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	hand_n	47	3	4.7496	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.

7. Mat. 10 ver 40. as if God were doing personally these acts that the King is doing and it importeth as much as the King of Kings doth these acts in and through the Tyrant Now it is blasphemy to think or say That when a Kings is drinking the blood of innocents and vvasting the Church of God That God if he vvere personally present vvould commit the same acts of Tyranny God avert such blasphemy and that God in and through the King his lavvsul deputy and vicegerent in these acts of Tyranny is wasting the poor Church of God If it be said in these sinfull acts of tyranny he is not God's formal vicegerent but only in good and lawful acts of Government yet he is not to be resisted in these acts not because the acts are just and good but because of the dignity of his royal persone Yet this must prove that these who resist the King in these acts of Tyranny must resist no ordinance of God but only that we resist him who is the Lord's deputy What absurdity is there in that more then to disobey him refuseing active obedience to him who is the Lord's deputy but not as the Lord's deputy but as a man commanding beside his Master's warrand 5. Pag. 263. That which is inconsistent with the care and providence of God in giving a King to his Church is not to be taught Now God's end in giving a King to his Church is the feeding saifty preservation the peacable and quyet life of his Church 1 Tim. 2 2. Esai 49 ver 23. Psal 79 7. But God should crosse his owne end in the same act of giving a King if he should provide a King who by office were to suppresse Robbers Murtherers and all oppressours and wasters in his holy mount and yet should give an irresistible power to one crowned Lyon a King who may kill a Thousand Thousand protestants for their religion in an ordinary providence and they are by an ordinary law of God to give their throats to his Emissaries and bloody executioners If any say the King will not be so cruel I beleeve it because actu secundo it is not possible in his power to be so cruel we owe thanks to his good will that he killeth not so many but no thanks to the genuine intrinsecal end of a King who hath power from God to kill all these and that without resistence made by any Mortal man Yea no thanks God avert blasphemy to God's ordinary providence which if Royalists may be beleeved putteth no bar upon the illimited power of a Man inclined to sin and abuse his power to so much cruelty Some may say the same absurdity doth follow if the King should turne papist and the Parliament and all were papists in that case there might be so many Martyres for the truth put to death and God should put no bar of providence upon this power more then now and yet in that case King and Parliament should be judges given of God actu primo and by vertue of their office obliged to preserve the people in peace and godlinesse But I answere If God gave a lawful official power to King and Parliament to work the same cruelty upon Millions of Martyrs and it should be unlawful for them to defend themselves I should then think that King Parliament were both ex officio and actu primo judges and Fathers and also by that same office Murtherers and butchers which were a grievous aspersion to the unspotted providence of God 6. Pag. 331. Particular nature yeelds to the good of universal nature for which cause heavy bodyes ascend aëry and light bodyes descend If then a wild bull or a goaring Oxe may not be let loose in a great market confluence of people and if any man turne so distracted as he smite himself with stones and kill all that passe by him or come at him in that case the man is to be bound and his hands fettered and all whom he invadeth may resist him were they his owne sones and may save their owne lives with weapons Much more a King turning a Nero King Saul vexed with an evil spirit from the Lord may be resisted and far more if a King endued with use of reason shall put violent hands on all his subjects kill his sone and heire yea any violently invaded by natures law may defend themselves the violent restraining of such an one is but the hurting of one Man who cannot be virtually the Commonwealth but his destroying of the community of men sent out in warres as his bloody Emissaries to the dissolution of the Commonwealth 7. Pag. 335. By the law of Nature a Ruler is appoynted to defend the innocent Now by Nature an infant in the womb defendeth it self first before the parents can defend it Then when parents and Magistrates are not and violent invading Magistrates are not in that Magistrates Nature hath commended every man to self defence 8. Ibid The law of nature excepteth no violence whether inflicted by a Magistrate or any other unjust violence from a Ruler is thrice injustice 1. He doth injustice as a man 2. As a member of the Commonwealth 3. He committeth a special kinde of sin of injustice against his office But it is absured to say we may lawfully defend our selves from smaller injuries by the law of Nature and not from greater c. These and many moe to this purpose may be seen in that unansvverable piece But I proceed to adde some mo● here 9. If it be lawful for the people to rise in armes to defend themselves their Wives and Children their Religion from an invadeing army of cut throat Papists Turks or Tartars though the Magistrates Superiour and inferiour should either through absence or some other physical impediment not be in a present capacity to give an expresse warrand or command or through wickednesse for their owne privat ends should refuse to concurre and should discharge the people to rise in armes Then it cannot be unlawful to rise in armes and defend their owne Lives and the lives of their Posterity and their Religion when Magistrates who are appoynted of God to defend turn enemies themselves and oppresse plunder and abuse the innocent and overturne Religion presse people to a sinful compliance there with But the former is true Therefore c. The assumption is cleare Because all the power of Magistrates which they have of God is cumulative and not privative and destructive it is a power to promove the good of the Realme and not a power to destroy the same whether by acting and going beyond their power or by refuseing to act and betraying their trust 2. No power given to Magistrates can take away Natures birth right or that innate power of self defence 3. It can fare no worse with people in this case then if they had no Magistrates at all but if they had no Magistrates at all they might lawfully see to their owne self