Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	aaron_n	according_a	leprosy_n	25	3	11.5117	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A94178	A loyall subjects beliefe, expressed in a letter to Master Stephen Marshall, Minister of Finchingfield in Essex, from Edward Symmons a neighbour minister, occasioned by a conference betwixt them. With the answer to his objections for resisting the Kings personall will by force of armes. And, the allegation of some reasons why the authors conscience cannot concurre in this way of resistance with some of his brethren.	Symmons, Edward.	1643 (1643)	Wing S6345; Thomason E103_6; ESTC R212787	94,533	112

The Lord strooke him with leprousie vers 19. and then the Priests thrust him out of the holy place because of his uncleannesse according to the Law Nay sayes the Text vers 20. himselfe hasted also to goe out because the Lord had smitten him this example therefore makes nothing at all for the lawfulnesse of resisting the Kings person commanding against his owne Lawes Other examples as little to the purpose are also alleadged by those that would faine winde Gods Word to speake the language of their owne spirits but these onely were mentioned at our conference and therefore I will not spend time to answer any other which indeed are already answered by abler pens then mine Sect. 11 Now I come to the Argument from reason which in your thoughts as it seemes if you be in earnest doth imply a necessity of resistance in such a case Salus populi which is Suprema lex doth require it for thus you argue It is according to reason that every particular man should endeavour the preservation of his owne being yea 't is Lex naturae every member of the body every creature in the world will doe it ergo much more man who hath also the use of Reason to perswade him to defend himselfe against an unjust violence Indeed say you Christianity commands us patiently to submit when we are wronged by the Law but if against Law then we may stand upon our owne guard by all the Lawes of Nature and Nations As for example say you if a father or master whose commands are to be bounded within the compasse of their particlar relations shall by unjust violence require things unsuteable to be done the childe or servant may and ought to defend himselfe even to the disarming of his Governour so if a Prince shall command any thing beyond or beside the relation of his Kingly office as for example when a sentence is passed by a triall at Law for me against him he shall notwithstanding in his passion send to my house to do me violence I must defend my selfe and disarme him if I can for if in such a case I shall yeild my throat to his fury to be cut I shall be guilty of selfe murder and if this may be done for the safety of a private man then much more when Salus populi wrich is suprema lex doth require it These in breife as I remember were your Arguments and illustrations to which I thus answer First in generall Reason I grant ruleth well when Religion opposeth not but 't is her duty to vaile unto faith and therefore as you and I have often taught even reason her selfe must be denied in some cases as well as nature a Christian as well as another creature may and must looke to his owne preservation but we are bought with a price 1 Cor. 6.20 and so are not our owne nor must be in the first place for our selves the Honour of that profession which he that bought us hath entrusted us to maintaine must be preserved by us before life it selfe if selfe defence will blemish my Holy profession if resisting the King speakes rather the doctrine of the Iesuits then of Iesus I had rather by patience possesse my soule in safety then by opposing endeavour the preservation of my body Ob. But for the particular instances every member of the body say you will defend it selfe Answ True and all the Head yea every one of them will defend the Head before it selfe 't is naturall to them and if wee be right members of the Commonwealth the King is our Head Ob. Every Creature will endeavour the preservation of its own being Answ So will a reasonable man and a Christian in speciall ought so to do that he may do his Creator the more service but onely in that way and by those meanes as may not crosse the end of his beeing Ob. But Christianity commands to submit with patience onely when wronged by the Law Answ It hath beene already answered that Christian patience is not so limited if the Law be on my side when the King wrongs me my wrong is the greater and my patience in such a case is more glorious and comes nearer to perfection Ob. But the Kings Commands are bounded as those of a Father or master within the compasse of their particular relations Answ That is already denyed and must be better proved before I answer further onely this I adde that the similitude of a father or master is not to this case corresponding for 1. I am equall to my father or master as I am a Subject though their inferiour in my particular relation to them but so I am not to my Prince 2. I have a Law to warrant me to stand upon mine owne defence against them and to disarme them when they breake the Kings peace upon mee but I have not to justify me in my so doing against my Prince 3. The King hath not given a father or master potestatem vitae et necis over those that in their relations are under them as God hath given the King therefore although I may defend my selfe against them yet not against him to whom being the publick father and Lord I owe the greater duty and obedience and am to forsake them to serve him Answ 2 Besides I do not wholely yeild to the lawfulnesse of resisting a father or master onely for the unsuteablenesse of their command or perhaps because jujurious to the childe or servant if it be not impious in it selfe for that place of the Apostle seemeth to gainsay it servants b● subject to your Masters with all feare 1 Pet. 1 18.19 not onely to the good and gentle but also to the froward for this is thanke worthy if a man for Conscience sake toward God indure griefe suffering wrongfully q. d. when in the frowardnesse of their Spirits they command things unsuteable submit your selves and resist not now if subjection in such a case be due to Masters much more is it unto a Prince Answ 3 Or lastly I answer there is a medium between obeying and resisting in a case of that nature and that is complaining to those that are above them for fathers and masters are themselves also under Authourity unto which their children or servants may appeale for their own defence when unreasonable commands with violence are forced upon them and so may and must the Subjects do appeale to God in such a case 1 Sam. 8.18 who onely is above their Prince 1 Sam. 8.18 Ob. But suppose the streight be such that the Son or servant cannot appeale to the Magistrate hee must either yeild to the thing unlawfull or be killed if he do not resist Answ The case is never so between us and God Gen. 22.14 hee is every where to whom we may appeale yea providebit in monte our extremity is his best oportunity Quest But what warrant for this Answ I know your selfe at leasure can finde many I 'le minde

innocent and had that day been Gods Instrument of so great salvation unto Israel Nay Peter Martyr addes further that if the people did any more then pray if they pressed violently upon Saul in making a mutiny they sinned so that the first example is nothing to the purpose The second is of Davids strengthening himselfe against Saul To which I answer that I finde not in Scripture that David ever strooke up the Drum or used any meanes to call or gather men unto him for any such end indeed 't is said 1 Sam. 22.2 that many that were afflicted as he was gathered themselves unto him and he became their Captaine so that properly he strengthened not himselfe they rather strengthened him or the Lord by them preserved him for that imployment whereunto he was appointed But doe we ever reade of any act of hostility that David with them did exercise against Saul or against any of his followers so long as Doeg was in favour they might well pretend that the King had ill Councellours about him yet we reade not of any violence that was used to remove them Nay very easily might David have revenged himselfe upon the Ziphites that did their good will to betray him into Sauls hand if his conscience would have served him to kill any of the Kings Subjects against the minde of the King Whereas you say that you gather from 1 Chron. 12. that David was 40000 strong in the dayes of Saul and 't is probable he did not lie still with his great Army I answer it is not apparent that all those Captaines mentioned in that Chapter brought all their men with them yet if it were so it makes against you that David being so strong should alway flee from Saul when pursued by him and resist never much lesse seeke after him should get him out of Sauls Kingdome with so many men following him and beg a place to dwell in of Achish King of Gath. But Sir the truth is David was never above 600 strong till about the time that Ziglag was burnt which was about the time of Sauls death and that great concourse of men mentioned 1 Chron. 12. came then to him it may be probable that they fled from the battaile wherein Saul was slaine for the Text sayes vers 21. some of them helped David against the Rovers And vers 22 23. 't is said They came to him to turne the Kingdome of Saul to him according to the word of the Lord. It was well knowne in Israel that David was appointed to succeed Saul and who will not at such a time looke to the Sun-rising Thus to my apprehension the second example is as farre from the marke as the former Beside David being an extraordinary person full of Gods spirit and by unction designed of God unto the Kingdome his example in such a case is not proper Sam. 23. The third you alleadged is the businesse at Keilah It is supposed say you that David would have defended that Towne against the King if the Inhabitants would have beene faithfull to him ergo 'T is lawfull to resist the King and to keepe his Townes against him We use to say à facto ad jus non valet consequentia indeed this was not factum yet I see not how it followes It is so supposed but not by every body for some may and perhaps as simply suppose because 't is said afterward Chron. 12.1 that David kept himselfe close in Ziglag that he would also here have lien close in Keilah if the men thereof would as Rahab did the spyes but have concealed him But by the way here is one thing notable David it seemes though he was 600 strong in that Towne would not venture upon it for to hold it untill he knew whether he should have the good will of the Inhabitants he did not seize upon it on the suddaine whether the King and they would or no before they were aware and keepe it by force against both robbing killing and plundering his fellow Subjects But to the place the Text sayes vers 9. 1. Sam. 23.9 that David knew that Saul secretly practiced mischiefe against him and thereupon fearing some treachery in the men of Keilah if he stayed there being in a great streight He asked counsell of God about the matter and the Lord answered him accordingly and this was all the businesse But if you will suppose further that David had a purpose to have kept the Towne against the King if the Citizens would have stood to him I hope it may be lawfull for me to suppose also that the Lord whose counsell was asked both could and would have inclined their hearts to have beene faithfull if the thing purposed had beene lawfull but Gods answer speakes to my apprehension his disallowance of it and so doubtlesse it did to Davids as appeares by his departure and his never attempting any such matter afterward if the answer of God had been cleane contrary to what it was or such as might in any sort have countenanced his stay there had beene some colour to have alleadged this story for this matter of resistance but Gods wisedome would not have any such example upon record in his Word he fore-saw that they who are so bold upon a bare supposition would have beene more bold if more could be upon a plaine example Gods answer therefore is such that all may understand if they please his refusall of a blessing upon such an enterprise If it be yet urged upon me farther as was before the Committee what I thinke David would have done if he had staid in Keilah till Saul came I must make the same answer as I did then what David would have done I cannot tell but I suppose the men of Keilah would have done to him as the men of Abell did to Sheba afterward even cut off his head and throwne it o're the wall had the King came or sent for to demand it But truly I wonder that the example of David should be alleadged in this case of fighting against the King considering what his deportment to Saul was at two severall times when he had him at such advantage Chron. 26. ●s 17 18 c. But now for the last example that of Vzziah who for going in the pride of his heart sayes the Text into the Temple to meddle with the Priests office was withstood by Azariah the Priest and fourescore Priests with him that were valiant men But how was he withstood by these men in the Temple not with swords or weapons but vers 18. They withstood Vzziah the King and said unto him it perteineth not to thee Vzziah to burne incense unto the Lord but to the Priests the sonnes of Aaron who are consecrated thereunto goe out of the Sanctuary therefore for thou hast trespassed neither shall it be for thine honour from the Lord God thus they withstood Vzziah by saying these words unto him Indeed when he persisted notwithstanding this