Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	king_n	kingdom_n	law_n	7,454	5	4.9748	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A77374	The vvounded conscience cured, the weak one strengthned, [sic] and the doubting satisfied By way of answer to Doctor Fearne. Where the main point is rightly stated, and objections throughly answered for the good of those who are willing not to be deceived. By William Bridge, preacher of Gods Word. It is ordered this 30. day of January, 1642. by the committee of the House of Commons in Parliament, concerning printing, that this answer to Dr. Fearnes book be printed. John White. The second edition, correced and amended. Whereunto are added three sermons of the same author; 1. Of courage, preached to the voluntiers. 2. Of stoppage in Gods mercies to England, with their [sic] remedies. 3. A preparation for suffering in these plundering times.	Bridge, William, 1600?-1670.	1643 (1643)	Wing B4476A; ESTC R223954	47,440	52

their ancient and acoustomed liberties regiments and lawes they may not well be accounted rebells And the title of that page is the Law sometimes permits resistance and the margent is in some cases the Nobles and Commons may stand for their publicke regiment and laws of their Kingdome All which judgements of severall Divines I doe not bring forth as if I were of their mindes for deposing or punishing of Princes by the people which we plead not for in Hereditary Princes but to shew how the Doctors Dr. Willet Co. on Ro. 13. Q. 17. judgement is different from the judgement of the Divines of all Protestant Countries notwithstanding he would insinuate that our Divines of England are of his judgement and that our judgement is no Bilsons true difference between Christ●an subjection and unchristian rebellion p. 5. 251. new upstart opinion you see what was the judgement of the Divines in the Counsell of Basil where one of them saith thus That in every well ordered Kingdome it ought specially to be desired that the whole Realme ought to be of more authority then the King which if it happened contrary it is not to be called a Kingdome but tyranny so likewise doth he thinke of the Church c. And presently another of the Divines of the s●me Co●●●●ll saith thus For the Pope is in the Church as the King is in his Kingdome and for a King to be of more authority then his Kingdome this were too absurd ergo neither ought the Pope to be above the Church for like as oftentimes Kings which doe wickedly rule the Common-weale and exercise cruelty are deprived of their Kingdomes even so it is not to he doubted but that the Bishops of Rome may be dep●sed by the Church that is to say by the generall Councell neither doe I herein allow them which attribute so large and ample authority unto Kings that they will not have them bound under any Lawes for such as doe so say are but flatterers who do talke otherwise then they think For albeit that they doe say that the moderation of the law is alwaies in the Princes power● that do I thus understand that when as reason shall perswade hee ought to digresse from the rigour of the law for he is called a King who careth and provideth for the Common-weale taketh pleasure in the profit and commodity of the subjects and in all his doings hath respect to the commodity of those over whom he ruleth which if he doe not he is not to be accounted a King● but a Tyrant whose property it is only to suck his owne profit For in this point a King differeth from a Tyrant that the one seeketh the cōmodity profit of them whom he ruleth the other only his owne The which to make more manifest the cause is also to be alledged wherefore Kings were ordained At the beginning as Cicero in his Offices saith It is certaine that there was a certaine time when the people lived without Kings but afterward when ●and and possessions began to be divided according to the custome of every Nation then were Kings ordained for no other cause but only to execute Justice For when as at the beginning the common people were oppressed by rich and mighty men they ran by and by to some good and vertuous man who should defend the poore from injury and ordaine Lawes whereby the rich and poore should dwell together But when as yet under the rule of Kings the poore were oft oppressed lawes were ordained and instituted the which should judge neither for hatred nor favour and give like care unto the poore as unto the rich whereby we doe understand not only the people but the King to be subject unto the Lawes Then the Doctor tells us that he is against the Arbitrary way of government For saith he we may and ought to deny obedience to such commands of the Prince as are unlawfull by the Law of God yea by the established Lawes of the Kingdome Ans This reason doth no way destroy Arbitrary government but rather erect it For government is not said to be Arbitrary because the subjects may deny in word and so left to suffer For then the Tur●ish government is not arbitrary For when the great Turke commands his subjects to doe any thing if they will deny and suffer for their deniall they may and doe sometimes deny their obedience If there be lawes whereby a King is to rule which he shall command his subjects to breake and his subjects are neither bound to obey him nor suffer by him then his government is not arbitrary but if there be lawes made and he may inforce his subjects either to keepe them or breake them and punish them at his pleasure that shall refuse and the whole kingdome bound in conscience to suffer whatsoever he shall inflict for not breaking those Lawes then is his government arbitrary for arbitrary government is that whereby a Prince doth rule ex arbitrio which he doth when either there is no law to rule by but his owne will or when hee hath a power to breake those lawes at his will and to punish the subject at his pleasure for not breaking them and in truth this latter is rather an arbitrary government then the former as it shewes more liberty in the will that it hath a power to act when reason perswades to the contrary then if there were no reason disswading and else there should be no arbitrary government in the world For no State but hath some lawes whereby they rule and are ruled even the very Indians onely here lyes the arbitrarinesse of a government that notwithstanding the law the Ruler may pro arbitrio force his subjects according to his owne pleasure Then the Doctor saith We must consider that they which plead for resistance in such a case as is supposed doe grant that it must be concluded upon Omnibus ordinibus regni consentientibus that is with the generall and unanimous consent of the two houses Ans 1. First these words are ill translated for omnes ordines regni may consentire and yet there may not be an unanimous and generall consent of the Members of the two houses as of one man 2. If so that the Doctor grant this to be our Sentence why then doth he object against us that the Christians in the primitive times did not take up armes for the defence of themselves against the Emperors seeing they had not the consent of all the orders of the Empire and therefore their case is nothing to ours as hee pretends afterward But if they had the whole Senate of Rome with them the representative body of the Empire then their case had beene more like unto ours and then no question but they would have taken up armes for the defence of themselves Then the Doctor saith We suppose that the Prince must be so and so disposed bent to overthrow Religion Liberties Lawes c. Ans Here he takes that

thei● King Then the Doctor comes to other examples of his adversaries whereby the● contend as he sayes for resistance as that of the High Priest resisting the King in the Temple and Elisha shutting the doore against the Kings Messenger tha● came to take away his life to the first he sayes that the High Priest did no mor● then what every Minister may and ought to doe if the King should attempt t● administer the Sacrament that is reprove him and keepe the elements from him Ans But if that were all the Priests should not have beene commended for their valour but their faithfulnesse and ver 17. it is said that Azariah ● Chron. ●● 17 the Priest went after him and with him fourescore Priests of the Lord that were valiant men In that they were commended here for valiant it shewes that their worke was not onely reproofe but resistance And whereas he saith that they thrust him out of the Temple because God ●and was first upon him smiting him with Leprosie and by that discharging him of the Kingdome also Ans I answer how does that appeare out of Scripture that the King being smitten with the leprosie was an actuall discharge from his crown●● Then the Doctor saith Elisha's example speakes very little but let u● thence saith he take occasion to say that personall defence is lawfull against th● sudden and illegall assaults of such Messeng●rs yea of the Prince himselfe thu● far to ward his blowes to hold his hand and the like c. Ans 1. If you may ward his blowes and hold his hands this is mor● then praying and crying and suffering 2. Suppose the King hath an army with him how can you hold an armies hands without an army and therefore according to his owne word● it is lawfull for the subjects considered State-wise to raise an army to de●end themselves 3. But this instance of Elisha tells us that Messengers sent by the King to take away a mans life may be taken prisoners is not that a resistance for Elisha said see you how this son of a murderer hath sent to take away my head looke when the messenger commeth shut the doore and hold him fast at the doore 2 Kings 6. 32. Then the Doctor comes to answer a similitude of the body naturall and politicke whereby it is argued that as the body naturall so the body politicke may defend it selfe to which the Doctor answers as the naturall body defends it selfe against an outward force but strives not by schisme or contention within it selfe so may the body politicke against an outward power but not as now by one part of it set against the head and another part of the same body Answ Now therefore here the Doctor granteth that it is lawfull for the naturall body to defend it selfe against an outward force and what is the Militia for especially but against forrainers Then the Doctor distinguisheth betwixt a personall defence and a generall resistance by armes He saith a personall defence may be without all offence and doth not strike at the order and power that is over us as generall-resistance by armes doth which doth immediately strike at that order which is the life of the Common-weale which saith he makes a large difference betwixt Elisha's shutting of the doore against the Kings messenger and their resisting the King by armed men Answ But why was Elisha's defence personall because he was but one person that was defended then if one man defend himselfe against 1000. in armes that is a personall defence or was it personall because onely the person of the Prophet made defence and had none to assist him not so because he spake to the Elders to shut the doore and hold him fast and if this act of Elisha was contrary to the Kings command why did it not as immediately strike at the order and power that was over him as our resistance doth now indeed if the subjects as private men strengthned with no authority should gather together in a rude multitude to oppose lawes and governours then that worke should strike immediately at the order and power and life of a State but that the State should send out an army to bring in Delinquents to be tryed at the highest Court of the Kingdome that justice and judgement may runne downe like water which hath beene stanched up is rather to confirme and strengthen the order and power of authority and so it is in our case Then the Doctor proceeds to some Scriptures wherewithall hee thinkes to strengthen his opinion let us follow him First saith hee we have the two hundred and fifty Princes of the Congregation gathering the people against Moses and Aaron Numbers 16. 3. and perishing in thei● sinne Ans I answer that Moses and Aaron had not neglected their trust and our question is in the generall laying aside all respect to our Soveraigne whether a Prince neglecting his trust and doing that through his ba● Councell which may tend to the ruine of a State may not by the whol● State be resisted therein Now see how extreamly wide this instance 〈◊〉 from this question First of all the 250. Princes of the Congregation were not the whol● people nor the representative Body nor any imploied by the whol● people 2. Moses and Aaron had not offended but were innocent The Dr. answers The other supposed they had bin guilty and that is enoug● it seems Ans It seems so indeed by him that supposalls are enough to charg● the Parliament but with us supposalls are not enough to charge ou● Prince 2. The Dr. argues from 1 Sam. 8. 11. saying there the people are let t● understand how they would be oppressed under Kings yet all that violence and injustice that should be done unto them is no just cause of resistance for they hav● no remedy left but crying to the Lord vers 18. Ans In this Scripture Samuel shewed them what their King would do not what he should doe and when he saith at the 18. verse You shall cry out in that day because of your King which ye shall have chosen you and the Lor● will not heare you in that day he telleth them not what should be their duty but what should be their punishment for he doth not say then shall you cry unto the Lord and he shall heare you as is the manner of Scripture when it enjoyneth a duty to annex a promise of acceptance But he saith you shall cry in that day because of your King and the Lord will not heare you in that day setting forth the punishment of that thei● choise 3. The Dr. saith that according to Scripture the people might not be gathered together either for civill assemblies or for War but by his command wh●●ad the power of the Trumpet that is the supream as Moses was Num. 10. Answ The Parliament hath sounded no Trumpet for Warre but what the supreme power hath given commandement for For the● Doctor saith Section 1. page 2.

thinke of any such matter Object Why but if the people give the power then if abused they may take it away also Res No that needs not seeing they never gave away that power of selfe preservation so that this position of ours is the onely way to keepe people from such assaults whereby the power of the Prince is more fully established whereas if people were kept from power of selfe-preservation which is naturall to them it were the onely way to breake all in peeces for Nullum violentum contranaturale est perpetuum no violent thing against nature is perpetuall Thus have I clearly opened our opinion and proved our sentence give me leave now to speake with the Doctor Section I. THe Doctor saith That in the proposition or principle by the word resistance is meant not a denying of obedience to the Princes command but a rising in armes a forcible resistance this though cleare in the question yet I thought good to insinuate to take off that false imputation laid upon the Divines of this Kingdom and upon all those that appear for the King in this cause Gubernat●res ergo in ●is rebus quae cum decalog● justis legibus pugnant nihil juris aut immunitatis habent p●ae caeteris hominibus privatis perpretrantes id quod malum est Coguntur tam metuere ordinationem Dei gladium prestante ad vindictam nocentium quam alii homines privati nam Paulus Ro. 13. docet Deum ordi●asse instituisse potestatem illam gladio defendendi bonum puniendi malum praecipit ut omnis anima sic ipsi guber n●ores tali Dei ordinationi fit subjecta hoc est obligat ad sacien●●m bonum si velit defendi ist a. Dei ordinatione non ob sua facino●a impia puniri Magdeburgensis cent 1 l. 20. cap. 4. page 457. Quod a●tem ad nos proprie pertiner possum enumerare duodecim aut etiam amplius reges qui ob scelera flagitia aut in perpetuum carcetem sūt damnati aut exilio vel morte voluntaria justas scelerū poenas fugerant nos autemid contendimus populum a quo reges nostri habent quicquid juris sibi vindicant regibus ess● potentiorē Iusque idem in cos habere multitudinem quod illi in singulos a multitudine habent B●● de Gub Regni apud Sco●os Here the Dr. would insinuate in the very entrance of his book that so he might the better captare benevolentiam curry favour for the matter of his discourse following That the Divines of England are of his judgement But if they be so surely their judgement is lately changed But indeed what Divines are of his judgement not the Divines of Germany not the Divines of the French Protestant Churches not the Divines of Geneva not of Scotland not of Holland not of England Not the Divines of Germany who say thus Governours therefore in such things that are repugnant to the Law of God have no power or immunity above other private men they themselves commanding that which is evill have no power or immunity above other private men and they themselves commanding that which is evill are as much bound to feare the ordinance of God bearing the sword for the punishment of vice as other private men For Saint Paul in Rom. 3. saith that God did institute and ordaine a power both of defending that which is good and punishing that which is evill and he commands that every soule and so the Governours themselves would bee subject to this ordinance of God that is bound to doe good if they would be defended by this ordinance of God and not by their wicked deeds make themselves liable to punishment Not the Divines of the French Protestant Churches witnesse their taking up of armes for the defence of themselves at Rochell Not the Divines of Geneva For as Calvin in the 4. book of his institutions chap. 10. saith thus For though the correcting of unbridled government be revengement of the Lord let us not by and by think that it is committed to us to whom then is given no other commandment but to obey and suffer I speak alway of private men for if there be at this time any Magistrates in the behalfe of the people such as in old time were the Ephori that were set against the Kings of Lacedemonia or the tribuner of the people against the Roman Consuls or the Demarchy against the Senate at Athens and the same power which peradventure as things are now the 3 States have in every Realm when they hold their principal assemblies I do so not forbid them according to their office to withstand the outraging licentiousnesse of Kings that I affirm if they wink at Kings wilfully ranging over and treading down the poor Commonalty their dissembling is not without wicked breach of faith because they deceitfully betray the liberty of the people whereof they know themselves appointed to be protectors by the ordinance of God Not the Divines of Holland for we know what their practise is towards the King of Spaine Not the Divines of Scotland for Buca●an saith for I can number twelve ●r more Kings among our selves who for their sinne and wickednesse were either cast into prison during their life or else eschewed the punishment by banishment But this is that which we contend for that the people from whom the Kings have all that they have are greater then the Kings and the whole multitude have the same power over them as they have over particular men out of the multitude witnesse also their late taking up armes when they came into England which by the King and Parliament is not judged rebellion Not our English Divines whose judgement Dr. Willet was acquainted with as well as our present Dr. who saith thus Touching the point of resistance certaine differences are to be observed for when there is an extraordinary calling as in the time of the Judges or when the Kingdome is usurped without any right as by Athalia or when the land is invaded by forraigne enemies as in the time of Maccabees or when the government is altogether elective as the Empire of Germany in all these cases then is least question of resistance to be made by the generall Councell of the States yet where none of these concur God forbid that the Church and Common-wealth should be left without remedy the former conditions viz. those alledged by Pareus observed when havock is made of the Common-wealth or the Church and Religion Thus also Doctor Bilson whose booke was allowed by publicke authority and printed at Oxford speakes If a Prince should goe about to subject his Kingdome to a forraigne Realme or change the forme of the Common-weale from Empery to Tyranny or neglect the lawes established by common consent of Pr. and people to execute his owne pleasure in these and other cases which might be named if the Nobles and Commons joyne together to defend

13. Chapter that the subjection and obedience here commanded by the Apostle is not passive obedience or subjection but active for the Apostle having said ver 1. and 2. Let every soule be subject to the higher power and not resist he saith at the third verse Why wilt thou not then be affraid of the power doe that which is good and at the sixth verse For this cause pay you tribute also But if the King command any thing that is unlawfull and sinfull the Doctor saith we are to be subject only passively therefore the subjection commanded and resistance forbidden in the Scripture not such as relates the unlawfull command of Princes as he affirmes when the Roman Emperour commanded things destructive to the Christian Religion accordingly Hierom upon the place Oftendit Apostolus in his quae recta sunt judicibus obediendum non in illi quae religioni contraria sunt And besides the Doctor himselfe confesseth page 11. that this prohibition was not temporary but perpetuall therefore to reach unto those times when the Prince should command that which was good therefore the subjection here commanded was active subjection and not meerly passive But the Doctor saith he will free this place from all exceptions and therefore he saith first I may suppose the King supreme as St. Peter calls him or the higher power as St. Paul here though it be by some now put to the question Answ And is it but now put to the question What shall we say then of that speech of Doctor Bilson By superiour powers ordained of God we understand not onely Princes but all publicke States and Regiments some where the people somewhere the Nobles having the same intrust to the sword that Princes have in this Kingdome and from this place Rom. 13. we are commanded to be obedient to those that are in authority Suppose we be in some country where there is no King but States doth not this Scripture command us subjection there also How therefore by the higher Powers here is meant onely the King The Doctor acknowledgeth that the Parliament is the highest Court of Justice in the Kingdome and the highest Court of Justice must needs fall within the compasse of these words the higher Powers unto which by vertue of this commandement of the Apostle we are to be obedient How then is this true which the Doctor saith that by the higher Power is meant the King onely or supreme in opposition to the Parliament But I prove it saith he For S. Peters distinction comprehends all that are in authority the King as supreme and all that are sent by him 1 Pet. 2. 13. in which latter ranke are the two Houses of Parliament being sent by him or sent for by him and by his Writ sitting there Ans Calvin and other Interpreters herein is contrary unto the Doctor Nam qui pronomen e●m ad Regem refe●unt multum falluntur Estigitur huc communi ratio●● commendandam omnium magistratu● authoritatē quod mancato Dei praesunt ab eo mit●unt●r unde sequitur quemadmodum Paulus do●●● Deo resistere q●i ab eo ordi nata non se obedienter submittunt Calv. in 2 Pet. 1. 13. who saith thus Those that referre the pronoune him to the King are much deceived for this is that common reason whereby the authority of all Magistrates is commanded because they doe rule by the commandement of God and are sent by him By him being referred to God by other Interpreters and to the King with the Doctor Then the Doctor saith secondly In this Text of the Apostle it is said All persons under the higher powers are expresly forbidden to resist for whosoever in the second verse must be as large as the every soule in the first Ans That which the Doctor aimes at in these words is to make the whole Parliament subject unto the King And who denyes them to bee the Kings subjects and that as men and Englishmen they should not be subject unto the King But if he meanes that as a Parliament they should be subject to enact and doe what ever he commandeth then how is that true which he saith in the 25. 26. pag. That there is such an excellent temper of the three States in Parliament there being a power of denying in each of them for what might follow if the King and Lords without the Commons or these and the Lords without the King might determine c. Or if he meane that as a Parliament jointly considered they are to submit passively unto the unlawfull commands of the King and that passive obedience is commanded only here in this 13. Ro. then this is so to straiten the Text as never any yet hath straitned it neither indeed can any conscience thinke that when the Apostle commands us to be subject unto the higher powers his meaning is only by way of suffering in his unlawfull commands and not by way of obedience in his lawfull commands Thirdly the Doctor saith That the Roman State might chalenge more by the fundamentals of that State then our great Councell he thinks wil or can Ans But what then Is it not therefore lawfull for the subjects now to resist the higher power commanding things unlawfull because the Apostle commanded there that we should not resist the higher powers in things that are lawfull Herein lyes the Doctors continued mistake He thinkes this command of the Apostle was given to the Christians to be obedient to Nero in his unlawfull commands whereas the Apostles command in this place reaches to all times and is made to all that are Christians Although they did live under Nero yet it does not follow that the Apostle commanded them to be subject to him in unlawfulls If indeed Nero's commandements were onely unlawfull and this direction of the Apostle was made onely to the Christians in those times and that the subjection commanded were onely suffering subjection then this Scripture might make much for his purpose But though Nero was an enemy to the Christians yet some of his commandements were lawfull and this direction of the Apostle was not made onely to the Christians in those times but as a generall rule for all good men and the obedience and subjection here commanded was not onely to be passive but active which I have proved already wherein I also appeale to the Doctors own conscience whether that this Scripture doth not command active obedience and subjection to the Prince and therefore his interpretation thereof is exceeding wide and his argument null Then the Doctor saith If it be replyed that that prohibition was temporary and fit for those times as it is said by some whom he answers Ans I answer that the Doctor here makes his owne adversary and fights with him Many other answers he refutes also it being not in my purpose to make good every pamphlet but to satisfie mens consciences onely I cannot but here take notice that the Doctor professes against arbitrary

it yet we will examine what he saith in the arguments 1. he saith that the Apostle speakes expresly that the powers are of God Rom. 13. 1. and the ordinance of God vers 2. by which power he understands the power it selfe of Magistracy as distinguished from the qualifications thereof or designation of any person thereto 1. And if so how is that true which he saith before Section 2. where he saith that the higher power in Paul Rom 13. is all one with the King as supreme 1 Pet. 2. 12. whereas he confesseth that the government of a King or Prince is the qualification of the power so doth the Apostle himselfe calling it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an humane constitution 2. If by power here Rom. 13. be understood Magistracie and authority it selfe in the abstract then when we are commanded to submit thereunto the meaning cannot be that the Christians in those times must submit to the unlawfull commands of the Emperour as the Doctor would have it before seeing the way of governing by an Emperour or Prince is but the qualification of the power surely if by power we are now to understand Magistracie and Authority it selfe in the abstract then all that is commanded in the 13. Rom. to submit thereunto is to acknowledge a Magistracie then all the Doctors arguments and his strength whereby he would prove that we may not make forcible resistance to unlawfull commands from Rom. 13. falls to the ground Then the Doctor tells us in the same argument this power is called an ordinance of man subjective wherein he la●es this distinction That power is considered two waies either as it is subjective amongst men and so it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or else as it is considered causaliter and so it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of God Ans But this is too strait for it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not only because it is amongst men but it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an humane constitution in foure respects 1. because it is so causaliter the forme of severall governments being an invention of man 2. Subjective because it is amongst men 3. Objective because it is busied about men 4. Finaliter because it is ordained for man and the Common-weale yet power it selfe is the constitution and ordinance of God Then the Doctor proves That the power is of God because the Magistrate is called the Minister of God Rom. 13. vers 4. Ans But here he slips from the power it selfe to the person designed to the power for the power it selfe is not called the Minister of God which was the thing he undertooke for to prove And so in this third argument where he saith to the same purpose speak those other places By me Kings reigne I have said ye are Gods yet he confesseth that the formes of government by Kings and Emperours is an invention of man in the first argument But now suppose the Doctor had proved that the power abstractively considered is of Gods institution and had granted that the qualifications of this governing power in severall formes of government and the designation of the person thereto be of man what hath he gotten from or gain'd upon his imagin'd adversary For suppose that his adversary should say that they may depose their Prince if he neglect his trust which is not our case because that his power is originally from them how doth that which the Dr. hath said weaken this argument For though he hath proved that the power of it selfe is from God yet having granted that the formes of that government and the designation of a person thereto is from the people they may as well urge and say therefore we may alter the government and may depose the person because he was of our designing as well as they might have argued so if the power it self had been from themselves Then the Doctor saith The imputation is causlesse which the pleaders on the other side doe heedlessely and ignorantly lay upon us Divines as if we cried up Monarchy and that only government to be Jure Divino Ans To let passe reproaches how can we thinke otherwise if wee should beleeve all that the Doctor saith For he proves that the power mentioned Rom. 13. is Jure Divino and yet he saith Sect. 2. That the ●igher power there is all one with the Supreme or King in Peter but this with ●he nature of Monarchicall government we shall come to consider more ●ptly in that which followes The remaining part of this Section is but to prove that the power it ●elfe is of God that the qualification and designation was firstly of man which we all grant Sect. IV. NOw we come to the forfeiture saith the Doctor of this power if the Prince say they will not discharge his trust then it falls to the people or the two Houses the representative body of the people to see to it and to reassume that power and thereby to resist This they conceive to follow upon the derivation of power from the people by vertue of election and upon the stipulation or covenant of the Prince with the people as also to be necessary in regard of th●se meanes of safety which every state should have within it selfe Wee will examin● them in order Ans Herein he doth charge us with this opinion that wee hold it lawfull for the people to reassume their power in case the Prince dischargeth not his trust making the world beleeve that we contend for deposing of Kings or that the Parliament goes about such a worke as that is for what else is it for the people or Parliament to re-assume their power from the Prince whereas we desire all the world should know that we now take up armes as an act of selfe-preservation not endeavouring o● intending to thrust the King from his Office though for the present the State sets some under the King at the Ster●e till the waters be calmed as we said before Then the Doctor saith concerning the derivation of power we answer first if it be not from the people as they will have it and as before it was cleared the● can there be no re-assuming of this power by the people Ans How doth this follow for all that the Doctor had cleared before was this that power abstractively considered was from God no● from the people now let us see whether the clearing of that will brin● in such a consequence as this that there can bee no re-assuming of this power by the people if it will enforce such a consequence then the syllogisme is this ●f power and magistracy and authority it selfe be of God and the forms of government and designation of persons be of man the● there can be no re-assuming of this power by the people But the powe● itselfe and magistracy is of God the formes of government and designation of persons is of man saith the Doctor Sect. 3. Therefore there ca● be no re-assuming this power by