A30577:411
The glorious name of God, The Lord of Hosts opened in two sermons, at…
The glorious name of God, The Lord of Hosts opened in two sermons, at Michaels Cornhill, London, vindicating the Commission from this Lord of Hosts, to subjects, in some case, to take up arms : with a post-script, briefly answering a late treatise by Henry Ferne, D.D. / by Jer. Burroughs.The glorious name of God, The Lord of Hosts opened in two sermons, at Michaels Cornhill, London, vindicating the Commission from this Lord of Hosts, to subjects, in some case, to take up arms : with a post-script, briefly answering a late treatise by Henry Ferne, D.D. / by Jer. Burroughes.
London: printed for R. Dawlman, 1643
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
To the first we acknowledge we must not resist for Religion; if the Laws of the Land be against it, we must either suffer, or seek to enjoy our Religion in the uttermost 1•arts of the earth, rather then resist.
- 1Ans.
For the Emperors subverting Laws and Liberties, he must prove that the people & senate had not given absolute power to them for the present, for the preventing further wills they feared, or else it reacheth not our case, for we know our people and Senate •ave not given any such absolute power. We must not be put to prove, they had, for it […] his argument; therefore if he will make it good, he must prove they had not. And yet •ppose they had not, if we should gratify the D. in that thing, yet the Argument would •e but weak: for the Apostle requires them not to resist their power, their [Greek or Hebrew]: he •oth not charge them not to resist their tyranny. Certainly they could have no power at that which was given them by some agreement; if they challenged further, it was no authority at all: such kind of tyranny as they would assume to themselves, the Apostle forbids not the resistance of in that place.
For the Emperors subverting Laws and Liberties, he must prove that the people & •enate had not given absolute power to them for the present, for the preventing further wils they feared, or else it reacheth not our case, for we know our people and Senate •ave not given any such absolute power. We must not be put to prove, they had, for it 〈…〉 his argument; therefore if he wil make it good, he must prove they had not. And yet ppose they had not, if we should gratifie the D. in that thing, yet the Argument would e but weak: for the Apostle requires them not to resist their power, their : hee oth not charge them not to resist their tyrannie. Certainly they could have no power at that which was given them by some agreement; if they challenged further, it was no uthority at all: such kind of tyrannie as they would assume to themselves, the Apostle rbids not the resistance of in that place.