Selected quad for the lemma: prince_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
prince_n	ordinance_n	power_n	resist_v	2,543	5	10.0817	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A86917	A treatise of monarchie, containing two parts: 1. concerning monarchy in generall. 2. concerning this particular monarchy. Wherein all the maine questions occurrent in both, are stated, disputed, and determined: and in the close, the contention now in being, is moderately debated, and the readiest meanes of reconcilement proposed. Done by an earnest desirer of his countries peace.	Hunton, Philip, 1604?-1682.	1643 (1643)	Wing H3781; Thomason E103_15; ESTC R5640	60,985	86

of Cut-throats even though Saul himselfe were in presence This the Doctor sees plainly and therefore shuffles it off by saying His example is extraordinary as if he were not a present Subject because he was designed by Gods revealed counsell to be a future King And he confesses Elisha's example of shutting the doore against the Kings messenger proves personall defense against sudden illegall assaults of messengers which is the thing in Question Sect 4 Let us now view the strength of what is said against resistence whether any thing comes home against this Assertion Arguments on the contrary dissolved The Doctors proofes from the old Testament come not to the matter Moses and afterwards the Kings were of Gods particular designation setting them absolutely over the people on no condition or limitation so that did they prove any thing yet they concerne not us respecting a Government of another nature But particularly that of Corah and the Princes rebelling against Moses is not to the matter it was a resistence of Moses owne Person and Office and doubtlesse penury of other proofes caused this and the rest here to be alledged For that 1 Sam. 8 18. how inconsequent is it to say the people should cry unto the Lord therefore they had no other meanes to helpe them but cries to God though I confesse in that Monarchy they had not That speech 1 Sam. 26 9. was most true there and is as true here but not to the purpose being spoken of the Kings owne Person But the maine authority brought against resistence is that Rom. 13. and on that Doctor Ferne builds his whole discourse Let us therefore something more largely consider what is deduced out of that Text. First he supposes the King to be the Supreme in Saint Peter and the Higher power in Saint Paul Secondly hee collects All persons every soule is forbidden to resist Thirdly that then was a standing Senate which not long before had the supreme Power in the Romane State It is confessed but that they could challenge more at that time when Saint Paul writ then our great Councell will or can I deny For that State devolving into Monarchy by Conquest they were brought under an Absolute Monarchy the Senate it selfe swearing full subjection to the Prince his Edicts and Acts of Will were Lawes and the Senates consent onely pro forma and at pleasure required He who reads Tacitus cannot but see the Senate brought to a condition of basest servitude and all Lawes and Lives depending on the will of the Prince I wonder then the Doctor should make such a parallel Indeed the Senate had been far more then ever our Parliaments were or ought to be but now that was far lesse then our Parliament hath been or I hope ever will be They were become the sworne Vassals of an absolute Emperour ours the sworne Subjects of a Liege or Legall Prince Fourthly he sayes then was more cause of Resistence when Kings were Enemies to Religion and had overthrown Lawes and Liberties I answere There were no causes for Resistence Not their enmity to Religion had they but a legall power because Religion then was no part of the Laws and so its violation no subversion of established government And for the overthrow of Lawes and Liberties that was past and done and the government new the Senate and all the rest actually sworne to absolute Principality Now an Ordinance of absolute Monarchy was constituted the sacred bond of an Oath had made it inviolate But what would he inferre hence all being granted him Sure this he doth intend That every soule among us severall and conjoyned in a Senate must be subject for conscience must not resist under paine of Damnation All this and what ever besides he can justly infer out of that Text we readily grant But can any living man hence collect that therefore no resistence may be made to fellow-subjects executing destructive illegall acts of the Princes will in a legall Monarchy Will he affirme that the Ordinance of God is resisted and Damnation incurred thereby Gods Ordinance is the Power and the Person invested with that power but here force is offered to neither as before I have made it appeare And herein we have B. Bilso● consenting where he sayes Bi●s●n of subje●● p 94 280. that the superiour power here forbidden to be resisted is not the Princes will against his Lawes but agreeing with his Lawes I thinke the day it selfe is not more cleare then this satisfaction to all that can bee concluded out of that Text so the foundation of all that discourse is taken from it if his intent were thence to prove unlawfulnesse of Resistence of Instruments of Arbitrarinesse in this Kingdome Let us also consider the force of his Reasons whether they impugne this point in hand He sayes such power of resistence would be no fit meanes of safety to a State but prove a remedy worse then the diseases His Reasons first because it doth tend to the overthrow of that order which is the life of a Common-wealth it would open a way to People upon the like pretences to resist and even overthrow power duly administred 2 It may proceed to a change of government 3. It is accompanied with the evills of Civill-Warre 4. On the same ground the two Houses proceed against the King may the people proceed to resistence against them accusing them not to discharge their trust Lastly seeing some must be trusted in every State It is reason the highest and finall trust should be in the highest power These are his main reasons on which he builds his conclusion against resistence To his first I say it were strange if resistence of distructive disorder should tend to the overthrow of Order It may for the time disturbe as Physick while it is in working disturbes the naturall bodie if the peccant humors make strong opposition but lure it tends to health and so doth this resistence of disorder to Order Neither would it open a way for the people to violate the Powers for doing right can open no way to the doing of wrong If any wicked seditious spirits should make use of the Vail of Justice to cover unnaturall Rebellion Shall a peoples right and liberty be taken from them to prevent such possible abuse Rather let the foulnesse of such pretences discover it selfe so God and good men will abhorre them such Cloakes of Rebellion have in former ages been taken off and the Authors brought to just confusion without the expence of the liberties of this Kingdome To the second must not Instruments be resisted which actually intend and seeked a chang of Government because such resistence may proceed to a chang of Government Is not an unlikely possibility of change to be hazarded rather then a certaine one suffered But I say It cannot proceed to a chang of Government unles it exceed the measure of lawfull resistence yea it is impossible that resistence of Instruments should ever proceed to

did altogether crosse those ends of their Ordination he had taught them rather a Doctrine of Resistence then Subjection shall we conceive that hee would presse subjection to Powers in the hands of Heathens and Persecutors if he had not intended they should passively be subject unto them even under those Persecutions Rather I approve the received Doctrine of the Saints in ancient and moderne times who could never finde this licence in that place of the Apostle and doe concurre with Master Burroughs Answ to Dr. Ferne Sect. 2. professing against resistence of authority though abused If those saies he who have power to make Lawes make sinfull Lawes and so give authority to any to force obedience we say here there must be either flying or passive Obedience And againe We acknowledge we must not resist for Religion if the Lawes of the land be against it But what doe they say against this In making such Lawes against Religion the Magistrates are not Gods ordinance and therefore to resist is not to resist Gods ordinance As an inferiour Magistrate who hath a Commission of Power for such ends is resistible if hee exceed his Commission and abuse his Power for other ends so Princes being Gods Ministers and having a deputed Commission from him to such ends viz. the promotion of godlinesse Peace Justice if they pervert their power to contrary ends may be resisted without violation of Gods ordinance That I may give a satisfactory answere to this which is the summe of their long discourse I must lay it downe in severall Assertions First I acknowledge Gods ordinance is not onely Power Assert 1 but Power for such ends sc the good of the People Secondly it is also Gods ordinance that there should be Assert 2 in men by publike consent called thereto and invested therein a power to choose the meanes the Lawes and Rules of government conducing to that end and a power of Judging in relation to those Lawes who be the well doers which ought to be praised and who the evill doers who ought to be punished This is as fully Gods ordinance as the former for without this the other cannot be performed Thirdly when they who have this finall civill Judicature Assert 3 shall censure good men as evill doers or establish iniquity by a Law to the encouragement of evill doers in this case if it be a subordinate Magistrate doth it appeale must bee made as Saint Paul did to the supreme if it be the supreme which through mistake or corruption doth mis-censure from whom there lyes no Civill Appeale then without resistence of that Judgement wee must passively submit And he who in his owne knowledge of innocency or goodnesse of his cause shall by force resist that man erects a Tribunal in his owne heart against the Magistrates Tribunal cleares himselfe by a private Judgement against a publike and executes his owne sentence by force against the Magistrates sentence which hee hath repealed and made void in his owne heart In unjust Censures by the highest Magistrate from whom there is no Appeale but to God the sentence cannot be opposed till God reverse it to whom we have appealed In the meane time vvee must suffer as Christ did notwithstanding his Appeale 1 Pet. 2.23 and so must wee notwithstanding our Appeale 1 Pet. 4 19. for he did so for our example If an Appeale to God or a censure in the Judgement of the condemned might give him power of resistence none would be guilty or submit to the Magistrates censure any further ●hen they please I desire those Authors before they settle their judgement in such grounds which I feare will bring too much scandall to weigh these particulars First their opinion takes away from the Magistrate the chiefe part of Gods ordinance sc povver of definitive judgement of Lawes and Persons who are the good and who the bad to be held so in Civill proceedings Secondly they justifie the Conscience of Papists Heretickes and grossest Malefactors to resist the Magistrate in case they be perswaded their cause is good Thirdly they draw men off from the commands of Patience under persecution and conforming to Christ and his Apostles in their patient enduring without verball or reall opposition though Christ could not have wanted power to have done it as he tells Peter Fourthly they deprive the Primitive and Moderne Martyrs of the glory of suffering imputing it either to their ignorance or disability Fifthly it is a wonder that sith in Christs and his Apostles time there was so much use of this power of resistence they would by no expresse word shew the Christians this liberty but condemne resistence so severely Sixthly there is in the case of the Parliament now taking up Armes no need of these offensive grounds Religion being now a part of our Nationall Law and cannot suffer but the Law must suffer with it Sect. 2 Now to the proposed Question I answere first Negatively sc 1. 1. When arms ought not to be assumed It ought not to be done against all illegall proceedings but such which are subversive and unsufferable Secondly not publike resistence but in excesses inducing publike evils for to repell private injuries of highest nature with publike hazzard and disturbance will not quit cost unlesse in a private case the common Liberty be strooke at Thirdly not when the government is actually subverted and a new forme though never so injuriously set up and the People already engaged in an Oath of absolute subjection for the remedy comes too late and the establishment of the new makes the former irrevocable by any justifiable power within the compasse of that Oath of God This was the case of the Senate of Rome in Saint Pauls time 2. When they may be assumed Secondly affirmatively I conceive three cases when the other Estates may lawfully assume the force of the Kingdome the King not joyning or dissenting though the same be by Law committed to him First when there is invasion actually made or imminently feared by a forraigne Power Secondly when by an intestine Faction the Lawes and Frame of government are secretly undermined or openly assaulted In both these cases the Being of the Government being endangered their trust binds as to assist the King in securing so to secure it by themselves the King refusing In extreme necessities the liberty of Voices cannot take place neither ought a Negative Voice to hinder in this exigence there being no freedome of deliberation and choice when the Question is about the last end Their assuming the sword in these cases is for the King whose Being as King depends on the Being of the Kingdome and being interpretatively his act is no disparagement of his Prerogative Thirdly in case the Fundamentall Rights of either of the three Estates bee invaded by one or both the rest the wronged may lawfully assume force for its owne defence because else it were not free but dependent on the pleasure of the other Also the suppression of

And that One is either individually one Person and then it is a simple Monarchy Or one associate Body chosen either out of the Nobility whence the Government is called a simple Aristocraty or out of the Community without respect of birth or state which is termed a simple Democracy The supreme authority residing exclusively in one of these three denominates the Government simple which ever it be Now experience teaching People that severall inconveniences are in each of these which is avoided by the other as aptnesse to Tyranny in simple Monarchy aptnesse to destructive Factions in an Aristocracy and aptnesse to Confusion and Tumult in a Democracy As on the contrary each of them hath some good which the others want viz. Unity and strength in a Monarchy Counsell and Wisedome in an Aristocracy Liberty and respect of Common good in a Democracy Hence the wisedome of men deeply seene in State matters guided them to frame a mixture of all three uniting them into one Forme that so the good of all might be enjoyed and the evill of them avoyded And this mixture is either equall when the highest command in a State by the first Constitution of it is equally seated in all three and then if firme Union can be in a mixture of Equality it can be called by the name of neither of them but by the generall stile of a Mixed State or if there be priority of Order in one of the three as I thinke there must be or else there can be no Unity it may take the name of that which hath the precedency But the firmer Union is where one of the three is predominant and in that regard gives the denomination to the whole So we call it a Mixed Monarchy where the primity of share in the supreme power is in one Now I conceive to the constituting of Mixed Monarchy Sect. 2 and so proportionately it may be said of the other What it is which constitutes a mixed Monarchy 1. The Soveraigne power must be originally in all three viz. If the composition be of all three so that one must not hold his power from the other but all equally from the fundamentall Pos 1 Constitution for if the power of one be originall and the other Derivative it is no mixture for such a Derivation of power to others is in the most simple Monarchy Againe the end of mixture could not be obteyned for why is this mixture framed but that they might confine each other from exorbitance which cannot be done by a derivate power it being unnaturall that a derived power should turne back and set bounds to its owne beginning 2. A full equality must not be in the three estates though Pos 2 they are all sharers in the Supreame power for if it were so it could not have any ground in it to denominate it a Monarchie more then an Aristocracie or Democracie 3. A power then must be sought wherewith the Monarch Pos 3 must be invested which is not so great as to destroy the mixture nor so titular as to destroy the Monarchy which I conceive maybe in these particulars 1. If he be the head and Fountaine of the power which governs and executes the established Lawes so that both the other States as well conjunctim as divisim be his sworne subjects and owe obedience to his commands which are according to established Lawes 2. If he hath a sole or chiefe power in capacitating and putting those persons or societies in such States and conditions as whereunto such Supreme power by the foundations of the Government doth belong and is annexed so that though the Aristocratical and Democraticall power which is conjoyned to his be not from him yet the definement and determination of it to such persons is from him by a necessary consecution 3. If the power of convocating or causing to be put in existence and dissolving such a Court or Meeting of the two other estates as is authoritative be in him 4. If his authority be the last and greatest though not the sole which must establish and adde a consummatum to every Act. I say these or any of these put into one person makes that State Monarchicall because the other though they depend not on him quoad essentiam et actus formales but on the prime constitution of the Government yet quoad existentiam et determinationem ad subjecta they doe The Supreme power being either the Legislative or the Gubernative In a mixed Monarchy sometimes the mixture is the seate of the Legislative power which is the chiefe of the two The power of constituting officers for governing by those Lawes being left to the Monarch Or else the Primacie of both these powers is jointly in all three For if the Legislative be in one then the Monarchy is not mixed but simple for that is the Superiour if that be in one all else must needs be so too By Legislative I meane the power of making new Lawes if any new be needfull to be added to the foundation and the Authentick power of interpreting the old For I take it this is a branch of the Legislative and is as great and in effect the same power Every mixed Monarchy is limited but it is not necessary Sect. 3 that every limited should be mixed For the Prince in a mixed Monarchy were there no definement of him to a Law but onely this that his Legislative acts have no validity without the allowance and joint authority of the other this is enough to denominate it exactly a limited Monarchy and so much it must have if it be mixed On the other side if in the foundations of his Government he be restrained to to any Law besides his own Will he is a limited Monarch though that both the Legislative and Gubernative power provided he exceed not those Lawes be left in his owne hands But then the Government is not mixed Now concerning the extent of the Princes power and the Sect. 4 subjects duty in a mixed Monarchy How far the Princes power extends in a mixed Monarchy almost the same is to be said which was before in a limited for it is a generall rule in this matter such as the Constitution of Government is such is the Ordinance of God such as the Ordinance is such must our duty of subjection be No Power can challenge an obedience beyond its owne measure for if it might we should destroy all Rules and differences of Government and make all absolute and at pleasure In every mixed Principality First Looke what Power is solely entrusted and committed Assert 1 to the Prince by the fundamentall Constitution of the State in the due execution thereof all owe full subjection to him even the other Estates being but societies of his subjects bound to him by Oath of Allegeance as to their liege Lord. Secondly those acts belonging to the power which is stated Assert 2 in a mixed Principle if either part of that Principle or two of the

the publike interest it should be managed by such an authority and way as that is Secondly such as introduce a necessity of publike charge be it matter of War or else if to the effecting of it the Purse of the Kingdome be required it is evident that it ought to be done by the concurrence of all because they onely jointly as appeares before have power to impose a publike charge on the estates of men And it were all one to put the power of our estates in the hands of one as to put the power of such undertakings in his sole hands which of necessity bring after them an engagement of publike expence CHAP. V. Quest 5 How far forth the two Estates may oppose and resist the will of the Monarch THis Question is in the generall already handled in the Sect. 1 first Part so that it will be easie to draw those Answers there to this particular here Therefore conformably to what I then affirmed I will answere this Question by divers Positions Pos 1 First the Monarch working according to his power not exceeding the Authority which God and the Lawes have conferred on him is no way to be opposed either by any or all his Subjects but in conscience to Gods ordinance obeyed This is granted on all sides Secondly if the will and command of the Monarch exceed Pos 2 the limits of the Law it ought for the avoidance of scandall and offence be submitted to so it be not contrary to Gods Law nor bring with it such an evill to our selves or the publike that we cannot be accessary to it by obeying This also will find no opposition Disobedience in light cases in which we are not bound makes an appearance of slighting the power and is a disrespect to the person of the Magistrate Therefore Christ to avoyd such offense would pay tribute though he tells Peter He was free and need not have done it Thirdly if hee command a thing which the Law gives Pos 3 him no authority to command and it be such as would bee inconvenient to obey in this case obedience may lawfully be denied This also findes allowance from them which stand most for royall power Doctor Ferne in his Preface acknowledges obedience to be limited and circumscribed by the established Lawes of the Land and accordingly to bee yeelded or denied And Sect. 1. sayes 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 Laws of the land Here he sayes more then we say yea more then should be said as appeares in the second Position it is not universally true that we ought Fourthly if he exceed the limits of the Law and proceed Pos 4 in courses illegall meanes there are which it is agreed upon the Subjects may use to reduce him to legall Government so much Doctor Ferne allowes Sect. 4. Cries to God Petition to the Prince Deniall of Obedience Deniall of Subsidie c. Fifthly but the point in controversie is about positive and Pos 5 forcible resistance the lawfulnesse of which some doe utterly deny and others doe as confidently maintaine but yet this point might be brought to a narrower state then in the confused handling of it it usually is by distinguishing twix't forceable resistence used against the Kings own person or against inferiour Officers and Instruments advising to or executing the illegall commands Sect. 2 For the first as I have before expressed my selfe force ought not to be used against the person of the Soveraigne on any pretence whatever by any or all his subjects even in limited and mixed Monarchies for if they be truly Monarchs they are irrevocably invested with Soveraignty which sets their persons above all lawfull power and force Also the Soveraign power being so conferred on that person The person and power cannot be really sundred but the force which is used to the one must also violate the other for power is not in the Soveraigne as it is in inferiour Officers as water is otherwise in the spring then in the channells and pipes deriving it It is not inseperably in them and therfore they offending force may be used against them without violation of the Ordinance of Authority These Arguments approve it unlawfull in any That which the Dr. brings I approve as strong against all private force where he allowes defence against the person of the Prince himselfe so farre as to ward his blowes but not to returne blowes no though for naturall defence because the Common-Wealth is concerned in his person Sect. 2. And to divert a private evill by inducing a publique is unjust and unlawfull so that for this point of force against the person of the Prince I thinke there ought to be no contention If any have bin so rash to hold it lawfull on these grounds that the whole Kingdome is above him because they make him King and that by miscarriage he may make a forfeiture and so lay himselfe open to force I do iudge these grounds very insufficient unles the Kingdome reserve a superiority to it self or there be a fundamentall clause of forfeiture on specified causes and then it is not properly a Monarchy but all this hath been already handled in the generall Part. Secondly for Instruments of oppression of publique liberty if the wrong be destructive and no other meanes of prevention but force be left I am perswaded it may be used and positive resistence made against them And if I find any contradiction from the most rigid Patrones of Royalty it must be only in this point And here I must complaine of the indistinct dealing of that Doctor in this matter who mingleth both these points together and scarce speakes any thing to resolve mens consciences in this But speakes either in generall or else of force against the Princes owne person Whereas I thinke the case which sticks most on the conscience at this time is this latter Of opposing mi●-leading and mis-imployed subjects which he speaks very little to Nay he seems to me after all his disclaiming of resistence to come home to us and though sparingly yet to assent to lawfullnes of resistence in this point For Sect. 2. speaking of Davids guard of armed men He saies It was to secure his person against the cut-throats of Saul if sent to take away his life He meanes to secure it by force for Souldiers are for force He meanes no negative securing by flight for that may be done even against Saul himselfe but he speaks of such a securing which might only be against cut-throats So then he grants securing by force against these But they went on Sauls command and mostly with his presence Againe in the instance of Elisha he seemes to acknowledge lawfullnesse of personall defence against the sudden and illegall assaults of Messengers he means by force for he speaks of such which he will not allow in publique which can be understood of none but by

force But it appears the Doctor in his whole discourse hath avoided this point of resistence of mis-imployed subjects which yet is the alone point which would have given satisfaction for before it appeares we agree in all the rest and in this too for ought I know he having not distinctly said any thing against it Now concerning this case of forceable resistence of inferiour Sect. 3 persons mis-imployed to serve the illegall destructive commands of the Prince I will doe two things 1. Whether resistence of Instruments of will be lawfull I will maintaine my Assertion by convincing Arguments 2. I will shew the invalidity of what is said against it Assert 1. This then is my Assertion The two Estates in Parliament may lawfully by force of Armes resist any persons or number of persons advising or assisting the King in the performance of a command illegall and destructive to themselves or the publique Arg. 1 1. Because that force is lawfull to be used for the publique conservation which is no resistence of the Ordinance of God for that is the reason condemning the resistence of the Powers Now this is no resistence of Gods Ordinance For by it neither the person of the Soveraigne is resisted nor his power Not his person for we speak of Agents imployed not of his own person Nor his power For the measure of that in our Government is acknowledged to be the Law And therefore he cannot confer Authority to any beyond Law so that those Agents deriving no Authority from him are meere Instruments of his Will Unauthorized persons in their assaults Robbers and as Dr. Ferne calls them Cut-throats If the case be put What if the Soveraigne himselfe in person be present with such Assaylants joining his personall assistence in the execution of his Commands It is much to be lamented that the will of the Prince should be so impetuous in any subverting Act as to hazzard his own person in the prosecution of it Yet supposing such a case all councells and courses must betaken that no violence be offered to his person and Profession of none intended But no reason the presence of his person should priviledge ruining Instruments from suppression and give them an immunity to spoil and destroy subjects better themselves His person being secured from wrong His power cannot be violated in such an Act in which none of it can be conferred on the Agents And sure David though he avoided laying hands or using any violence against the person of Saul and on no extremity would have done it Yet for the Cut-throats about him if no other means would have secured him he would have rescued himselfe by force from their outrage Though Saul was in their company Else what intended he by all that force of Souldiers And his enquiry of God at Keilah by which it is plain He had an intent to have kept the place by force if the people would have stuck to him Neither is it to the purpose which the Dr. saies Sect. 2. That his example was extraordinary because he was anointed and designed to succeed Saul for that being but a designation did not exempt him from the duty of subjection for the present or lessen it as is plain by the great conscience he made of not touching Saul But he knew it was one thing to violate Sauls Person and Power and another to resist those Instruments of Tyranny the Cut-throats which were about him Secondly Because without such power of resistence in Arg. 2 the hands of subjects all distinction and limitation of Government is vain and all formes resolve into absolute and arbitrary for that is so which is unlimited and that is unlimited not onely which hath no limits set but also which hath no sufficient Limits for to be restrained from doing what I will by a power which can restrain me no longer nor otherwise then I will is all one as if I were left at my own Will I take this to be cleare Now it is as cleare that without this forceable resistence of Instruments of usurped power be lawfull no sufficient limits can be to the Princes Will and all Lawes bounding him are to no purpose This appeares by enumerating the other meanes Prayer to God Petition to the Prince Deniall of obedience Deniall of Subsidie a moderate use of the power of denying as Doctor Ferne calls it These are all but what are these to hinder if a Prince be minded to overthrow all and bring the whole Government to his own Will For Prayer and Petition these are put in to fill up the number They are no limitations they may be used in the most absolute Monarchy for deniall of obedience that may keep me from being an Instrument of publique servitude but Princes Wills never want them which will yeild obedience if I deny it Yea enough to destroy all the rest if nothing be left them but to suffer Then for deniall of Subsidie if he may by thousands of Instruments take all or what he or they please and I must not resist what need he care whether the people deny or grant If a Prince be taught that he may do it cases and reasons will soon be brought to perswade him that in them he may lawfully doe it as late experiences have given us too much Testimonie Thus it is apparent that the deniall of this Power of Resistence of Instruments overthrowes and makes invalid all Government but that which is absolute and reduces the whole world de jure to an absolute subjection that is servitude for the end of all constitution of moderated forms is not that the supreme power might not lawfully exorbitate but that it might have no power to exorbitate The Dr. is conscious hereof and therefore tells us in his Sect. 5. This is the very reason which is made for the Popes power of curbing and deposing Kings in case of heresie because else the Church saies the Papist hath no meanes for the maintenance of the Catholique Faith and its own safety But who sees not the vast difference 'twixt these two and that the same reason may be concluding here which is apparently non concluding there For 1. They thereby would draw to the Pope an authoritative power we no such superiour power but only a power of resistence for self-conservation which nature and the Law of reason gives to every one and may stand with the condition of subjection and inferiority 2. They on this reason give the Pope a Power over the very person of the King we only of resisting of unauthorized invading destroyers comming under the colour of an authority which is not in the Soveraigne to be derived 3. They prove a civill right for spirituall reasons we onely for civill reasons 4. The Church and the faith are constituted in their very formall being from Christ himselfe who is the head and great Shepheard immediately in his owne person and as it is his owne family so he keeps the power of