A30577:441
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.
2. Howsoever, the point of inheritance or conquest cannot hinder; For first, none inherits but that which his Progenitors had, & his Progenitors had no more originally then by consent was given them: therefore the difference between Kings by inheritance, and Kings by election, in this case is not much. And for Conquest, that only settles former right, or makes way to some farther agreement, to add to, what was former. The right comes not from power to conquer, or act of conquering, but from some agreement, precedent, or consequent.
2. Howsoever, the point of inheritance or conquest cannot hinder; For first, none inherits but that which his Progenitors had, & his Progenitors had no more originally then by consent was given them: therefore the difference between Kings by inheritance, and Kings by election, in this case is not much. And for Conquest, that onely settles former right, or makes way to some farther agreement, to adde to, what was former. The right comes not from power to conquer, or act of conquering, but from some agreement, precedent, or consequent.
He further argues, It is probable indeed that Kings were at first by choice here, as elsewhere; but can Conscience rest upon such remote probabilities for resistance, or think that first election will give power against Princes that do not claim by it?
He further argues, It is probable indeed that Kings were at first by choice here, as elsewhere; but can Conscience rest upon such remote probabilities for resistance, or think that first election will give power against Princes that do not claime by it?
1. Is it but a remote probability that Kings were here first by election? I demand, what first invested such a Family with Regal power, more then another?