Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	aaron_n	appoint_v	priest_n	20	3	6.2781	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A30577	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.	Burroughs, Jeremiah, 1599-1646.	1643 (1643)	Wing B6074; ESTC R4315	105,730	154

who knowes what he would have done but we are sure as it is it is defensive and that is all it is to prove that Subjects may take up Arms ●o defend themselves against the injustice of their Kings For that example of David at Keilah all the answer to that is that it is an uncertain supposition But examine the place you shall finde it as certain as a supposition can be It appeares plainly that David had some expectation that the men of Keilah would have stood to him and kept oft Saul comming against him and if they would it is apparent by the Text that David would have stood to it though Saul had come against him In the Text it is as plain as this Suppose the King were neere Hull going a-against Sir J. Hotham and Sir J. Hotham should seek to make sure of the men of Hul and enquire whether they would deliver him or not if the King came and he should come to know that certainly they would and upon that very ground slies away is this now an uncertaine supposition that Sir John Hotham would willingly have the Town stand to him and if they would stand to him he would stay there and defend himselfe against the Kings forces Hi last answer to Davids example is that his example was extraordinary because he was anointed to be King after Saul But yet for the present he was a private man although God had bestowed somthing extraordinary upon him more then upon other men but it follows not therefore that in this case he had an extraordinary power to resist the Prince Prince Charls hath no more power to resist his Father then the Parliament hath For the example of Elisha using the Kings messenger rough'y that came to take away his head he sayes it sayes little to the question in hand Yet he grants as much as it is brought for that defence is lawful against sudden and illegall assaults of Messengers sent by the King if against sudden why not against deliberate and plotted for they are worse This is one end of the raising of the Army to prevent such assaults If it be lawful to be done by violence by 2. or 3. when the messenger is but one then it may be done by 2. or 3000. when the messengers are 1000. For the example of the Priests thrusting out the leprous King That which this is brought to prove is thus much That there may be such uncleannesse in a King that may cause Subjects lawfully to resist him when he would doe a wicked act The Doctor sayes First Gods hand was upon him So when God shall leave a King to some horrible way of evil certainly Gods hand is upon him then He answers But he hasted to goe out himselfe But the Scripture tels us the Priests likewise thrust him out they would not suffer him to be in the Temple The next thing in the Sect. is a similitude from the naturall body Though a member may defend it selfe against outward violence yet no member must be set against the head for that tends to the dissolution of the whole If the similitude may be followed we say that some members are as necessary to the life of the head as the head is necessary to the life of those members 2. A Kingdome may sometimes have one head sometimes another but so cannot a naturall body Further he grants Personall defence doth not strike at the order and power that is over us but generall resistance by Arms he saith doth No it may maintain and regulate order and there may be as little injustice on the one side as the other But the case is not as Elishaes for the King professeth he will use no violence and we cannot know his heart But that example of Elisha is brought to prove the lawfulnes of using force against Kings in using violence and what violence hath been already used the world knows Page 10. He comes to Scriptures denying resistance let us see what full Scriptures these are The first is Num. 16. 1. c. The conspiracie of Corah and his company against Moses and Aaron It is strange that this example must be paralleld with our Parl. taking up Arms Was it not a most unjust and vile conspiracie meerly out of the pride of malicious spirits Can the D. or any man think that in justifying Arms in some case we justifie all villanous conspiracies and out-rages Besides this place condemns rising up against the Priest as well as the King Yea certainly if they had risen against the meanest officer that God had appointed in Church or Common-wealth as here they did against Moses Aaron it would have bin a very hainous offence Yea if Moses himself should have thus risen against any Officer appointed by God it had bin a vile sin in him therefore this proves no more against subjects resisting Princes then Princes resisting subjects or one subject resisting another Further we do not rise against His Majesty as they rose up against Moses Aaron we desire not that he should have lesse power then God the Laws have given him but we would preserve this in him and keep off the stroke of any further power so that we need not for this thing so much as examine the cause upon which they rose whether it were supposed or not for the case is far differing in the end of the rising But Corah and his company supposed the cause sufficient Supposed causes for any thing is not enough now we are not examining the truth of the cause of taking up Arms but whether they may not be taken up by the Subject against the mind of the King for any cause Wel our consciences need not be much scrupled from this Scripture Let us examine the rest he brings The second is 1 Sam. 8. 11 18. where the oppression of the King is mentioned and no means of help mentioned but crying to the Lord. Is the bare relation of the oppression of a King without mention in that place of any means of help but crying to God a sufficient proof that though Kings oppresse never so much yet there is no help Suppose I bring a place of Scripture where there is a relation of Subjects rising up in a wicked way against their Prince in that place there is no other help mentioned but only the Prince committed this to God God revenged it can there be drawn from thence an argument that when Subjects rise against Princes that they have no other help against them but committing the cause to God We need not go far for a Scripture in this kind the very place the D. brought before wil do it Num. 15. when Corah and his company rose against Moses we there read of no other help that Moses used but he committed the thing to God God revenged it But you wil say yet there are other places