A30577:451
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.
We do not stand so much upon the oath that every King takes, as upon the original agreement between people and King, whereby this power was conferred first upon such a family, and for that we say that no more power was conferred then was done by virtue of that agreement; and why there should not be the same reason in the Covenant between a Country and a Family in matters of so high a nature, as there is in other Covenants amongst men, let the Doctor show, or any for him.
We doe not stand so much upon the oath that every King takes, as upon the originall agreement between people and King, whereby this power was conferred first upon such a family, and for that wee say that no more power was conferred then was done by vertue of that agreement; and why there should not be the same reason in the Covenant between a Countrey and a Family in matters of so high a nature, as there is in other Covenants amongst men, let the Doctor shew, or any for him.
The Doctor confesseth, Page 16. line 21. That Laws are for the restraint of the power of Princes.
The Doctor confesseth, Page 16. line 21. That Lawes are for the restraint of the power of Princes.
But at length after the discussion of the business, he tells you that to argue any forfeiture of power by breaking his covenant, is an inconsequent argument. You must believe him, because he says so: If his bare word will not satisfy you, you are like to have nothing else.
But at length after the discussion of the businesse, he tels you that to argue any forfeiture of power by breaking his covenant, is an inconsequent argument. You must beleeve him, because he sayes so: If his bare word will not satisfie you, you are like to have nothing else.