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	call_v	commission_n	30	3	9.4660	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A61509	Jus populi vindicatum, or, The peoples right to defend themselves and their covenanted religion vindicated wherein the act of defence and vindication which was interprised anno 1666 is particularly justified ... being a reply to the first part of Survey of Naphtaly &c. / by a friend to true Christian liberty.	Stewart, James, Sir, 1635-1713.	1669 (1669)	Wing S5536; ESTC R37592	393,391	512

so must be a precedent example for judges and Magistrates in all time coming and by this example any member of the Council might lawfully rise up and execute judgment on this wicked wreatch and his cursed fraternity who have brought by their apostasy and defection from the Covenant and cause of God the wrath and curse of God upon the land 2. That Phineas was the High Priest's sone we know and that he was afterward High priest himself is truth but that he was at this time a publick Magistrate or a member of the great Sanhedrin we see not It is true there were some Princes of the tribes men of renowne Numb 1. ver 16. but he is not mentioned among those neither were these the great Sanhedrin So these princes of the assembly Numb 16 2. were not the Sanhedrin which did consist but of 70 Members Numb 11. Nor was Phineas one of them And that congregation of the children of Israel mentioned Numb 25 6. amongst whom Phineas was ver 7. was not the Sanhedrin which we never finde as I remember so called but the whole body of the People who were then mourning partly for the sin commited and partly for the execution when the heads of the People vvere hanged up and a thousand moe killed by the judges at Moses his command for Paul 1 Cor. 10 ver 8. sayes there died of the plague tvventy three thousand and here vve finde there fell in all tvventy foure thousand Againe it is remarkable that this single act of Phineas in killing two persons is so much rewarded and taken notice of by the Lord yea more then the many who were killed by the judges ver 5. So that it seemes he was no publick Magistrate and that he did it with the approbation of Moses is probable but that Moses did command him we see not only we finde that the Zeal of God moved him and therefore is he highly rewarded though he was but the son of Eleazar the son of Aaron Yea that which the Surveryer citeth out of Deodat rather confirmeth this for Deodat calleth it an act of extraordinary zeal motion of God's Spirit and he addeth that Moses the Supreme Magisstrate did approve it but what needed this if he had been a Magistrate seing there was a command given to the Magistrates ver 5. and a command is more then an approbation Aquinas and Gerhard call him it is true a judge but we see no proof unlesse they could evince that he was a member of the Sanhedrin of which Gillespy speaks in his Aarons rod. lib. I. c. I. The Dutch Annotat. on Psal 106 31. Suppose him to have been no Magistrate but say that this fact was beside his ordinary calling His 2. answere is Pag. III. That suppose he had been a meer private person yet it could prove nothing because he did it with the approbation and good liking of Moses and so he is but the executor of that unanimous sentence Answ But not only is this not written but the scripture giveth another ground of his fact then any warrand or command of Moses And so his answere in rebus facti a non scripto ad non factum non valet consequentia is not to the purpose Now I say the scripture giveth another ground viz. his zeal for his God which is not spoken of the other judges who ver 5. were commanded of Moses to execute judgment yea that word Psal 106 30. then stood up Phineas and executed judgment clearely hinteth at more then his being a meer satelles Magistratus and the ample reward which was given him and the Lord 's counting it to him for righteousnesse speak some other thing then that he had a call of the Magistrate and was his executioner In the 3 place he sayes The cases are different for then was horrible idolatry and villanous whordome committed avowedly and with a high hand in the sight of the Sun and in way of open doing despite to God but it is not so now Answ Prudence might have taught him to have concealed this for it were easy to draw such a parallel as would make him afrayed if any did intend to follow that example For I am sure what ever he account of the present apostasy and how ever he mince it as no doubt zimri would have minced his uncleannesse when he justified the fact before the Council as he told us Iosephus said yet the apostasy and perjury is open avowed abhominable and villanous committed in the sight of the Sun in despite of God and maintained as right and lawful howbeit it be such as the very heavens may be astonished at For such open avovved malapert vvickednesse defection and perjury all things considered vvas never heard of in any generation Hovv our reformation aud confession of faith is maintained vve have heard and albeit he make all the change to be only a change of the exterior forme of Church government yet when he is before his judge he shall finde in the cup of this iniquity manifest avowed perjury overturning of the work of God destroying of the interest of Christ blasphemy near unto that unpardonable sin if not the very same in fathering the works of the right hand of the Most high on Satan open and avowed persecution of godlinesse opening of a gap to all licentiousnesse horrid iniquity increase of idolatry villanous and avowed whordome Sodomy atheisme and devilry and more wickednesse then tongue can tell or pen can paint out but is on clear record before the Lord. 4. Sayes he Let it be so that he was a meer private man and had no warrand from the Supreame Magistrate to do what he did his fact cannot warrand Men to attempt the doing of such acts unlesse they can shew as good warr and and approbation from God as he could Answ That he had God's warrand and approbation vve do not doubt but that it was such an approbation as was peculiar to extraordinary un-imitable acts is the thing in question we grant with him That God is the Lord of all Magistrates and of all men's lives can when it pleaseth him crosse ordinary rules and apppoynt some to execute his judgments extraordinariely but the question is whether every thing which the Surv. accounteth extraordinary is so indeed He may sayes he send Moses to kill the Egyptian Eglon to kill Ehud he should say Ehud to kill Eglon Elias to destroy companyes of men with fire from heaven or to kill Baal's Priests He may command Abraham to kill his sone Isaac he may excite David to a bloody duëel Sampson to murther himself Ans Will the Surveyer account these instances alike extraordinary and unimitable Sure Royalists will think that Ehud's killing of Eglon may warrand any private person now to kill a tyrant without title But I lay more weight upon Iohn Knox his distinction in this matter in his debate with Lithingtoun hist. of reformation Pag. 390. edit in fol. And as touching sayes Mr.

162. thinketh othervvayes and proveth that self defence is lavvful to a private person against the Magistrate for the lavv vvhich allovveth to repel violence vvith violence maketh no distinction betvvixt a publick person and a privat person and the law of Nature alloweth it against every one for it knovveth no difference And as to that vvhich some vvould say That his death would be hurt full to the Commonwealth He answereth That he who resisteth the Prince doth intend no hurt to the Republick and it is not per se but per accidens that he standeth in the way of the good of the Commonwealth and if he should suffer himself to be killed he should transgresse against the Law of Nature Yea I much doubt if the Surveyer himself would not rather kill in this case as be killed and with Naphtaly account Self-defence a principal rule of righteousnesse however now he would disprove this assertion if he could And would let that passe of loving himself more ad finem suum ultimum and suam virtutem Finally what he sayeth against this assertion of Naphtaly is to no purpose for the Author of Naphtaly will readyly grant that in some cases not only a man but a compauy of men may yea ought to preferre the preservation of others unto the preservation of their owne life because of a divine command to defend Religion Libertyes Posterity and Countrey from the unjust invasion and violence offered by wicked Emissaries But he shall never prove That the Body of a land or a considerable part thereof is to hold up their throats to be cut by the Kings cut-throats when he they are seeking to root out the Covenanted-work of Reformation to destroy the Libertyes of the land and to make all perfect slaves both in soul and body CAP. III. A fourth Argument Vindicated taken from Scripture-instances Our fourth argument shall be taken from instances of opposition and resistence made unto the Soveraigne or his bloody Emissaries by private subjects without the conduct or concurrence of their Representatives recorded in scripture and which we finde not condemned by the Spirit of the Lord So that whosoever shall condemne the late vindicators must also condemne these instances As. 1. They must condemne the Iewes standing for their lives against their Enemies armed against them with a commission from King Ahasuerus sealed with his ring which no man might reverse in the dayes of Mordecai Esther But some vvill say That they had the King's commission which did warrand them to take the sword of defence against any that should assault them under pretence of the former decree I Answere If their having of the King's commismission did in poynt of conscience warrand them It had been utterly unlawful for them to have withstood the King's butchers if they had not abtained that commission and warrand But what man of common sense will say this This later decree did in poynt of law warrand them to gather together with saifty and security that they might the more easily not only defend themselves from their Adversaries assaulting them but also to destroy to stay and to cause to perish all the power of the people and province that would assault them both little ones women and to take the spoile of them for a prey Esth 8 11. But didnot could not make their selfdefence against such manifest bloody cruelty lawful in poynt of conscience if otherwise it had been unlawful Though every instance will not in all poynts quadrate for nullum simile est idem yet vve have here in this instance these things for our purpose 1. private subjects without their Ephori or Representatives arming themselves for defence that 2. against bloody Emissaryes of the King 3. bloody Emissaries armed by a formal commission decree and vvarrand from the King 4. A commission formally never reversed but standing in force as the decrees of the Medes and Persians that might not be altered 5. and this defence as lavvful in it self in poynt of conscience for if it had not not been so the King's vvarrand had never made it so so declared lavvful in poynt of lavv by a decree from the King after better thoughts In imitation of vvhich It had been a commendable practice in the King and Council if they had been so farr from condemning these innocent self-defenders since as they thought in poynt of honour and credite they vvould not retract or reverse their decrees and commissions once granted that they vvould have authorized them and absolved them in poynt of lavv since in poynt of conscience no man could condemne them for standing to the defence of their Estates Lands Libertyes Lives and Consciences unjustly oppressed by mercylesse Emissaries 2. They must condemne the people their rescueing of Ionathan from the sentence of death unjustly given out against him by King Saul 1 Sam. 14 44. In ansvvere to this instance our Surveyer sayeth Pag. 65. That the people used no violence against Saul when he went about to put to Death innocent Jonathan but in the heat of souldiery boldnesse do effectually interpose with Saul and mediate for the life of Jonathan moving Saul to Wave respect to his rash oath and to regaird what was just and right Answ 1. The matter came not the length of violence but had the King pertinaciously adhered to his rash and sinful resolution and by force had offered to draw the innocent Man to death that which they did spoke clearly they would have resisted him for whether the King would or not yea contrare to his oath they sweare in the face of the King that Ionathan should not die 2. It is but gratis dictum that only in the heat of a souldiery boldnesse they did mediate beside that there seemeth to be a material contradiction here for souldiers mediating and interposing especially in the heate of souldiery-boldnesse useth not to be with humble supplications intreaties but with violence or with what will usher in violence 3. We heare of no arguments they use to move bloody Saul to change his purpose but this as the Lord liveth there shall not one haire of his head fall to the ground He sayes Pag. 66. That the people did not oppose an oath to Saul's oath for Junius exposition may passe well that they spoke not by way of swearing but by way of reasoning abhorring the destruction of such a person absit ut vivit Jehovah an cadere debet Ans The word which they use is no other way translated here by Iunius then elsewhere and elsewhere it hath clearly the import of an oath as may be seen Iudg. 8. 19. 1 Sam. 19 16. and 20. 3 21 25 26. and in many other places 2. The People spoke these words as Saul spoke them ver 45. and therefore they are directly an oath of the people opposed to Saul's oath 3. Iunius himself sayeth that they opposed a just oath to Saul's hypocritical oath Sanctius in locum sayeth the people