Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	motion_n	zeal_n	zealous_a	21	3	8.8965	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A62873	Saints no smiters, or, Smiting civil powers not the work of saints being a treatise, shewing the doctrine and atempts of Quinto-Monarchians, or, Fifth-Monarchy-Men about smiting powers, to be damnable and antichristian / by John Tombes ...	Tombes, John, 1603?-1676.	1664 (1664)	Wing T1816; ESTC R6979	110,523	126

like manner though preachers called to that Office may in a fit way shew Princes their sins and declare their danger Yet in no sort are they to vilify their Authority or contemn their persons Nor may men pretend the imitation of the holy Prophets boldness unless they can shew their commission and are endowed with their Spirit and power Nor may men who are but private persons take upon them to do as Christ did when he drove the buyers and sellers out of the Temple Which will be more fully proved by a fifth argument taken from some resolutions or determinations of our Lord Christ which condemn such attempts practises as the Quinto-Monarchians Doctrine animates to upon pretence of zeal for Christ and his Kingdom Luke 9. 54 55 56. When Christ was to go to Jerusalem he sent messengers before his face and they went and entered into a Village of the Samaritans to make ready for him And they did not receive him because his face was asthough he would go to Jerusalem and when his Desciples James and John saw this they said Lord wilt thou that we command fire to come down from Heaven and consume them even as Elias did But he turned and rebuked them and said ye know not what manner of Spirit ye are of For the son of man is not come to destroy mens lives but to save them In which resolution our Saviour condemns the motion of James and John to have fire come down from Heaven to destroy the Samaritans for their not entertaining of Christ in imitation of Elias out of zeal for Christ because it was not out of the same Spirit that Elijah had nor agreeable to the end of Christs coming and his Gospel which were not to destroy mens lives but save them Now then the Doctine of Quinto-Monarchians which urgeth their smiting work which tends to the destroying of mens lives and not the saving of them out of a zeal as they conceive for Christ and his Kingdom though there be no other then a private or rather an haughty factious Spirit in them is contrary to Christs resolution and therefore indeed damnable and Antichristian Nor hath it indeed in Christ or his Apostles Doctrine or example any warrant but is an imitation of that pernicious use of the later Jewes which was taken up in a perverse imitation of Phinehas his act Numb 25. of Elias 1 Kings 18. 40. 2 Kings 1. 10. and some others out of zeal for their Law without Authority to destroy those things and persons which they judged contrary thereto as in the stoning of Stephen Act. 7. St. Paul Acts 14. 19. c. In which they were carried furiously and violently without any legal judicial proceeding hearing and sentence by Authorized Judges which caused so many seditions and such outrages as at last provoked the Romans to make a most horrid destruction of that people and ruin of that state To which the Quinto-Monarchians opinon and practise hath been too like and if not stayed would bring the like effect on Church and State with us The other determination is that of our Saviour in the case of Peters drawing his sword to rescue Christ in the garden from the Soldiers which came to take him and striking a servant of the High Priests and smiting off his ear which our Saviour disallowed bidding him to put up his sword again into his place for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword Matth. 26. 52. where our Lord who had bid them buy swords Luke 22. 36. a little before yet forbids the drawing of it and smiting off the ear of a servant of the High Priest though it were out of zeal for him it being against an Officer by a person without Authority declaring the evil consequence which would follow on such usage of it Now the Quinto-Monarchians smiting civil powers out of pretended zeal for Christs Kingdom without any authority in a furious heart of spirit is much more apparently contrary to Christs resolution in Peters case and therefore is censured justly to be damnable and Antichristian § 9. Quinto-Monarchians Doctrine of smiting civil powers urgeth to resisting of evil and self-revenging forbidden by Christ and his Apostles and to most horrid Murthers and great confusions A Sixth argument against the Doctrine of smiting civil powers in order to the setting up of the Fifth-Monarchy is taken from those texts of scripture which forbid resisting of evil and avenging our selves Our Lord Christ. Matth. 5. 38 39. reciting out of the Law of Moses words interpreted as allowing retaliation of wrongs with the like as those who threaten to others that they will give them as good as they bring he on the contrary tels his Disciples But I say unto you resist not evil But whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek turn to him the other also Which is not to be understood simply and absolutely as if that turning the cheek were to be done alwayes in the act it self But in a comparative sense rather than make a brawl or fight take further injury signified by the proverbial phrase of turning the check now if Christians be forbidden to fight when they are injured to recompense evil for evil then much more are they forbidden being private persons to whom the sword is not commited of their own accord to begin a War even with superiors and to proclaim it in order to procuring of good as the Quinto-Monarchians Doctrine moves Saints to Likewise St. Paul Rom. 12. 17. Recompense to no man evil for evil v. 19. Dearly beloved avenge not your selves but rather give place unto wrath for it written vengeance is mine I will repay it saith the Lord v. 21. Be not overcome of evil but overcome evil with good 1 Peter 3. 9. Not rendering evil for evil or railing for railing But contrariwise blessing knowing that ye are thereunto called that ye should inherit a blessing When David had cut off Sauls skirt his heart smote him and he said unto his men the Lord forbid that I should do this thing unto my Master the Lords annointed to stretch forth mine hand against him seeing he is the anointed of the Lord 1 Sam. 24. 5 6. The Lord judge between me and thee and the Lord avenge me of thee but mine hand shall not be upon thee As saith the Proverb of the Ancients Wickedness proceeedeth from the wicked but mine hand shall not be upon thee v. 12. 13. And David said to Abigail blessed be the Lord God of Israel which sent thee this day to meet me and blessed be thy advice and blessed be thou which hast kept me this day from coming to shed blood and from avenging my self with mine own hand 1 Sam. 25. 32 33. Which shew that herein both in the old and new Testament holy persons agree that a King is not to be smitten though in hostility without cause by any of his Subjects though he were anointed to be King after him that revenge of

not have received a burnt offering and a meat offering at our hands neither would he have shewed us all these things nor would as at this time have told us such things as these Judges 13. 23. which shewes that the chief thing animating them to that bloody attempt was the opinion they had that their determinations were of God and that they were assured of help from him which was the very thing that Thomas Muncer and Hacket and such like unquiet spirits were of Satan incited by and ended in nothing but blasphemy of God and reproach of Religion 2. Their abuse of scriptures wrested by unstable and unlearned persons to their destruction arguing from obscure passages against plain precepts doth aggravate their evil acts it being no small evil to make the holy scriptures which are for humility meekness patience trust in God peaceableness an instrument to commotions disobedience to superiors shedding blood such like horrid wickedness So in the Banner desp●ayed p. 19. Mal. 3. 3. Rev. 14. 4 5. are alledged to prove the Stone Dan. 2. 34 35. is Christ Jesus in the pure sanctified and refined Gentile Christians when the former speaks of the Sons of Levi and the other mentions the 144000. who it is likely are the same with 144000. Revel 7. 4. Sealed of all the Tribes of Israel and p. 59. the words of the Prophet Jerem. 51. 19 20 21 22 23. spoken either of Cyrus or the King of Babel are alleged to prove that the Lord hath elected and made choice of Zion his people to act in this work and service of smiting civil powers unto whom he saith thus thou art my Battle-Axe and Weapon of War So extremely are they deceived and deceive others 3. Which is the worse in them in that they urge their notions as matters of their faith when yet they use conjectural expressions p. 40. Probable conjecture p. 41. seems to favour p. 42. we do not ascertain or determin only suppose p. 44. This our opinion p. 48. we may probably conclude p. 55. humbly conceive about them and sometimes vent inconsistencies as that the stone is Christ and yet the Gentile Saints the Jewes excluded though they shall be the stone when made a Mountain with many more uncertainties about the stone the little Horn Dan. 7. and other things too tedious to be insisted on 4. To these we may add the uncharitable conceits of their Governors their Revilings of them their unquietness in separating from those that concur not with them their contention and ejection from their society such as do oppose them in their heady and violent practises all which shew that they are animated by the infernal spirit and not from above and in all likelihood have received their opinions and practises from Jesuites and Emissaries of Rome who have crept into societies of zealous Christians and sown their tares among them The Tenents about civil powers being too near of kin to one another § 15. The claim which Quinto-Monarchians make to Civil government on earth in the Saints afore Christs coming is false HAving shewed the sinfulness of smiting civil powers the vanity of the conceits about the Stone Dan. 2. 34 35. the falsity of the notions about the fifth-Monarchy I shall now examin their assertions about the Saints right to the Kingdom on earth before Christs coming about which are held many false and pernicious positions which I shall now discuss The first is that before cited by me sect 2. in these words The creature man was priviledged with being Lord over inferior creatures but not over his own kind for all men being alike priviledged by birth so all men were to enjoy the creatures alike without propriety one more than another Which position is manifestly false even concerning the state of nature uncorrupt For even then the man was the head of the woman as the Apostle asserts 1 Cor. 11. 3. and proves v. 8. 9. from the womans creation For the man is not of the woman but the woman of the man neither was the man created for the woman but the woman for the man which plainly proves a dominion and propriety of the man over and in the woman who is of his own kind and the contrary Doctrine would infer not only polygamy but also community of Wives which was the very Doctrine of the Nicolaitanes of which Christ saith in two Epistles Rev. 2. 6. 15. which thing I bate The same also may be said concerning Father and child even in nature uncorrupt if there had been any child born in that state they would not have been all alike priviledged by birth but the creature man was priviledged with being Lord over his own kind nor were all men to enjoy the creatures alike without propriety but one more than another the Father being priviledged by birth above his child so as to be Lord over his child and enjoy him with propriety and not another his child nor he anothers nor is it to be conceived but that in Goods Cattel and Fruits of the earth there would have been propriety in them so as that the Wife was to be at the Husbands disposing and allowance concerning them and the child at the Fathers 2. The second which is the Quinto-Monarchians opinion cited Sect. 2. is that all men as they are men have lost their rights and priviledges in respect of Government in the first Adam Which is false For 1. Our Lord Christ in the point of divorce doth determin that divorces allowed by the Jewes were not right because they agreed not with the law of marriage in the beginning Matth. 19. 4 5 6. which argument of our Lord rests on this proposition that what law was made in the beginning was in force still and consequently the right of Government which a Husband had above his Wife a Father above his Child continue still 2. If all rights and priviledges in respect of Government in the first Adam were lost then they are still lost to them that are not in Christ which if it were true all unbelievers would be usurpers But this is false For 1. the government of Husbands over Wives remains to infidels the Author to the Hebrewes ch 13. 4. tels us that marriage is honourable in all therefore in infidels If not then the Apostle 1 Cor. 7. 13. did not rightly determine that the woman which had a husband that believed not if he were pleased to dwell with her was not to put him away or leave him which supposeth that the right and power of a husband remained in him though an infidel for where the bond of marriage continues the right and priviledge in Government belonging to it still continues The same also is to be said concerning the right priviledge of a parent in respect of the child it remains as well to infidels as believers and also Masters over servants For even such as were evil or froward from whom they were likely to suffer yet the Apostle 1 Peter 3.