Selected quad for the lemma: ground_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
ground_n	believe_v	scripture_n	word_n	3,674	5	5.0369	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A55033	Scripture and reason pleaded for defensive armes: or The whole controversie about subjects taking up armes Wherein besides other pamphlets, an answer is punctually directed to Dr. Fernes booke, entituled, Resolving of conscience, &c. The scriptures alleadged are fully satisfied. The rationall discourses are weighed in the ballance of right reason. Matters of fact concerning the present differences, are examined. Published by divers reverend and learned divines. It is this fourteenth day of Aprill, 1643. ordered by the Committee of the House of Commons in Parliament concerning printing, that this booke, entituled Scripture and reason pleaded for defensive armes, be printed by Iohn Bellamy and Ralph Smith. John White.	Palmer, Herbert, 1601-1647.; England and Wales. Parliament. House of Commons.	1643 (1643)	Wing P244; ESTC R206836	105,277	84

Kings attempt upon their office and Gods worship 2 Chron. 26. And after thrusting him out of the Temple when God had smitten him with Leprosie for it I for my part put no great weight on the former But their thrusting him out of the Temple is somewhat towards a hinderance even by force of a Prince if he persist to violate Gods undoubted ordinances as it had been to have staid in the Temple being leprous added to the sinne of his going in at all and presumption to offer Incense But such a case is hardly supposable among us Only I adde that I wonder the Doctor offers to say God by smiting him with Leprosie discharged him of his Kingdome The Story implyes no such thing but only that he dwelt in a severall house and Jotham his sonne judged the people of the Land The Law allowed not any to come neare to such or touch them and what they touched without being uncleane therfore he could not sit in publike Judicature but his sonne did it for him yet for all that he remained King till his death and probably did give out divers Orders which might be done by means of those that must needs minister to him But if the Doctor say right may not an untoward Inference be made that if a King should attempt to violate Gods ordinance and worship in any thing and God should visibly strike him with some loathsome Judgement this should discharge him of his Kingdome which is more then ever the Parliament said or so much as thought as they call God to witnesse A fourth Example is Elisha's shutting the doore against the Kings Messenger that came to take away his head This example the Doctor saith speakes little Reply But as little as it speakes it forces him to speake that which if he will stand to I doe not much doubt but I shall make any unpartiall man perhaps even the Doctor himselfe to say his cause is lost in reference to his first Proposition Heare his own words Let us thence take occasion to say that personall defence is lawfull against the sudden and illegall attempts of such even of the King himselfe thus farre to ward his blows to hold his hands and the like I Reply 1. Then is not all resistance unlawfull and damnable if against suddain he may much more against deliberate intended illegall violence And his distinction of personall defence c. will not satisfie conscience by his owne words in the beginning of this Section If Ro. 13.2 be to be interpreted his way because every distinction and limit of any place in Scripture must have it's ground in Scripture What ground hath this in Scripture in his way either here or elswhere specially when he will not allow the Parliament to beleeve any intention to take away any of their heads notwithstanding all words and preparations against them without the spirit of Elisha But heare him further Not to endanger his Person this nor return blows this is not lawfull he saith Reply I am not willing to oppose him in these Assertions though the case may be so hard as a man must loose his life if he will meerly defend himselfe and in no sort offend But specially a woman must loose her chastity in which case and principally the latter let the Doctor answer what is to be done and whether no blows may be returned But that the Princes person may not be willingly assaulted the speech of David forenoted is that which concludes me and not at all the D●●argument He saith the whole common-wealth is concern'd in his person and that a particular nature will yeeld to the universall Rep. But he argues fallaciously the whole is concern'd somewhat in the Princes person but not so as that it perishes if he die or be kil'd Which is often and no harme no visible chang but that he is missing Wheras the yeelding of a particular nature to the universal is to keep that from dissolution perishing as the Naturalists say no otherwise But that which follows is yet better Thus he objects for us against himself if this be drawn from personall Defence to the publike resistance now used as they usually make the Argument thus If the body naturall then the body politicke may defend it selfe If a private person much more the whole State may and they do but shut up the way against the King that comes to destroy his Parliament and take away their heads then he answers two things 1. As the naturall body defends it self against an outward force but strives not by a schisme or contention within it self So may the body politick against an outward power but not as now by one part of it set against the head and another part of the same body for that tends to the dissolution of the Whole Rep But by his leave he abuses the similitude between a naturall and a politick body and perverts the state both of the Question and the example in hand and withall runs into more absurdities then one in his own way as I shall now shew him 1. The naturall body can do nothing but by the guidance of the head that is of the soul residing in the head and imploying the sences and faculties placed in the head to that purpose But a body politicke is a company of reasonable men whose actions may be divided from their politick head and yet be rationall and regular and when the particular politicke head is distracted or while an Infant it can and doth order it self within him and so it doth and must doe when the politick head is bent to subvert Religion Lawes and Liberties because the subversion of these and not the opposition or resisting of those that would subvert them would be the dissolution of the whole But so would not be the very death of the politicke head though as I said before it is unlawfull to attempt it Whereas the death of the naturall head is certainly the dissolution of the whole naturall body 2. As the naturall body may defend it selfe against outward force so against the malignity of any disease or paine in any member of the body even resient in the very head and so the hand may pull out a tooth even for the painfullnesse of it though seated in the head and perhaps one eye for some disease thereby to save the other and lance and cut the flesh and even cut-off a limme legg and arme to stopp a Gangrene yet is this no making of a schisme or unnaturall contention within it selfe 3. He hath granted it to single persons but denies it to the whole body or a considerable part together Reply Then belike if six or twenty or a hundred single persons be assaulted illegally by a like number of single persons suppose in their severall houses in the same Towne they may shut the doores and defend themselves and even any of them hold the very Kings hand and ward his blowes But if they happen to be all in

rule nor were ruled by the Inhabitants of Canaan nor joyned with them in a Common gouernment Though Abrahams Family was very numerous for a Family yet it would be hard to call him a Monarch much lesse Isaac and Iacob lesse who when he went downe into Aegypt doth not seeme to have had any Servants but onely Sonnes and his and their Wives and Children 3. And to this may be added that by all Authors it seemes to be late before any setled government beyond parentall any of diverse Families in continuation came to be in the World 4. When the World was more emptie as in Abrahams time a godly man as he having a Competent Family might subsist without others joyning in a government with him and he could not doe them any remarkable good or gayne glory to GOD by it they being Pagans So that it is not I say absolutely true that men are bound universally as by an Ordinance from GOD to set up live under government in the Drs. sense Marriage is GODS Institution and Ordinance and more originally then the Government politicall and necessary for encrease yet are not all of mankinde bound to marry but for their owne good and comfort and so of others and advancing Gods Glory in both So it is with Power or Government Politicall though new when the world is peopled As there is lesse Necessity of Marriage then when the World was thinner though still a Necessity to many even to most So is there more Necessitie of being within Government to secure ones selfe and others from wrong and doe one selfe and others good and glorifie GOD in all And so farre I grant it Gods ordinance to all But one thing more I must remember him and the readers of Namely that this Power will not be proved absolutely to extend to the making of any Humane Lawes but onely to see to the Observation of the Lawes of Nature and of God by His word and speciall Revelation both of the first and second Table and to no other power of coercion then what the Light of Nature will Argue Necessarie for the Observation of those Lawes of Nature And that all further power belongs to the third particular which he calls the qualification of the Power depends upon mans Consent so it be not against Gods Law and Word which I call the extent of the Power Which if it be true it shall be seene anon what Consequence may bee drawne from it to the disadvantage of the Doctours purpose And now let us view the Doctors proofs that Power it selfe is an Ordinance of God binding all Mankind to set up and live under government Rom. 13.1 The Powers are of God and the Ordinance of God v. 2. REPL. The Doctor seemes to have an excellent faculty to take so much only of a Text as seemes to serve his turne and leave out the rest which at least might seeme to be against him the words v. 1. are There is no Powers but of GOD The powers that be are ordained of God This may be true when Powers are and not that there must be powers every where as in the similitude before there is no Marriage but of GOD the Marriages that be are ordained of GOD. As for Saint Peters Ordinance of Man or it is in the Originall Humane Creation which is more Emphaticall granting as the Dr. doth that the qualification and Person is from Mans Creation I will not urge more from ●he Text against him 2. He urges ver 4 He is the Minister of God this yet proves not a necessitie in all of setting up Government But onely when it is set up to acknowledge the Governour Gods Vice-gerent So as before the Husband is GODS Vicegerent Yet a Woman not absolutely bound to be under a Husband The truth is Government and Power is from GOD originally in these respects no further First he hath laid a generall charge upon Mankinde to advance his Glory their owne and others good whom thus are bound to love as themselves by all meanes not by him forbidden Secondly in the parentall Authours or proparentall if the Parents dye in their Childrens Infancy he hath shewed them how much Government may conduce to this Thirdly he declares by instinct in Nature that as Parentall Authority is deputed by him so that he affords a deputation to other Governments when once set up Fourthly shewing all men now a dayes and long since in fully inhabited places of the world not only a profit but even a necessity of being within Government at least for his glory in the Civill good of societies Upon these grounds we may say he ordaines and commands all to be within one Government or other but not absolutely nor without relation to this end But thirdly he alleadges By me Kings reigne and I have said ye are Gods and the word of God came to them Joh. 10. That word saith he is the issuing out of the Commission for the setting up a Government over and among the People REPL. But none of all this will amount to his Conclusion 1. Kings reigne by God that is they are his Deputies Men could not give them any Authority over themselves unlesse God owned it and by his instinct had prompted them to it Secondly he saith Yee are Gods but this an owning the designation of the Person as well as the Power This place either proves more then the Doctor urges it for or lesse Thirdly as for his Dixi the Doctor mistakes most of all For it relates plainly to his owning the Persons whom yet he tels They shall are like Men but the Power dies not and is rather a granting a particular Patent or Commission to the Person chosen or succeeding then a Commission or Originall Writ to set up a Government His Reason is no more Universally True then his Texts pertinent God he saith Governs all Creatures Reasonable as well as Unreasonable the lower world by the Heaven and the Reasonable Creatures Men by others too set up in his stead c. Repl. But what if the Edge of this Reason be Turned against himselfe For by whom according to the Dr. are Kings and Monarks Govern'd In an Aristocracy each of the Governors is Governed by all the rest of his fellowes and so in a Democracy but in a Monarchy one Governs all and hee himself is Governed by none Either then al mankind are not bound to be under Government and then all his Texts and this Reason are alleadged in vain or else Kings and Monarks are also under some Government at least of the Representative Body of thei people according to what was before alledged from our Lawyers Rex non habet Superiorem praeter Legem Curiam Comitum Baro●um c. Let him take his choice Nor can hee evade this with saying the Text Speaks of Monarks and they are called GODS and so none above them But 1. I appeale to all Interpreters whether the Psalmist intend it not and so Christ after

hee know what he saith when he saith Rulers are not a terrour to good Workes therefore they must not be resisted Christianity is a good worke and Nero is a terrour to it though by GODS Ordinance he should not be therefore he must not be resisted What can be more unreasonable then to bring a Reason which is quite against the thing it is brought for to interpret then as the D● doth v. 2. is to make St. Paul argue against himselfe if you Reader are not should not be and ●f you Keepe the literall s●nce are not then either he speakes that which is fal●e of Nero and h●s Officers and under Rulers for they were a terrour to good Workes if Christianity be a good worke or Christianity is no good Worke. Let the Dr. take his choyce of the three I have a fourth too take to formerly sayde downe which is that he speakes of Civill Legall Authoritie in civill Lawes as then in the Romane State and such like and to Rulers according to them were not terrours to good Workes as the Apostle saith Secondly but see the Apostles next words wilt thou then not be affraid of the Power doe that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the same that is thou needst not resist but onely looke to doe well and h●e will commend thee But is this true of persecuting Nero Might the Christians count this a safe course of which they need not be afraid to practice Christianity safe that i● for which the Power would not doe any thing against them bu● rather prayse them did Nero so Or could the Ap●stle thinke he would O ●d he deceive Christians in sa●ing so or condemne Christianitie as not good 〈◊〉 a Reason against hims●l●e Some of these things must bee said or else the D● Sence must bee renounced it must be said that he meddles with no matter of Christian Religion here but of civill Subjection to Civill Lawes which Rulers according ●o their Power would praise them for and they need not feare such powers doing well Thirdly adde further what the Apostle doth v. 4. For hee is the Minister of GOD to thee for gooD Is this true of persecuting Nero in the case of his persecuting Whereby the Apostle proves he will prayse thee doing that which is good Surely in an over-ruling Worke of GODS Grace the very Divell is GODS instrument for GOOD as to Iob and we may say M●nister too And Nero not a whit more in the Act of persecuting Bu● this farre from St. Pauls meaning For hee meanes a civill good praising and rewarding and protecting Nero did St. Paul knew quite contrary to this He cannot then meane him as a Persecuter and so never intends here to forbid resisting his Persecution Fourthly goe on one step further with the Apostle which will yet make it more plaine if more can be But if you doe that which is evill then feare for he beares not the Sword in vaine for hee is the Minister of GOD a Revenger to ex●cute wrath on them that doe evil● Evill contrary to Christianity is Idolatrie for one thing ●nd to make Chri●tians Idolaters did Nero and others persecute them if they would cast in a graine of I●cense into the Fire by way of sacrifice to their Idolls they were freed Now is it St. Pauls meaning If you turne Idolater then feare for Nero beares not the Sword in vaine for he is GODS Minister a Revenger to execute Wrath upon them that commit Idolatrie Or is Christianitie the evill they were to feare as that which he used the Sword against and that with great wrath and revenge There is then nothing like the Drs Interpretation In all these Arguments of the Apostle but the cleane contrary besides what followes v. 5 6 7. Of which see the exposition before But some will say was it then lawfull for the Christians then to have resisted the persecuting Emperours Tertullian and the Fathers thought otherwise I answer first whether it were or no of which by and by most certaine it was not forbidden in this Rom. 13.2 3 4. Yet this is the Capitall place If any other can be found forbidding it which the Dr. offers not to urge further then what we have examined already that is nothing to this Text. For no Logick or Rhetorick can extract that sence from hence who ever they be that have so interpreted it heretofore Secondly but because of the great Outcry made of the Christians not resisting then I will once more looke upon the Text Rom. 13.2 and compare it also with that before so v. 1. and see whether by a right view it will not plainly pronounce Christians even then free from passive subjection in case of persecution supposing they had Force to resist by their hands not tyed by Gods Ordinance from resist●nce or at least wise onely upon a speciall Reason applyable to that State of the Church and Roman Empire of which yet there is not the least intimation in that place but must ●e gathered elsewhere as we shall see and which is no impediment at all to Christians resisting the persecution now of Popish Tyranny I say then Subjection to the Higher power is commanded and resisting it forbidden there upon this ground because they are of GOD ordained under GOD GODS Ordinance Note how all the words accord in the Originall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be subject 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whosoever resists 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordained under GOD 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Ordinance of GOD all from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to set in order that i● GOD hath given to men Power and au●ho●ity to urge the execution of his Lawes and to make some Lawes under him and his and to punish according to the merit of the Offences the transgressions of the one or the other And so farre as this they are to be subjected unto by every soule either actively or at least passively and not to be resisted by wilfull froward disobedience and much lesse by taking up Armes against such Lawes or them that exercise authoritie to them But this is all the Authority GOD gives to any and not to make Lawes against his nor yet to punish those tha● obey his Lawes And if any such Lawes be made or any such punishment offered to be inflict●d even by reason of such Lawes made they are not the Ordinance of GOD He hath afforded them no such Authoritie no such Power Nay such Lawes and Rulers according to them are the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the opposers and Resiste●s of GODS Ordinance of the Law of Nature or Scripture or both The Lawes therefore are Null and the Authority Null quoad hoc as will be plaine by this instance A King grants a Charter to a Major of a Towne to governe that Towne with others or alone that is all one according to his Lawes and punish all Malefactors and moreover to make some particular Lawes or Orders in the Towne for the

not to foresee that their very flying to Armes was and would be a great suffering and might prove if God should defeat them the meanes of extreame suffering A people so taught so enured to Passive obedience and no way enured to Warre could not be supposed willing or forward to engage themselves their purses or much lesse their Persons against the Name of their King and each day since the first Necessity hath continually sounded this out so that they had no reason to be forward to fly to Armes 3. By what I said on the former Section and added with the Petition by the E. of Holland even now mentioned It appeares they did not fly to Armes but fly from it as far as they could and durst 3. Wheras the Dr. often in this Section in the beginning middle and end insists mainly upon the breach of Charity in suspecting the King upon Remote feare and meere Jealousies causelesse Jealousies c. Repl. This may sufficiently be satisfied both in the behalfe of the Parliament and then of the People that adhere to them joyntly and singly For the Parliament and people both joyntly This may justly be said 1. The Dr. mistakes it is not simply a Jealousie of the King but rather of the Kings Councellors and Followers who find so much favour with him as they and others did before the Parliament against the Scots and us both and Ireland too witnesse all their heavy complaints against the Great Favourite Strafford that they are able to put him from time to time upon these Actions which his goodnesse of it selfe rightly informed and councelled would abhorre and hath so often declared against and yet Actions againe have discredited those declarations as the Memory of those that have been awake cannot forget both Referring to Religion and Liberties and the Parliament Remonstrances do amply set out besids other Books If therfore Security be once obtained against such persons I am perswaded the King will be no more suspected and in the meane time it must be a strange Charity that can chuse but suspect them 2. Where the danger is of much importance both for Greatnesse of Mischiefe and Inevitablenesse according to Man if not timely prevented Charity to ourselves and others will not onely allow but commend and even command to suspect and accordingly prevent such dangers by suspecting Persons and Actions which in lesser matters they would and might and should venture to trust Fire neere straw or Gunpowder is to be suspected more then neere hard wood Hedge-breakers and breakers of Houses are not equally to be suspected Religion Laws and Liberties are precious things and may be sooner lost then recovered And his Charity hath drunk of the water of Lethe that forgets these were lately attempted and endangered The Kings own Declarations acknowledge Laws and Liberties have been broken And how since the E. of Straffo●ds death all the old Projectors are become Converts is too hard a morsell for Charity to swallow when it must hazard such deare things to many of the same Persons againe Specially seeing still what they have done since the first sitting of the Parliam toward their old Projects as hath been partly noted already and somewhat more must be said by and by Next for the Parliament alone They are the great Councell of the Kingdome the publique Watch-men the Highest Court of Judicature it concerns them therfore to exercise their Charity for the safety of those that have trusted them Charity towards Attempters against a City is none of the Vertues of a Watchman nor toward Attempters of dangerous Treasons against a King and Kingdome the Vertue of a Judge Were they onely to loose their own Liberties or Lives their Charity might venture much further then now it may when they must Answer for Religion Laws and Liberties and so Lives and Consciences of a whole Kingdome of 2 Kingdomes England and Ireland as formerly of England and Scotland if not rather then and still of all 3. in a degree Who would not Curse their Charity detest their Folly if by their Credulity all this should be betrayed and ruined If Rhetorick needed in this cause no Subject could deserve it better then to cry down such a pernitious Charity as this would prove if they should be deceived with credulity And then for the People alone have they not a charity to exercise toward the Parliament as well as toward the Kings Followers whom have they trusted to be publike Watchmen the one or the other Whom hath the law trusted to be the great Councell and chief Judges the one or the other Who hath pleaded for their Liberties the one or the other 12. Subsidies were demanded with intent thereby to engage us in a bloody War against Scotland in the Parliament of Aprill 1640. Onely for taking away of Ship-money But this Parliament hath proved it so illegall and other things more that it was taken away without any cost at all by way of Exchange and many other happy Lawes hath the ●arliament passed and obtained for us But what one thing did the Kings former Counsellors move him to offer to his people by way of prevention for State or Religion in a whole yeer together To whom then must the People exercise their charity Must they condemn their watchmen as scaring them needlessely with Old Enemies discredit the law that saith No dishonourable thing ought to be thought of such a great Councell such a high Judicature And that when they more then ever any Parliament before give account to all men of all their Actions and the grounds of them Well shall that People deserve a ruine that believe Old Wolves rather then their faithfull Dogs then their Councell of Shepheards That shall thinke themselves bound to be charitable to those that have attempted their ruine and uncharitable to those that under God have hitherto saved them In a word let those that love Religion and Laws and Liberties compare the best actions on the one side with the best on the other and the worst on the one side with the worst on the other and then let charity judge if it dare or can the Parliament Fooles or Traytors to GOD and the KING and the STATE and the Kings followers the only wise men that have discovered their cunning Treachery and the only faithfull men to Religion his Majesty and Kingdome Take in then the Declarations and Protestations on the one side and on the other and remember is is not a single charity whether I shall suspect the King but first mixt whether I shall or may suspect the Kings followers who can doe any thing with him so farre as that they may doe contrary to what he saith and then a distinguishing charity whether I shall suspect them who were once most of them apparently Delinquents against Religion and the Laws Or the Publike Watchmen and the great Councell an Judicature of the Kingdom who have done so much and with such diligence to save and restore