A30577:452
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.
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.
Yet we would have him and all know, that we do not think that every breach of promise, and not performance of covenant in every thing, makes a forfeiture: this indeed were a dangerous consequent. But the question is, Whether no breach of Covenant may possibly in any case make a forfeiture? We confess our selves not willing to dispute this too far.
Yet we would have him and all know, that we do not think that every breach of promise, and not performance of covenant in every thing, makes a forfeiture: this indeed were a dangerous consequent. But the question is, Whether no breach of Covenant may possibly in any case make a forfeiture? We confesse our selves not willing to dispute this too farre.