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	faith_n	foundation_n	1,927	5	8.7886	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A07908	The speculation of vsurie; Speculation of usurie.	Bell, Thomas, fl. 1593-1610.	1596 (1596)	STC 1828; ESTC S113212	36,975	50

an adultresse I note fourthly that he thought to haue put her away secretly so to keepe her from shame and punishment I note fiftly that Ioseph was euen then iust when he sought to keepe her from shame although in his iudgement she deserued death by the law The first obiection No inferiour hath power to alter the law of his superiour and therefore man can not pardon or tollerate malefactours whom God appointeth to be punished The answere I say first that precepts deliuered to vs in holy writ are of two sorts some affirmatiue othersome negatiue the negatiue binde vs at al times euerie houre and in euerie place but the affirmatiue though they be euer apt to binde yet doe they not actually kinde vs saue then onely when the due circumstances of time place and persons do occurre hereupon it comes that it is neuer lawfull to steale neuer lawfull to commit adulterie neither lawfull to beare false witnesse neither at any time nor in any place the reason hereof is this because these be precepts negatiue This notwithstanding it is sometime lawful to omit the precepts affirmatiue for example sake it is lawful sometime to smite him that smiteth vs and yet it is Gods commandement that whose shal smite thee on the right cheeke to him thou turne the other also Againe it is Gods commandement to giue him thy cloake that wil sue thee at the law take away thy coat and yet maiest thou at sundry times for sundrie respects denie him both thy coate and thy cloake thirdly it is Gods commaundement to goe with him miles twaine that wil compel thee to go one and yet maiest thou sundrie times denie to go with him either more or lesse fourthly it is Gods commaundement neuer to turne away from him that would borrow money or other goods of thee yet maiest thou sundrie times for good respects deny to lend thy mony or other things fiftly it is Gods commandement not to aske thy goods againe of him that taketh them away from thee and ●et doth euerie man know that we may sundrie times not only aske our goods again which are vniustly taken from vs but euen with sute of law seek to recouer y e same sixtly it is Gods commandement to confesse our faith openly as a thing most necessary to saluation and yet we are not bound to confesse our faith openly and vocally at al times and in euerie place but where and when the glorie of God or the vtilitie of our neighbour shal so require for example sake then we are bound to confesse our faith vocally when by our silence and taciturnity they that demand vs of our faith would either beleeue that we had no faith or that our faith were not the true faith or otherr would thereby be altered from the faith and so forsake the euerliuing God Al which and other the like haue this only ground and foundation to wit that they bee precepts affirmatiue which neither binde vs at all times nor in all places For precepts affirmatiue to vse schoole tearmes obligant semper sed non ad semper I say secondly that the ciuil magistrate had authoritie to mitigate many punishments ordained for malefactors euen in the time of the old testament for though he were appointed to punish them that vsed false weights and measures yet was the punishment to be determined euen at his owne discretion Againe when the wicked was worthie to be beaten the iudge might designe him to haue many or few stripes according to the qualitie or quantitie of his trespasse thirdly he that solde himselfe to another man might iustly be afflicted but yet how and in what measure that shuld be done was to be determined by the ciuill magistrate Thirdly that by the law of the new Testament the Prince is only ●harged in general termes to punish malefactors for the com●●n good of his faithful people in regard wherof he may lawfully cease frō punishing them when the common intended good of his subiects cānot or will not insue thereupon The second obiection Achab was punished with death because he granted pardō to Benhadad king of Ara●● King Saul was deposed from his kingdome because he spotted Agag king of the Amalekites The answere I say first that Achab was precisely designed to do executi●●● 〈◊〉 vpm Benhadad and so was also Saul appointed in precise termes to put to death king Agag Secondly that in the new testament Princes haue no such speciall commandement but are only charged in generall to punish malefactors Thirdly that affirmatiue precepts bind not in euerie season but when the due circumstances of time place persons and the good of the common weale shal so require as is alreadie proued for otherwise I see not how S. Paul can be excused who made earnest sute to Philemon not to punish his seruāt Onesimus who vniustly had departed from him and the like may be said of S. Austen who so often made intercession to the princes of Affrica to pardon the Donatists and Circumcellions who did not onely disturbe religion but also spoiled the christians of their lawful goods yea it was y ● vsual custome of the Iewes as the Gospel beareth record to set some one prisoner at libertie euerie Easter which custome I find not reprooued in anie place of holy Writ yea the sinne is vsually practiced in euery Christian Parliament I say fourthly that it is so cleare by S. Paul that malefactors may sometime be pardoned as it is without al crime and reason to denie the same for what can be 〈◊〉 offence then such fornicatiō as is not once named among the Gentiles to wit that one should haue his fathers wife And yet when the partie that did this horrible fact seemed to giue signes of true remorse then S. Paul himselfe both pardoned him willed the Corinthians to do the same So did the fathers of the Elebertine councill pardon the vsurers of the Last al sort who promised to surcease from vsurie and to deale no longer therewith which counsel was holden aboue 1200. yeares ago The replie Saint Paul did not pardon the crime of fornication but did speedely excommunicate the incestuous person for the same whose pardon was nothing else but a relaxation of that seuere correction which hee had imposed vpon him for his deformed fact The answere I say first that the ciuill magistrates among the Corinthins ought to haue put to death the incestuous person vnlesse we grant indeede that Princes may sometime pardon malefactors I say secondly that if Princes might not in some respects at some times pardon malefactors without offence S. Paul who knew gods minde better then any this day liuing vpon the face of the earth would neuer haue requested the Corinthians so to do but would haue charged them to cut off and to haue taken such a fellow out of the way I say thirdly that as S.