Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	age_n	year_n	young_a	352	4	5.7811	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A82549	The oath of allegiance and the national covenant proved to be non-obliging: or, three several papers on that subject; viz. 1. Two positions, with several reasons of them, and consequences flowing from thence. 2. An answer to the said positions. 3. A reply to the said answer, wherein the truth of the positions is vindicated, and the oath of allegiance, and the national covenant are made non-obliging. / By Samuel Eaton, teacher of the Church of Christ at Darkenfield in Chesshire.	Eaton, Samuel, 1596?-1665.	1650 (1650)	Wing E124; Thomason E606_2; Thomason E613_18; ESTC R205852	78,765	83

only a just Father may have a wicked Son but a righteous man Prince or other may turn away from his Righteousnesse 2 Notwithstanding there is this difference betwixt the one and the other that whilst a man swears Allegiance to a Prince at present wise and just and pious in profession but mutual and changable he swears in judgment to him he exerciseth his understanding and best abilities in judging beyond which a man cannot go nor doth God require him to go but in the other he exerciseth not his judgment at al but swears hand-over-head to a thing he doth not know what and to a person he knoweth not whom And I would ask this man Whether if it were so in al the under-Offices in the Kingdom That persons should come by Succession to their Places If all Judges should and al Magistrates and other persons in office should whether there were not like to be a miserable Common-wealth And whether he durst reason after this manner and make a parity betwixt chusing men just at present and wise men and men of truth to such places and making such places Hereditary because if there be an Election the persons that are good and able for such places may degenerate and if it be Hereditarie they may be good and can be but naught as the other may prove to be I would ask him also Whether there be the like casuality in reference to the one as to the other Though there be a possibilty in reference to both And if this Reasoning be shameful in referenee to under Officers then Why is it not so in reference to the supream Officer Besides there is an expresse Command for the one in Exod. 18. 21. 23. campared with Numb 11. 16 17. but where is there any Command for the other 3 He saith This Consequence were it of force would equallie condemn all promisorie Oathes and other Covenants and Engagements between man and man for it cannot be foreseen in anie what the persons contracted with will prove Reply This Reason of his thus far of it is of the same nature with the former and receives its Answer in the former But he goes on and saith It is also against the Laws and Sanctions of those Nations in all ages which have settled successive Regalitie or other Governments for longer then the present possessors of the power endure Reply Nations have so done and they have been plagued in doing so also But saith he its warranted by the Word of God Israel offered a successive power to Gideon Judg. 8. 22. God himself instituted and bound his people to a lineal GOVERNMENT in David and in his Seed 2 Sam. 12. 15. 2 Chron. 13 5. The Patriarchs power which was political was successive so was the Government of the Jews for a hundred yeers in the linage of the Macabees Reply 1 The instance in Gideon proves nothing though Israel offered it being deeply affected with the greatnesse of the deliverance of which he was instrumental and it was only a sudden expression of their love and not so deliberatly done yet Gideon accepted it not 2 As for Gods instituting it lineally in David 1 God raised up Saul to the Kingdom but settled it not lineally in him let the one be set against the other 2 It appears not that God settled it in the next of bloud in Davids lineage or that the next of bloud had it for Solomon was not his eldest Son living but Adonijah was before him yet God gave it to Solomon not to Adonijah therefore this setting it in Davids seed is not pattern for succession among us 3 It was done in reference to Christ who was to come from Davids loines and was to have his Throne Luk. 1. 32. 3 The Patriarchal Government whatever it was for we are left much in the dark about it and this man makes use of it but holds not out any light concerning it the Law of Nature instituted it for the Father is greater then the Child and his Governor from that act of his in begetting of him as God is Governor of the World by that act of his in Creating it but mixed Families as in Common-wealths the People make their own Father that is their own Governor And they ought to do it with the best understanding they have 4 The example of the Maccabees proves nothing For they were Saviours whom God raised up successively and therefore they might wel Rule successively but for the thing it self God seems to di●alow it for Israel had a Government setled by God amongst them before Sauls time but not Kingly nor in Succession but of another kind And this Government they liked not but would have a Government according to the Nations viz. Kinglie Government in Succession but God was displeased with it and said they had rejected him in it 4 He saith We have Scriptural examples of an uncontroverted integritie of Oathes to Princes and their Heirs and to Princes in their yong unripe and untryed yeers Take saith he that instance of Abrahams swearing to Abimelech his Son and his Sons Son Gen. 21. 23 24. And that of Davids making Solomon King in his own life time when he was yong and tender 2 Chron. 23. 1. 29. 1. And that of Jehojada's and the Peoples making of Joash King and swearing to him when he mas but seven yeers old 2 King 11. 4. 21. Reply 1 Abraham swore to Abimelech and to his Son and to his Sons Son not to deal falsly with them but according as Abimelech had dealt kindly with him This was not only a safe oath without dāger in Abraham but a just Oath and of a thing necessary in it self to be done and of an unchangable nature so far as concerns falsnesse and it was a mutual oath and also therein conditional so far as concerns kindnesse and therefore no way applicable to the oath of Allegiance in reference to Heirs which as was said in the Reason may bring Ruine and is like to prove sooner or later pernicious 2 That instance of David in making Solomon King in his life time while yong and tender hath little strength in it Solomon was the person appointed thereunto of God and therefore he was sure to be competently furnished with abilities for it from God what ever his age might be and he grown up to such yeers that excellent Wisdom and an excellent Spirit fit for Government appeared in him 3 That of Ioash hath more in it in reference to unripe yeers but reacheth not the case because he was al that was left of those Heirs that were to succeed in Davids linage in the Kingdom which God had established by Covenant upon David and his seed 2 He denyeth the two parts of the Consequence 1 That part viz. The Oath is not in judgment because no man knows what the Heir will prove But what are the words wherein he denyes it 1 It may be saith he in judgment so far as a future contigencie can be