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	point_n	1,651	5	7.2769	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A67445	Some few questions concerning the Oath of allegiance propos'd by a Catholick gentleman in a letter to a person of learning and honour.	Walsh, Peter, 1618?-1688.	1661 (1661)	Wing W641; ESTC R38929	23,740	40

into the State of Salvation but why should he be counted subject to the Government of a Communion quite opposite to That into which he is Baptiz'd does a Protestant commit a Mortal Sin every time he eats Flesh on a Fasting day or omits to hear Masse on a Holyday when neither Masse nor perhaps that Holyday is allow'd by his Church We know whoever loves God above all things is in the State of Salvation but not of External Communion till he actually submit to it and me thinks it seems obscure that I should be interpreted to submit to the Government of a Church of such a Discipline by my very being Baptiz'd into a Church of a contrary one Besides Followers of those who began the Division are not in the same form of Church-Condemnation with those who began it much lesse when they are born of such Parents and bred up in a Country where such Tenets have so long and uncontrolledly been establish'd that many perhaps may hold them without being guilty of holding them Wherefore I humbly intreat your Learning to instruct me VII Whether You have read any Authors that expressely say a Magistrate so Circumstantiated may be Depos'd by the Pope especially since I remember not one Instance Ancient or Modern of any such Prince so treated THE Examples of deposing Princes being without any certain Rule sometimes by the Pope sometimes by the Nobility sometimes by the People sometimes by an Eminent Subject sometimes by a powerful Stranger And the ground pretended being sometimes Religion sometimes some other Cause give me leave to consult your judgement VIII Whether those Examples may not all be resolv'd Either by the General Answer that Fact makes no Right Or that they were practis'd without any ordinary and acknowledg'd Jurisdiction but only by way of common Reason and natural Prudence which teaches us in extremities to cast about and relieve our selves in the best and hopefullest way we can according to our Circumstances FOr though by this Almighty Maxime of Extreme and Lawlesse necessity even Popes themselves as well as other Governors have sometimes been deposed yet I clearly believe neither Popes nor Councils nor Kings nor Nobles nor People nor Strangers have any Dormant Commission from Heaven that constitutes in any of them a Formal and Authorotative Tribunal to decide Jurisdictionally who shall be Pope or King To make this distinction on which the whole controversy chiefly depends unmistakably plain and evident let me parallel the grand Instances of Popes and Kings with the litle ones of private persons when we say as I think every Christian does that 't is Impious and Heretical to hold One Neighbour can take away the life of another though he never so much deserve it in Reference to what power do we speak is it not to that kind of power which is ordinarily Created by Commission can we be fairly interpreted to mean some odd extravagant case of absolute necessity to defend our own lives against his otherwise unavoidable Assaults So when we speak of a Power and Authority to depose Kings we are plainly to understand a Power and Authority vested in St. Peter and his Successors by Commission from Christ This and this only I conceive is the Authority we are commanded to abjure and unlesse such a Divine Commission be shewn I cannot see why to assert such a power in the Pope is not Impious and Heretical as much and far more than the instance of private Murther Especially the Oath so particularly expressing its chief intent to be the exclusion of the Popes pretences and prevention of the mischiefs naturally apprehended from the Supreme and all-Commanding Jurisdiction of a Foreiner Having perus'd some Authors who confidently say never any Orthodox Divine maintain'd this transcendent power in the Pope nor ever any such practices appear'd for above a thousand years after Christ though the Christians long before that time had both strength enough to do it if they had had a Will and Zeal enough to have will'd it if they had thought it lawful I cannot but suspect this Doctrine of Novelty till you be pleas'd to inform me IX What Eminent Writers there are in the first thousand years after Christ who expresly hold this Tenet of the Popes Authority to Depose Princes THis I am apt to conceive so much the more improbable to be found because neither S. Tho. nor Card Bellarmine cite any Antienter Authors than Gregory the seventh whose Papacy is of a younger date than that we speak of Much younger yet is the Council of Lateran nor can it with the least colour of truth be alleg'd for any more than a Canonical Constitution and perhaps not so much till the difficulties concerning it be clear'd which I leave to the Doctors and only contend 't is at best no more else the Defenders of Papal Deposition were bound to believe its Decree in this point as an Article of Faith and condemn the French Universities as Heretical and separate from their Communion if then it be only an Ecclesiastical Canon 't is well enough known such Laws are not Obliging but where they are receiv'd and where they are received may on just grounds be again rejected However even where that Canon is admitted if any where it be no fair Interpreter can extend it to reach so high as Soveraign Princes to whom this respect is generally by the Canonists esteem'd due that unlesse They be expresly nam'd they are not by implication understood to be comprehended in any penal or restrictive clause a Civility allow'd even to Cardinals whom I cannot think any disinteressed Considerer will preferr before Kings As for reason which I confess where 't is evident needs no Antiquity to gain my assent I have not met with any that bids so fair towards satisfaction as this argument If the Ends be subordinate to one another the Facultyes are But the End of Civil Power temporal happiness is subordinate to the End of Spiritual Power eternal happiness Therefore the Civil Power is subordinate to the Spiritual Let all this be suppos'd as true though there want not distinctions by which some endeavour to relieve themselves in this point too I only enquire how this Spiritual Superiour must proceed when the Temporal Magistrate intolerably misdemeans himself I think He is confin'd as his very Name imports to Spiritual punishments as suspension from Sacraments Excommunication c. But that they 'l say is not sufficient nor the Church compleatly furnish'd with means proportionate to its end unless it can depose a Prince that deserves it To which I answer First The argument is of so wild unlimited a Consequence that should they instead of Depose say Kill or whatever other mischief they please to invent they might in Rigor with the same Reason defend it Secondly Though in some sence it be true the Spiritual Power is furnish'd with all means necessary to its End yet are we not oblig'd to say it can remove all impediments and