Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	good_a	great_a	think_v	4,338	5	3.9369	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A41815	A reply to A vindication of a discourse concerning the unreasonableness of a new separation &c.	Grascome, Samuel, 1641-1708?	1691 (1691)	Wing G1576; ESTC R31730	40,185	31

Design is to destroy it Much Fairer and Honester it would be if Men would plead the Justice and Righteousness of their Cause and not thus justifie the most shameless Treachery and prodigious Villany under the Disguises and false Pretences of Publick Good but I must follow our Author and it shall be as close as I can that I may the sooner have done with him and get into better Company I did say that the task his Author undertook would better become a Committee-man or Sequestrator than a Divine of the Church of England and he grants that this had been true provided it had been true that he undertook what I charge him with That the Publick Good will Warrant us to destroy a lawful King As to which I shall only ask this Question Whether K. J. was our lawful K. or not If he was I think they have destroyed him as far as they can that it is not done more effectually is not for want of good Will but of Power And if I be not strangely mistaken this is the thing which is defended or which at least ought to be defended for otherwise all the rest fails Next he taxeth me as having either a bad Memory or a very bad Conscience for saying That his Author had not proved the matter in Hypothesi c. in our particular Case now a bad Memory is no good thing but a very bad Conscience is a very ill thing but I think I have no great cause to accuse either in this Matter For let them pretend what they will particular Persons and Actions and the thing as it really is they will never be brought to but here they always suppose Cases which they would have People to belive is ours or like ours but never come home to the point If they would give me leave I would propound some Cases of Conscience and name Persons and Actions so that a direct Answer must unavoidably be given or the trifling appear but I would advise these Men not to talk too much of Conscience least they should awaken her and she should sing a Song in their Ears and make their Hearts ake But before he can come to the Matter this learned Author in Romances not being able to find out any thing more contemptible compares me to Don Quixot but he should have remembred that he was a kind of a desperate Fellow and there may be some hazard in undertaking such an Adversary however I believe I shall never mistake him for an Enchanted Castle or a Wind-mill though for any thing I know he may have one in his Head Three Heads he propounds from my Discourse of which the last is the Notion of Publick Good and after his Landable Crabfashion of going backward he will needs begin with that but at last I find we are agreed That Publick Good is good for Somebody but who that Somebody is it seems we are not yet agreed for he says it is not a Personal Good and yet if it be not good for Persons I am afraid it will prove good for no Body If he had pleased he might have observed That I called the Publick Good a Personal Good not with reference to Mens private separate Interest in detriment of the rest but with respect to them as Persons in Society and doubtless Publick Good is in its highest Exaltation when it 's Diffusive to all but yet in some Cases particular Persons or Parties may and must suffer for the Preservation of the Community and this I fairly owned and if he would not see it I cannot help it but to argue as if I disowned any such thing is very Disingenuous But if there may be some Cases wherein it may be the Glory of some to suffer Yet will this prove it to be the Publick Good for some Men to raise their Fortunes upon the Ruins of their Country I think he might as well say That a Man ought to set his House on sire on purpose that three or four Thieves might have the opportunity to run away with the best of his Goods I know not better how to compare the Publick Good of a Community than to the safety of a human body when every Part and Member is right sound and well disposed and out of danger it is certainly then best with it but if a blow be made at me I shall rather take it on my Arm than on my Head though it was intended at my Head and not at my Arm and yet I think herein the Arm had no injustice from the Head or Body though it had from the external Enemy because the use of it in such case is to defend the Head and it would have suffered more if the blow had been taken there and as to internal Distempers some are removed by Cure and every part preserved but in case the whole be indangered by the disaffection of a part then we come to Amputation and spare not a Leg or Arm or any Member whereby the Body may be preserved sound though not entire but then this is a remedy which brings an irrecoverable loss leaves a Maim for ever and is never to be used but in cases of absolute Necessity but then if the Distemper affect the Head or Heart as all lawful Means ought to be used so all Hazards must be run For nothing can Warrant the cutting off the Head or pulling out the Heart Here the whole unavoidably must follow the fate of the part and so the Remedy is worse than the Disease and therefore under no pretence whatsoever to be practised If it be objected That the Head hath not the same Connexion with the Civil and with the Natural Body and that the Civil Body may be preserved by a new Head though not the Natural I Answer First That it is the safest Course for the Preservation of the Society to pay the same deference to the Civil Head as to the Natural and this I think our Constitutions do by making the legal Succession of Kings to be the same Head according to that known Axiome Rex non moritur Secondly That in any Body whatsoever it is most unnatural for the Body to conspire against and destroy the Head Thirdly That in this respect the Civil Head hath a closer Connexion with the Body than the Natural that the Ligaments between it and the Body are the Constitutions so that let him be driven where he will whilst he is alive and in Being he will bear the Relation of the Head to the Body while those Constitutions last To alter these at plesure and Mens Rights with them is the highest Injustice and the setting any other Head on than the Constitutions bear most certainly puts the Body into strange Convulsions and often ere long brings Ruin upon it Beware a Common-wealth my Masters Methinks I hear the Magpyes Daws Crows and Rooks about the Town begin to set their Notes that way But after all let all that can be allowed to Publick Good yet it ought to

his Jurisdiction Now this is a Knavish malicious Trick to compare our Actions to the Popes the Pope directly challengeth a Supremacy over Kings indeed over all Men we only lay claim to a Christian Liberty not to comply with Sin and Wickedness though the Magistrate command it and a Power not to desert our Station wherein Christ hath fixed us for every humoursom or unjust Prohibition of the State but at our Peril and without Resistance and what Agreement hath this with the Popes Actions But if his Civil Magistrate may not any ways be controuled but must be complied with in all things then I leave any indifferent Persons to judge whether these two things be not the direct Consequences of his Arguments First This makes the Proceedings of the Apostles and all the Primitive Christians in propagating the Gospel for about Three hundered Years to be altogether unjustifyable For they were actually prohibited first by the Jews after by the Emperours so that if his Doctrine had taken place Christianity had never entered into the World Secondly This shuts out the Doctrine of the Cross not only as Foolishness but as Wickedness and Disobedience and puts it in the Power of the Civil Magistrate at his Pleasure to extirpate Christianity out of the World for if prohibited they must cease and comply because to do otherwise Were in their way to take up Arms against him and controul his Jurisdiction And thus if the Grand Signior should Silence all the Christian Ministers in his Dominions they must hold their Peace and no more speak in the Name of Jesus for if they do our Author will tell them they are Rebels I perceive this Author makes use of his Religion only for his Convenience and will put no more on than he can at any time put off again he is here a sort of a Christian and at Japan would be a Hollander But to make good his Argument he accuseth me of Ignorance as to the Primitive Times and instanceth in Eustathius of Antioch Athanasius of Alexandria and Paulus of Constantinople put out by the Imperial Power and this he says Was never questioned by the Orthodox though they complained of the Injustice of it c. Now I confess that I have not had those Advantages which some have been happy in and am content to be accounted Ignorant provided he will suffer me to be Honest But yet as Ignorant as I am I think no Man that had consulted his Cause or his own Reputation would have produced this instance in this case For it will either justifie our Proceedings or force him to condemn these Persons and in so good Company we shall the less value hard Censures For were they thrust out of their Diocesses What great difference is here Are not our Livelihoods and Cures taken from us Are not our Bishops Deprived of their Profits and the exercise of their Jurisdictions This we suffer and do not so much as compare the Power then and now whether lawful or unlawful If the Civil Authority wrongfully spoil us of our Goods and restrain our Persons we know no Resistance any more then those good Men did But did they forbear to exercise their Office and Ministry where they had opp●tunity No such thing Was there no Schism upon this account It is plain That the Orthodox refused to Communicate with the Bishops put over them the whole Christian World was concerned on one side or other in the Case of Athanasius at Constantinople the People were so troublesome that the Emperor was forced to recal Paulus though he was after again Banished and upon the Expulsion of Eustathius from Antioch the suspected Bishops set over them were disgusted by many and Theodoret says That plurimi Studiosi pietatis cùm Sacerdotes tùm Plebs desertis Ecclesiasticis caetibus privatim Conveniebant lib. 1. cap. 21. And this they continued to do though all the Churches were taken away from the Adherents to Eustathius in order to force them to Communion with those put in his place as may appear from that request of Athanasius to the Emperor for one Church to be granted to the Orthodox at Antioch when he desired the like of Athanasius for the Arrians at Alexandria Theod. lib. 2. cap. 12. I think a Man so Skilful in Antiquity might have made choise of some more lucky instance but that he may not be at too much trouble if he can have a little Patience it shall not be long ere I furnish him Next in order to an Answer to his Second Question he supposeth the Clergy-man not bound by the Deprivation but then saith he What is this to a Separation For is he so obliged that rather then not officiate he may and ought to break of from Communion with the Church If you will make that supposal which in our particular Case is a great Truth you of all Men were most unfit to put these Questions For when you joyn with those who make this unjust Deprivation when you take our Churches our Flocks our Livelyhoods and suffer us not to exercise our Ministry where you have the Profit of it unless we will do it to the dissatisfaction of our Consciences Do you complain that we do not maintain Communion with you If we were in fault in this Case yet Modesty if any be left you and the ill Usage we have from your Party might make you hold your Peace I freely grant That we ought to continue in the Communion of the Church we are of as long as we can and that Separation is like a Divorce which is the last Extremity c. But then I say That we still are of the same Church we were of for the Schism goes along with the Cause and there it is you not we are the Schismaticks the Separation I grant to be Unhappy and Mischievous but let them look to that who made the Divorce by justifying unlawful Proceedings and setting up sinful Terms of Communion as I have already proved and therefore will say no more of it here And this is sufficient for an Answer to that Slander as if we proceeded upon the same Grounds with the Dissenters which is manifestly false only I am bold to tell him That they have now put a Plea into the Mouth of the Dissenters which will justifie their Separation from them and were it not that they cannot justifie their Separation from us your Perfidiousness and other ill Acts had given up the Cause to them When he thought he had lost my Second Argument with multitudes of Questions he attacks that which he calls the Third And he says I argue from the Subjection the People and Clergy owe to the Bishops and the Bishops owe to their Metropolitan and I grant That I do so and the Argument must be good unless he can Dispute away all the Government and Orders of the Christian Church But to this he returns with all imaginable Scorn Our Author that undertakes to give us an account of the