Fair∣faxe,

to apprehend the Kings person, and bring him to the Parliament? or, Suppo∣sing 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 Fundamen∣tal 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 Ar∣ray 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 act∣ings were just or unjust, as they were a∣greeable or disagreeable to the Fundamen∣tal Laws, and the general and principal end of Government. For even then their subjection to the Laws of God, and Funda∣mental 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 ob∣serve

the petty Rules of our ordinary ad∣ministration, which were proper for a time of Peace, which could not help but hinder her recovery. In such an extraor∣dinary 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 Chil∣dren, 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 haz∣ard of themselves: for their Cause at first was well resented and had many advanta∣ges, 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 diffi∣cult. 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, its in the King acting according to the Laws of Ad∣ministration. 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 ma∣ny 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 Pre∣cedents alledged for some of their Actions were extraordinary, and Acts of extraor∣dinary times. If the Counties and People of England had not been ignorant and di∣vided, 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 think an or∣dinary power continued on foot till the Members were secluded, yet there was no such thing; for the two Houses could not according to ordinary Rules exercise the Ordinary power of the King, though they might use his name, and did so contrary unto his consent. If they should alledge that his power was forfeited and did di∣volve

upon them, that would be hard to prove. We know well enough, if it be not in him, where it is: it could no ways be in them but for the exercise, and in them for that end it was an extraordinary way. Some would say, that if the King was dead either naturally or in Law, a Parliament must instantly dissolve and be no Parliament, because there was wanting an essential part. The act of continuance could not help them in this case, for it presupposed all the three essential parts. Neither could any particular Parliament enact, that there should be a Parliament without all the three essential members. If they should make any such Act, by a fol∣lowing Parliament it may be repealed, and the parties in the name of the People of England, called to account for altering the Fundamental Government. For we must not favour on particular Parliament, so as to wrong all England, or suffer any ill exam∣ple to be given. Yet, if ever any Parlia∣ment did deserve not only to be pardoned, if they did some things amiss, but to be re∣warded for their service, surely this Parlia∣ment did: for never any suffered more even from him who summoned them, and from them who chose the particular Mem∣bers: Never any was brought into the like straits: I mean, that this respect was to be had to the upright party. But, if there was no ordinary power, what must the people do in such a case and distracted con∣dition?

In this I will give mine opinion in that which follows.

[section 10] Whether could the Act of alteration, which required the ingagement or any of the alterations, which followed, introduce an Obligation to Subjection? The answer is, they could not in any ordinary way do any such thing. For if the constitution was dissolved, and the personal Majesty forfei∣ted, it must devolve unto the people, and no Parliament, nor part of a Parliament, or any other person but the people could either alter the former Government nor Model a new one: For according to the general principles of Government, the right of Constitution, Alteration, Abolition, Refor∣mation is the right of real Majesty; if it be not their right, then the people may be bound to Subjection without their con∣sent. A Parliament may declare it, but some make it a Question whether their De∣claration be binding? If they who requi∣red the engagement did intend to exclude a King, who should separate from them, or refuse to act with them, or challenge an Absolute power. 2. To abolish the House of Lords, as distinct from that of the Com∣mons with a Negative Voyce in Legislation, and of such Lords as were Lords by Writ or Patent only. 3. To declare that upon a dissolution the power was devolved to the people, it was the more tolerable, Yet who gave them power to do this, or de∣clare this? When I mention the people

of England as the primary subject of Pow∣er, and the heir of real Majesty, I mean the rational judicial party; for no consent of people, that is not rational and agreea∣ble to the Laws of God, is of any force. And I exclude not only such as are barely Members virtually, but all Rebels,* 1.3 Tray∣tors, and malignant persons. For in the midst of these Bloody distractions, and perplexity of minds, there was a Sanior pars, a rational judicious party that un∣feignedly desired the Peace, Welfare, and happiness of England. And, when many Members of a Community are insufficient of themselves to judge, what is just and good, & many of them perverted, the power remains in parte saniore, aut in parte hujus partis valentiore; and in those, who upon right information shall consent with them. For many who are not able of themselves to judge, yet when they are rightly infor∣med, are willing to consent. But to return unto the former Question, seeing there was no ordinary power, which could in∣troduce any strict Obligation, what must the People do in such a Case? What's their duty? The Answer is, That though there was no Ordinary, yet there was an Ex∣traordinary Power ever since the Wars were ended to this day, which they were bound to obey. For, 1. Seeing the Commu∣nity of England did remain, and in the same better party, Real Majesty did con∣tinue. 2. The Fundamental Govern∣ment

could not be dissolved by one King and one Parliament, though they both had agreed to do it. For, though as to them it was actually dissolved, yet the right might remain virtually in the Com∣munity; I mean, a right to continue it, if they pleased. 3. As the Case now is, and was since the Wars were ended, this Fun∣damental Government could not be so re∣stored as to Act. 4. All parties did agree that there should be a Government and a Power for Protection, and Administration of Justice; but the difference was, what the Model should be and most of all, who should Exercise this Power. Some did chal∣lenge and seek it for themselves, some for their Friends, whom they conceived to fa∣vour their party and interest. For many of the Royalists were for the late Kings El∣dest Son, not so much for the Publick good, as for the private interest: and many other parties were guilty of the very same crime. 5. Government it self for the substance is more material, than this or that form, and the Exercise of Power, than the Exercise by such or such particular Persons. For, if there be not a Governing Power, and some to Exercise it, and the rest to submit, there can be no protection from Enemies, no Justice, no Order, but a meer Anarchy, upon which a ruin instantly and unavoida∣bly will follow. For prevention whereof much may be done, which in a time of safety would be utterly unlawful. The

people may submit to any, whom they shall conceive shall be able to protect them, and willing to preserve the Laws for Administration of Justice. They need not stand upon doubtful Titles, nor Quiddities in Law, but may do what they can do, so that it be not unjust by the moral Laws of God. 6. Seeing some particular Government was necessary, and all rational men did agree in this, there∣fore there was an obligation to subjecti∣on, and every particular person was bound to submit unto the present power, under which they enjoyed the benefit of the Laws, and protection both from publick Enemies and private Injustice. This is not so to be understood, as though every one or any ought to rest in this extraor∣dinary condition, but to desire and en∣deavour to restore the first constitution freed from corruption, or some part or degrees of it, and proceed by little and little, as God in divine providence shall prepare the people for it, and enable us to introduce it and settle it. But still we must prefer the publick good before any particular form of Government, and seri∣ously consider what is best to be done for the present. For, when we cannot do what we will, we must be willing to do what we can; whosoever will not submit in such a case, nay, and act too for the publick good and interest of his dear Country, must needs be guilty before God,

as not loving God, and his publick Neigh∣bour as they are bound to do. It was a just resolution and profession of some, who returned to act in Parliament, after the Members were secluded, and the King put to death, and said though they did not like and approve of some things already done, yet they would joyn cordially with the rest to promote the publick good for future times. So likewise the Judges, af∣ter another great alteration was made, debating what to do, they unanimously a∣greed to act, because there was a necessi∣ty that Justice should be administred un∣to the people, and the Laws kept in force. They did not think it fit to demur and delay till the names of King and Parlia∣ment should be put in their Commission: they knew they were not essential to Ju∣stice, or necessary, or so much as condu∣cing to the administration thereof, as the case then was. Neither did they scruple to undertake the work, because of the for∣mer Oaths, Protestation, Covenant, En∣gagement: for, if these did tye their hands from doing God and their Country ser∣vice, they knew they must be vincula ini∣quitatis, but so they did not understand them. The sum is, there was an extra∣ordinary power, besides the Allegiance due unto God and our Country, and therefore subjection was due from all English men. Let us suppose an Inter-regnum, as there hath been, is and in part will be till we be

more fully settled, and the power ordina∣ry brought into a constant channel, will a∣ny man doubt or fear to submit and act, because he conceives things are not order∣ed according to his mind? And shall there be no Government, no submission till he be satisfied, and his Idea established? Sup∣pose all should do so, especially such as are of parts and ability, what will become of us all? Let wise men consider what would be the consequents thereof. It's true, no party should engross the power to the pre∣judice of our Liberty and the publick good; yet we must stay God's time, and use such means as may stand with the pub∣lick safety. Some kind of remedies may at some times help, which at another may do mischief, not cure, but kill. We should remember that it's not committed to man but reserved by God unto himself to di∣spose of the Kingdoms and States of the World. It's not in our power to have and chuse what Government and Governours we will. That we, after such bloody Wars and bitter Dissentions have not a settled State, it's God's Judgments upon us for our sins; that for the present we en∣joy peace and the Gospel, it's his unspeak∣able mercy: Let every soul therefore be sub∣ject to the higher powers, for there is no pow∣er but of God: the powers that be, are ordain∣ed of God. Let us submit our selves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether to the king as supream, or unto governours, as

unto them who are sent by him for the punish∣ment of evil-doers, and the praise of them that do well. Where, amongst other things, these are observable, That Governours, and Government are of God. 2. That the end of Government is the punishment of Evil-doers, and the praise and protection of them that do well. 3. That Govern∣nours are supreme and subordinate. For by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, turned ordinance of man, is meant, Civil Government molded by man, and Governours designed and cre∣ated by man to rule over man. 4. That subjection to these is due by Divine Law and Ordination. These things I thought good to deliver, and to express my mind briefly in the matter of subjection, and do humbly in this (as in all the rest) submit to wiser men; and my intention is peace, and my end the publick good; which I with a single heart desire to promote, with∣out any inclination to a Faction or Party.

The Authors of Politicks speak of the distinction, division, and education of sub∣jects; and though some of these belong to a Community, or are presupposed before a Community can be compleat, some of them are reduceable to administration, the se∣cond part of this Art: yet I will briefly handle them in this place, because they are accidents to pars subdita. 2. Because they prepare the Subject for Government, and so facilitate Administration. The method is this:

Subditi,

• ...distinguuntur in eos qui tales
  • ...imperfecte ut
    • ...peregrini Ecclesiastici,
    • ...incolae utri{que} Ecclesiastici,
  • ...perfecte
    • ...nati utri{que} Ecclesiastici,
      • ...nobiles
      • ...plebai
    • ...facti utri{que} Saeculares.
• ...Dividuntur, in partes.
  • 1.
    • ...majores
      • ...Provincias,
      • ...Comitatus,
    • ...minores,
      • ...Centurias
      • ...Decurias.
  • 2.
    • ...Aequales, quae co-ordinantur
    • ...In aequales, quae subordinantur,
      • ...Minores majoribus, singulae toti,
• ...Educantur modo
  • ...nobiliori in
    • ...Scholis
    • ...Collegiis
    • ...Academiis studii generalis
      • ...Philosophiae,
      • ...Jurisprudentiae,
      • ...Medicinae,
      • ...Theologiae.
• ...Minus nobili ad Rempublicam
  • ...conservandam
    • ...hinc
      • ...agricultura,
      • ...opificium quod
      • ...melius ordinatur per
        • ...Collegiae,
        • ...Vniversitates
    • ...defendendum, hinc ars militatis,
    • ...ditandam & ornandam, hinc Mercatura.

This, though not so accurate, is suffici∣ent for my design, seeing the principal sub∣ject of my discourse is Ecclesiastical Go∣vernment, and for the more particular and distinct knowledge hereof, I refer the Rea∣der to other Authors, who have written more at large concerning these particulars. Yet not to be altogether silent, let us speak first of strangers: then secondly, of com∣pleat subjects.

Incomplete & imperfecte subditi sunt

• ...peregrini
• ...incolae.

Strangers are such as either only sojourn, or such as fix their Habitation in another Common-Wealth, where they are nei∣ther perfect Members of the Communi∣ty, nor compleat Subjects of the Common-Wealth. Such as only sojourn or travel out of their own state, are called Peregrini, in the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and sometimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, this is their name when they are in another Common-Wealth. There may be many Reasons and Causes sojourning and pere∣grination. Abraham by Gods special com∣mand forsook his own Country, and so∣journed in the Land of Canaan, so did Isaac and Jacob. Some are persecuted and fly from their own Country for safety and shel∣ter; some guilty persons fly for to avoid punishment; some sojourn for succour in a time of Famine, as Israel in Aegypt; some

live in Forraign Nations for Traffick; some for to improve their Knowledge and gain Experience in several kinds of Professions. To such we owe much of our skill in Trades, several Workmanships, in Learn∣ing, in Geography, in the nature of their Soyl, Buildings, Military Art; the Man∣ners and Customs of several Nations, the Disposition and Nature of the Inhabitants, in the Model of States, in the manner of Administrations. Some converse in other States to learn Fashions, or Wickedness; some as Spies and Intelligencers. The ends and the events are therefore several. Some are good and benificial to themselves, to their Country, to other Nations. The Issue of some mens Travel is Vanity, or Vice, or Mischief. There are Strangers, who do not meerly Travel and Sojourn, but also fix their Habitation in other States; these are called Advenae incolae, and in Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, though the word be used for Pilgrims and Sojourners. Neither of these are properly Subjects of that State where they live, yet they ought to carry themselves fairly, and not do any thing to the prejudice of the Laws or Go∣vernment of the places where they do con∣verse: and according to their good carri∣age they are to be used civilly. It was Gods charge to Israel to use Strangers well, because they themselves had been Strangers in the Land of Aegypt. For Strangers are used strangely, and in Forraign Coun∣tries

exposed to many abuses and dangers. But special kindness is to be shewed to such as are miserable, and fly for Religion, or for protection. The Magistrate of eve∣ry Common-Wealth should have a special eye upon these Strangers, and enquire into their carriage and their practice. To re∣ceive too great multitudes of them, may be dangerous, and some may do mischief, either by corrupting the Subjects, or seek∣ing to betray the State. Neither is it safe to naturalize many of them, much less to advance them to places of Power and Trust, which must needs offend the Subjects and and Natives, especially when these are fa∣voured and prefered, and the other are neglected. The Judgment of God upon the Jew in this respect is very heavy; for they are commonly hated in all places, and not suffered to inhabite in any Nati∣ons, and where they are permitted to dwell and trade, hard terms are put upon them.

Perfecte & plene subditi sunt

• ...nati.
• ... [section 12] facti.

There are besides Strangers, such as are properly and compleatly subjects, who ac∣cording to their subjection enjoy the benefit of protection, the rights and priviledges of Subjects. Yet there is a great difference amongst these, according to the several con∣stitutions of States. For, some are far

more free and enjoy far greater priviledges, as the Roman Subjects did, as is evident in Paul, who said to the Centurion, Is it law∣ful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman and uncondemned? Acts 22.25. For a Roman could neither be condemned un∣heard, nor scourged, if not condemned. These had divers other priviledges, which the Provincial Subjects had not before they were infranchised. The Subjects of England, if they enjoy their right, are more free then the Subjects of France or Spain, and divers other Countries. Some are little better than Slaves, especially such as live under Despotical Soveraigns. The right and priviledges of Subjects are acquired se∣veral ways, which may be reduced to two. For some are such by birth, which are called Cives originarii, some by allection. This distinction is the same with natural and naturalized, as you heard in the Do∣ctrine of a Community. This distinction is implied in these words of the chief Cap∣tain Lysias, saying, With a great summ ob∣tained I this freedom; and of Paul, who answered, but I was free born, Acts 22.28. The seas Subjects were essentially the same, and if either should as such be perferred, the native Subject caeteris paribus had the priority. Subjects also as Subjects are equal, though in divers other respects accidental unto them, they may be very unequal; some may have special priviledges; some may be Officers, and by vertue of their

Office have their priviledges. Here some take occasion to speak of the multitude and paucity of Subjects in the same Ter∣ritory and State. If they be few, they may receive Fugitives and adopt Strangers, as Romulus did. If they be too many, they may send out Colonies, and make new Plantations. If the multitude be not too great, it's the honour of the Sove∣raign and safety of the State; if too few, it's the weakness of a Nation, and a dang∣er of destruction. For, in the multitude of people is the King's honour, but in the want of people is the destruction of the Prince, Prov. 14.28. Yet this is to be understood of a multitude well qualified and ordered by a good Prince. For, Ty∣rants and Oppressours waste and destroy their people to their own ruin.

[section 13] There is another distinction of Subjects, for they are

• ...Ecclesia∣stici,
• ...Saeculares.

By Ecclesiastical persons are understood, such as are indeed Subjects, yet their Office and Work is in matters of Religion; they act between God and Man, as Messengers and Mediators between them. They de∣liver God's mind to men, and offer mens Prayers and Gifts to God. They offici∣ate in Divine Services, and that's their chief∣est Work. They are singled out from a∣mongst men to direct others unto eternal Life. These anciently were called Priests,

and their place was honourable: yet there was an imparity amongst themselves. In the New Testament, these Ecclesiastical persons never called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Priests, but Mini∣sters of the Gospel, or Presbyters: under which words are signified all Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastours and Teach∣ers. So that the word Priest was only gi∣ven to Christ or Melchisedeck; or the Levi∣tical Pontiffs and Ministers, or some Hea∣thenish Sacrificer. Yet in after-times, be∣cause the Sacrament of the Eucharist was a Commemoration of the Sacrifice of Christ,* 1.4 therefore in respect thereof the Table was called an Altar, and the Mini∣ster a Priest. At length, the Church of Rome turned the Sacrament into a Sacri∣fice, properly so called, and the Mini∣ster into a Priest. And this was the ori∣ginal of the Mass. This Ecclesiastical Function was instituted by God, and very honourable both in that respect, and also because their work is so excellent and ne∣cessary: for upon it under God, Religion and the benefits of Religion both private and publick, temporal and eternal do much depend. To these by divine Com∣mands Maintenance is due from the peo∣ple, and they have been much honoured in well constituted States with many pri∣viledges and immunities. But their own unworthiness, and the prophaneness of the people have much debased them. Yet, good Ministers with good people will be

much esteemed to the World's end: and when the chief Shepheard shall appear, They shall receive a crown of glory, which fad∣eth not away, 1 Pet. 5.4. These were accounted as a distinct and eminent Order of Subjects, as they were solemnly ordain∣ed. The rest of the subjects and the So∣veraign, in respect of these, have the name of Seculars, and the Subjects are called La∣icks, or Lay-people. This distinction is not so to be understood, as though the rest of the people had nothing to do with Religion. For they are bound to serve their God, and seek Eternal Life, which that they might attain, this spiritual Of∣fice was ordained from Heaven. And every 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 se∣quester himself from worldly business more than other men to tend his Calling, to which he is consecrated and solemnly de∣voted. 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Lot or Inhe∣ritance 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 (Cle∣ros) fell upon Matthias, Acts 1.26. From whence some think the system of Presby∣ters and Deacons, were called the Cler∣gy 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, signify one made and an Officer by Lot. As for Laity, we find often in the Old Testament, the peo∣ple as distinct from the Priests and Levites, called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Laity. The Apostle and seventy Disciples were distinguished from the rest of the Disciples and Believers. The Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pa∣stours and Teachers, were different orders from the rest of the Church. The twen∣ty 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. E∣very one will be a Prophet and a Teach∣er, either presuming upon their gifts, yet scorning to engage themselves for the ser∣vice of Christ in the poor and much de∣spised Ministery; or pretending blasphe∣mously 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 anci∣ent Nobility of England is much diminish∣ed and decayed, and many of their E∣states alienated; and the late Barons cre∣ated 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 Wis∣dom, 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 prin∣cipal, 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 divi∣sion of the whole body of the Subjects in∣to parts: and this is necessary, especially in respect of the Administration. For with∣out an orderly division the subjects can∣not 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Heads of their Tribes; and their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 Centuri∣as and Decurias. We read that Alfred di∣vided England into Counties; Counties into Hundreds; the Hundreds into Allot∣ments. 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 Ti∣things, 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 o∣pen view, and none durst meddle with

them. To this head belongs the num∣bring the people by pole, enrowling their Names and Estates, without which Tax∣ations 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 Coun∣ties, 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 proceed∣ings, that Actions in Law might proceed according to the subordination of Courts. For anciently with us Actions did com∣mence 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 Coun∣ty Court, from thence to the King's Court. In the word Comitatus, Sir Henry Spelman observes, this was the ancient Or∣der, and thinks it an abuse and great dis∣order, that in our days, every petty Busi∣ness 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 con∣jecture 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 di∣visions of England in the time of the Ro∣mans, yet they are not clear and certain. Under the Saxons he finds several divisi∣sions, 1. Some according to certain pro∣portions of Lands. 2. He makes the Heptarchy an argument that it was di∣vided into seven parts. At length he concludes his political Division with that of Counties, which he, as Sir Henry Spel∣man, ascribes to the King Alfred. But I have read, that it was thus divided before his time, and this is more probable, be∣cause the Myrrour informs us of Counties, and of Counties before there were any Saxon Kings:

Vt subditi

• ... [section 15] distinguuntur
• ...sic distincti
  • ...dividuntur
  • ...educantur modo
    • ...nobiliori,
    • ...minus nobili.

After the division and distinction of Sub∣jects, follows Education; and in the very Constitution of a State, some special care must be taken of this. There is some E∣ducation in a Family,* 1.5 but more perfect in a Community, but the best and most per∣fect is found in a well constituted and or∣dered State, which in laying the very Foundation, provides for the better Insti∣tution of the Subjects. The end hereof is the good of the people, and preparing for the preservation of the Community,

and the better and more easie administra∣tion and Government of the Common-wealth. There are few, to whom God in the Creation of their immortal Souls, and their mortal Bodies, hath not gi∣ven some special power, disposition, and propension to something more than a∣nother. The work of Education is to improve those principles and pow∣ers, so as to bring them to a greater per∣fection. And for such as have the care of Education, it's an excellent piece of Wisdom, to discover what the Genius and Disposition even of Children is, and what they seem to be made for: and so by in∣struction and example, draw it to the height and utmost pitch it's capable of. How many excellent sparks are raked up in the ashes of Sloth and Negligence, or else utterly quenched, or at least made useless by a diversion of them to other things, to which God did not dispose. Great is the ignorance, imprudence and negligence of Parents, Masters, and others in this particular. This Education is ei∣ther more noble and excellent, or less and inferiour: The more noble is that which improves mens knowledge either in Hu∣mane or Divine Learning. Humane Learning, both in Arts and Languages is useful for the State, and beneficial to the Church. By reason man excels a beast, and by learning he excels other men, and by divine Learning he is made like unto

Angels, and to God his Creator. For this end wise and good men, being of a publick spirit, and intending the general good, erect Schools, Colledges and Uni∣versities, and endow them with competent Maintenance, for to encourage such as shall take the care of them. Of the ori∣ginal and progress of these Societies, we may read in Hospinian. Yet, much more we may find, then he hath written of them. Schools strictly taken as with us, are only for the entering of Children, and teaching the Rudiments of some Arts and some Languages. Colledges and Universities serve for higher improvement, neither are they limited to some particular Arts or Languages, but according to the Clause in their Charter, Licentia generalis Studii; They may enlarge to all Learning, all Languages. Yet, this general Study is u∣sually confined to Philosophy, Law, Me∣dicine, Theology. The principal design of them should be to breed Gentlemen for the State, and Ministers for the Church: But, there is not any due care taken to furnish the Nation with either of these. Some by their constant and diligent pains do much improve themselves. Such as are idle and negligent lose the opportuni∣ty, their time, and their very School-learning, mispend their days in vanity, and learn iniquity; and the sons of the Nobility, Gentry, and Rich-men, are much guilty in this Respect. It's pitty

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

that such noble Foundations should thro' our ignorance be so little beneficial: and it's a great sin, which God will punish, that they are so much abused. These places for Learning are great blessings of God, if we would make right use of them, we should find it to be so. But it is a sad thing to consider how both Instruction is neglected, and Discipline remitted. In this kind of Education the Jesuites are said to excel, and to single out the best capa∣cities to direct them orderly in learning both Languages and Arts, till they have made them general Schollars, teaching them how to make use of their Learning: And their Discipline is strict, but it's pitty, that all this improvement should be made subservient to a wrong end. There is hardly any intelligent People or State, that doth not provide some, that should be skilful in Religion, and know how to officiate in Religious Services; and for these they provided a sufficient Mainte∣nance. These were anciently Priests, and many of them great Schollars, and such as did instruct others, who should succeed them, and direct the people in the Worship of a Deity, upon whose fa∣vour they conceived, the publick Weal and Happiness did much depend. Yet many of the Heathen Priests had famili∣arity with the Devil, and were great Ma∣gicians.

There is an inferiour kind of Educati∣on, yet in reference, and that ad Rempublicam

• ...Conservandam
• ... [section 16] Defendendam
• ...Ditandam:

The first is for the preservation of the Common-wealth, without which the sub∣jects cannot live, or the Common-wealth subsist: Husbandry, and Trade, and Ma∣nufactures tend to this end. And though this may seem to be an institution proper to Families, yet Familes make a Com∣mon-wealth; and the Governours should take special care of ordering these aright, that so the State may have sufficient Com∣modities both of Growth and Manufa∣cture, not only for it self, but for Expor∣tation to bring in what the Country wants most. Under Husbandry, we may com∣prize not only the Tillage and manuring of the Ground, but also the ordering of Cattel. These were the first professions in the World: for Adam brought up his Children to this purpose. Abel was a Keeper of Cattel, and Cain a Tiller of the Ground, Gen. 4.2. And Noah planted a Vineyard: for he began after the Flood to be an Husbandman, and planted a Vine∣yard, Gen. 9.20. These are so generally necessary, that the wise man saith, The pro∣fit of the earth is for all, the king himself is sa∣ved by the field, Eccles. 5.9. There are certain manual Trades without which a

people cannot well subsist, as Cloathing, and all such works as belong thereunto, which are many. Next, are such as are for building, as Masons and Carpenters; For a man must have House and Harbour; for this end also such, as Tubal-Cain, who work in Iron and Brass, are useful, and are subservient to many other professions. Amongst these some are for curious Workmanship, as Bezaleel; some professions are not much useful, and rather hurtful than beneficial for a State; as be∣ing subservient only to vanities, pride, and unlawful pleasures. Therefore the Magi∣strates should have a special care to order these, to cast out all idle people, all lazy beggars, and set the poor on work. None that can work should be idle, but take up∣on them some honest profession, and no professions or persons should be suffered, who bring detriment into the Common-wealth.

[section 17] These professions of Husbandry, keep∣ing of Cattel, Manufactures, and mecha∣nick Trades, if well ordered, tend much unto the preservation of the State, for with∣out them it cannot well subsist. Yet there is another institution, and the same noble and necessary to the defence: for there may be raised Rebellions, and Sediti∣ons within, and there may be Invasions from without. From both these there is great danger to the Common-wealth; therefore as every thing is armed with

some power to defend it self, so a suffici∣ent strength is required in every political Body for to continue the safety thereof. And this is a Sword, not only of Justice but of War. This Sword of War especi∣ally cannot be well managed without a sufficient skill, which cannot be had with∣out instruction, exercise and experience. Hence the Art Military is not only useful but necessary in every well ordered State. One thing especially requisite in this pro∣fession, is to have good Commanders, men of valour and prudence, able to lead and instruct others. God himself would have Israel his own people a Warlike Nation. Therefore, after that he had given them pos∣session of the Land of Canaan, he left some certain Nations unsubdued, only that the Generations of the Children of Israel, might know how to teach them War, at least, such as knew nothing before of it, Judg. 3.1, 2. Those who lived in the times of Joshua were well experienced, but the Ge∣neration following had no experience, nei∣ther could they learn any without some Enemies constantly to exercise them. Therefore, though Wars be heavy Judge∣ments, yet it's the will of God, there should be warlike dissentions, and that for many ends: 1. To punish the wickedness of the World. 2. To let men know, how sweet a blessing Peace is. 3. To be a Nursery and School of breeding gallant men, especially when he by them intends

to do some great work. In consideration of these things, its good that any State in time of peace, not only chuse Captains, train Souldiers, provide Arms: but also send some into forraign Wars to learn ex∣perience. Of this part of Institution, as also of that of Learning, you may read at large in Contzen. Polit. lib. 4. & lib. 10. Of the Laws of War Grotius may be con∣sulted. That some Wars are lawful, es∣pecially such as are necessary and under∣taken for our defence, there's no doubt: and not only defensive but offensive arms may be justified out of the Holy Scrip∣tures, and from the Example of Abraham, Joshua, many of the Judges, and David, who were excellent Commanders, under whom many gallant men served: when God intended to ruin Judah, he threatens to take away the mighty Man, Esay 3.2. It's a sad presage, when the Gentry and Nobility of a Nation become vicious and effeminate: and this was one cause of that heavy Judgment of God which many of them suffered in the late Wars: Where∣in England gained great skill and experi∣ence both by Sea and Land, yet with the woful expence of much of her own blood. And how happy had we been, if so much valour had been manifested in the ruine of the Enemies of Christ and his Go∣spel. Whosoever desires to understand more of this Subject, as belonging to Politicks, let him read Military Books.

If this be so necessary for the defence and safety of an earthly State; how much more is the spiritual Militia necessary for the defence of our Souls?

[section 18] There is another profession, and the same useful for many things, but in parti∣cular, for to enrich the State; its that of Merchandise and Traffick. These Mer∣chants are of several sorts: some deal in petty Commodities, and sell by parcels; some are for whole sale; but the chiefest are such as are great Adventurers, and Trade by Sea, and Traffick with all Nati∣ons. These are the great Monyed Men of the World, who have great Princes and whole States their Debtors. These furnish us with Rarities and Varieties of the Earth, and enrich us with the Commodities of East and West, South and North, and the remotest parts of the World. These make new discoveries, and might furnish us with many rare inventions, Books and Arts, but most intend rather private gain than publick good. It were to be wished, that our luxurious and wicked expences were turned another and better way, to maintain Schollars in those Countries, where they maintain Factours, for the improvement of Learning and the propa∣gation of Religion. The King of Spain, and the Jesuites are the only Politici∣ans in this kind: though it be a Question, whether this profession be not derogatory to Nobility. Yet King Solomon and Jeho∣saphat

were Adventurers in Corporations, and great Cities, these Tradesmen and Merchants have their several Companies and their Orders, and are called by some Systemes, which cannot be well regulated, without some Laws of the Soveraign pow∣er

Notes

• * 1.1

  Soveraign real.
• * 1.2

  Personal Measure of subjection rightly bounded.
• * 1.3

  The ratio∣nal part of a people the heir of real Majesty.
• * 1.4

  The Sacra∣ment what
• * 1.5

  Education.