Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A41952
|
Reflections upon Mr. Johnson's notes on the pastoral letter by William Gallaway ...
|
Gallaway, William, b. 1659 or 60.
|
1694
(1694)
|
Wing G178; ESTC R8149
|
33,013
|
66
|
nothing can be more proper to do it than a Text of Scripture Observe the Axiom A man mâ—y lawfully promise to do every thing he may lawfully do Now the Instance Our Saviour commands If any man compel me to go a mile with him to carry his burthen to go with him twain From which he inâ—ers But is it therefore lawful for me to promise this man to be his Pack horse all my Life and to starve my Wiâ—e and Children c. No no by no means lawful Besides you can't be a Pack-horse and your own Instance will not let you be worse than an Infidel There is a great difference between lawfully promising and being compell'd to do any thing and therefore your Instance is nothing to the purpose I can find no power of Conviction in it and I am afraid it is like an Estate left in our late Diego Wickhams ' Will because all Compultion takes away the Liberty of doing or not doing Promises to do or not do signifie nothing when I am Forc'd or Hinder'd Besides your Inference is an unlawful Action and you cannot lawfully promise therefore you are oblig'd not to promise any man to be his Pack horse and by that means to starve your Wiâ—e and Children and therefore you may not lawfully do it I may lawfully promise to assist my Neighbour to carry his Burthen and therefore I may lawfully do it For any thing I know our Noter may be a good Lawyer but I am sure he is but a Dabbler at instancing To proceed to the Second Instance 'T is as great a Conquest for a Philosopher to refute an Axiom as a General to take a strong Town in Flanders and therefore our Noter brings another battering Instance against it I 'le assure you Mr. Iohnson I have no prejudice against your Person I will neither lessen your Merits nor Sufferings But I am in the way of writing Mr. Iohnson my Controversy is only with your Book and though I by my self I I say that my Motion I was sure was Right being drawn by my own Hand which is more positive perhaps than Old Bracton would have said so I by my self I say that your Instance is wrong therefore I will mind the Process Out of this long and truly impertinent Story I put this short Case It was certainly lawful for me to submit to this Vsage when I could not help it but I had deserved to die the Death of a Dog and had betrayed the Rights of an Englishman if I had entred into Engagements to abide by it Observe the Consequence therefore a man may not lawfully promise to do every thing which he may lawfully do O profound Logician Now I would fain understand how Mr. Iohnson will reconcile his lawfully doing of that which he tells us was compulsorily wrongfully and illegally inflicted and more especially when he declares in his 15 th page That Forc'd Obedience is not the Obedience of Men It is Passive and Dog-kennel Obedience If I should pursue this Point and prove that he hath a Grain of Passive Obedience about him he would certainly hang himself therefore I desist and won't be guilty of Murder This is so pretty an Instance that I can't chuse but repeat it once more It was certainly lawful for me to submit to this Vsage when I could not help it Ay ay 't is very true too true we must all submit when we can't help it there 's no Remedy but Passive Patiâ—nce But you know the Old Saying Patience per Force is a Medicine for a mad Dog Now I don`t find by the Story thar you lawfully promis'd to submit to this Usage which you might have done too if you had thought it fit because you tell us It cost you Two or Three Fees not to be kept in Acta Custodia So that our Impregable Axiom holds out still That a Man may lawfully promise to do what he may lawfully do Having defeated your first and Second Line jam ad Triariâ—s ventum est I think I had as good stop here lest in his Second Part I should be noted on as a Couquering Clergyman But the best on it is I fear no Character he can give me and therefore will attack him in his third Instance At the Parliament at Oxford in 65 when they made the Five Mile Act there was the same enslaving Project on foot as there was afterwards in Seventy odd to Swear to the Government in Church and State without Alteration The Wise Lord Treasurer Southampton was against it and said that though he liked Episcopacy yet he would not be Sworn to it Because he might hereafter be of another Opinion And perhaps he had been further off â—rom that Oath if he had lived till now I smell your design in this instance 't is to let us know that you don't like Episcopacy so well now as formerly for any story that you could have thought on had been as much to the purpose as this If the Lord Southampton was satisfied with Episcopacy at that time he might have taken an Oath to it especially if it had been Enacted into a Law so to do A Law would have concluded his Opinion and determin'd his Compliance till it had been repeal'd and had he liv'd till now Episcopacy would have been the same thing as then The Virtual Consent of every individual Person is given when a Law is made and therefore I must obey when what is commanded is not undeniably a sin and my Disobedience is a sin when the matter is lawful So that rebus sic stantibus a man may lawfully promise to do what he may lawfully do and if there be an evident and publick Alteration in the Subject Matter the Obligation ceases Neither do I apprehend any Reason from the Law of God or Men but that every Man may swear Allegiance or to be quiet under our present Government though they would have had things otherwise setled because a private Opinion is not to be oppos'd against the general Determination of the Body of the Nation And to me it appears Imprudence and Mockery that after the Non-Iuring Passive Men have beat King Iames out of the Kingdom as far as their Principles allow'd with their Primitive Weapons Prayers and Tears That is that now we are deliver'd by Providence and Second Causes from Popery and Slavery that the very same men some of which put their Helping Hand too are praying it back again for the French Court is the worst in the World to instruct Princes to govern according to Laws and I don't hear Father Peters is turn'd Protestant Now to the part of the Bishops Paragraph which follows in these words And as it appears that there lies no just Objection to the swearing Obedience so there arises none from the word Allegiance for that being in its Original Signification nothing but the Service that a Vassal owed to the Chief Lord of the Fee If the King is owned in Fact to be our King
the Bishop is not apt to beleive every thing you say that Allegiance is so Obstinate a thing that neither desertion nor conquest nor any thing in the World but what is intrinsical to it that is breach of Covenant or consent of both parties dissolve it It is a moral duty and Heaven and Earth may pass away before Allegiance can pass away Sincerely Mr. Iohnson I thought you had been a better Lawyer than to tell us that Allegiance is a Moral duty I always apprehended it to be a Legal Duty and Having a Gude Memory I remember you tell us in the 21 st page that besides the service due to the Lord of Fee as it was the Duty that the Liege Lord owed to his Liegeman I must confess I never met with Lord in Fee Liege Lord or Liegeman in any book of Morality or that treated on Moral Duties that I ever read But Mr. Iohnson is a great Scholard and hath convers'd with old musty Books which I never saw Now for want of judgment you are prophaning Scripture with your Heaven and Earth may pass away before Allegiance can pass away I suppose I shall have a convenient opportunity to prove that Allegiance may pass away in this page or the next therefore I 'le defer it Our Noter is now upon his Queries which I will answer As for Desertion we must first know what it is before we can know whether it will affect our Allegiance A Soldierâ—s deserting nnd running away from his Colours we know but what is this to deserting a Crown or a Kingdom 'T is just like a Soldiers running away from his Colours 't is running away from his Kingdom You ask Did the King desert willingly or unwillingly I believe unwillingly because he would have willingly staid and set up Popery and Arbitrary Power Besides I am sure he had no such Kingdom to go to Did not his people desert him first No he deserted his people first in that he dissolv'd our Allegiance and destroy'd our Laws with his Dispensing Prerogative and by employing Papists who were incapable by Law to act in the Government and then because we were such foolish Passive Rebels who would not help the Irish Dragoons to cut our own Throats he withdrew and left us in a state of Anarchy but we took care not to continue so long The matter of Fact in truth is this K. Iames resolv'd to bring in Popery and Slavery upon us The generality of the Nobility Gentry and Common People were resolv'd neither to be Papists or Slaves Our desperate Circumstances were represented to the P. of Orange who readily engag'd to attempt our Rescue He came The unconcern'd Nation did not think it an Invasion but were rather glad of an opportunity to free themselves from those imminent and real dangers they were surrounded with Upon which account some joyn'd with the Prince others expected the Event The Officers of the Army â—hought themselves under no Obligation by K. Iames's Favours to betray their Country or draw their Swords more effectually to destroy their Liberties and Legal Rights which would have been the consequence of their success and therefore would not sacrifice these for any future precarious Interest when 't was viâ—ible their former Advancements were only design'd for sinister ends and they who would not promise to do every thing they were Closeted about or what Father Peters thought necessary to carry on their designs were either frown'd on or displac'd The King 's trusty darling Subjects the Papists who would live and die with him they threw down their Arms deserted and were ready to run into Awger-holes when a Sham-Declaration threaten'd to leave them to the mercy of the Army Fin-landers in Bear-skins and Mirmidons with broad Swords and bright Armour As for what follow'd K. Iames may thank himself his Bigottry and Prince-destroying Caterpillars Experience hath always verify'd what Seneca the Tragedian hath observ'd speaking in the Person of K. Agamemnon Violentum nemo unquam Imperium continuit diu Moderata durant Well now we are coming to the Merits of the Cause Had the people reason to forsake K. James or no Had he â—orâ—eited Had he broke his Allegiance let it be some other Law-word for I never heard that the King owed Allegiance to his People first Was he the aggressor Yes The Bishop owns all this that I have answer'd in his Pastoral Letter and was one of those who actually came with the Prince to rescue us and to re-settle and preserve our Government according to its Legal Constitution But the Argument the Bishop employs to perswade the Non-jurors to take the Oaths is from the mischiefs that attend Indefeasible Allegiance and that 't is no true Maxim that the bare desertion of K. James without considering the Cause was a sufficient ground for the Non Iurors to comply and take the Oaths I am indebted to you a Proof that Allegiance may pass away and I will discharge it with five of your own words which you little dream'd would do it What is impracticable is void Our Allegiance to K. Iames is impracticable therefore 't is void For if we are here and K. Iames is I know not where we can't pay our Allegiance to him and therefore must transfer it to the King in possession who protects us In the next Page you say If he deserted he was forced to desert for the very ground he stood upon fell from under him But what wicked Rogues do you think undermin'd the ground he stood on Why Father Peters and the rest of the Iesuits and Monks who work'd night and day to undermine and subvert the Government The very Spawn of those who undermin'd and laid Powder with a design to blow up your Patrons Predecessors So much â—or Desertion and so much for nothing to the purpose Now for Conquest Tho there is a great difference between â—aying what could and mighâ— be done and what is actually done yet Mr. Iohnson I must beg your excuse for a page or two on this Point and tho you have taken the liberty to reflect on Kings Marquisses and Bishops with several other of the Nobility yet I have so great a deference to and must be concluded by all Decisions of the great Council of the Nation and I am convinc'd it would be a great piece of Impâ—udence as well as Impudence to offer any thing on this Point tho it were agreeable with my private Sentiments and therefore as you have been bantering upon partial â— I 'le endeavour to repay you in your own Coin in your supposition of a true Conquest The Point you propose is Whether a true Conquest dissolves Allegiance Suppose a King and his people who are all of a piece till either of them break Faith with the other are both run down and fall under the Chance of War It is no matter which of them is in the Conquerors hands because they are all as one If their King have that hard fate