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 true_a 2,848 5 3.8360 3 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A36486 An examination of the arguments drawn from Scripture and reason, in Dr. Sherlock's Case of allegiance, and his Vindication of it Downes, Theophilus, d. 1726. 1691 (1691) Wing D2083; ESTC R5225 114,324 80

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

side to invade in the other to defend and Vasquez this because that a War be just on one side it is requisite there be injustice on the other for herein consists the reason of War that he who deserves it should be punished by vindictive Justice If the War of the legal Prince be therefore just and the War of the Usurper unjust these Consequences must inevitably follow 1. That the Usurper is bound to restore the Crown he has usurp'd for if it be unjust to defend it it must be unjust to keep it 2. If he is bound to restore it he has no right to it by God's Donation 3. He is responsible for all the Blood that is shed in an unjust War his Soul must answer for all the Persons that are kill'd as for so many Murthers And 4. The Subjects cannot lawfully assist him in murthering Innocent Persons and much less in executing a Sentence of Death for such in effect is War upon their innocent Sovereign to whom they had sworn Allegiance and who seeks for nothing but what is justly his own And now upon the whole is not this Scheme of Principles an incomparable Security for Princes Subjects must not depose their Princes but they may stand by and see them deposed and murthered if the best of Princes be unfortunate they may lawfully abjure them and swear Allegiance to the Usurper and then contribute their Purses Prayers and Arms to destroy their lawful Sovereign But let the Usurper be sure to be fortunate still and not to invade our Properties and Religion let him look to it or most Men will say let him go if he cannot defend himself that he is placed in the Throne at present does not prove that it is God's will it should always be so The dispossessed Prince has a lawful War against him and if he gets a Battel he is God's Ordinance again and our Allegiance is due to his Victory On the contrary if Principles are to be judg'd by their being for the Security of the Prince and Subject an immovable Allegiance to our lawful Prince will appear to be the truest for it is the best Principle to prevent all Revolutions of Government and all the Mischiefs of Civil War and Anarchy which usually attend them and therefore is most for the Peace and Security of Human Societies But to this the Doctor has several Objections 1. If this Principle would prevent all Revolutions it is a demonstration against it that it is a bad Principle because it is contrary to God's Prerogative of reproving and setting up Kings This Objection concludes as strongly against Justice and Christianity it self for it is certain that if the Principles of Justice and of Christian Religion were universally preach'd there would be no Usurpations nor Revolutions and that is a Demonstration with the Doctor that they are bad Principles meer Human Inventions which cannot come from God 2. It is evident that this Principle was either unknown to the World or that it cannot prevent the Revolutions of Government But still it may be the best Principle to prevent them and no Man ever affirm'd that it would always actually prevent them Mankind are not generally govern'd by Principles but by Lusts and Passions Christianity is the best Religion to prevent Revolutions and to preserve the Peace of Societies but we see de facto it fails of preventing them no less than our Principle of Allegiance 3. Such Principles as must dissolve Human Societies when such Revolutions happen and expose the most conscientious Men to the greatest Sufferings without serving any good end by them cannot be true I answer there is no Principle of Morality and Religion but may occasion the dissolution of Human Societies but then the wickedness of Men is the proper Cause of it and not the Principle The Doctor has answer'd this Objection himself the Divine Providence takes care of all such extraordinary cases and there we must leave them And even his own Principle is liable to the same Objection for till the new Prince is setled no Allegiance is due to him and therefore in that Interval which may last for an Age or more since no Allegiance is due there can be no Sovereign nor Subject and consequently no Society As for the Sufferings of conscientious Men that is their Portion here but great is their Reward in Heaven and whereas he says those Sufferings can serve to no good end the keeping of their Consceinces void of Offence is one good end and the promoting the publick good of Human Society in general is another But does not this Principle tend to dissolve Societies No otherwise than as Christianity tends to set Men at variance in the same Houshold not naturally but contingently not in its own Nature but in the Event of Things and by the Wickedness of Men. 4. Is the Right of any Prince so sacred as to stand in competition with the very Being of Humane Societies I answer That the Sovereign is comprehended in the Society and ought not to be opposed to it that we must not do Evil that Good may come of it and that Perjury and Injustice Revolutions Civil Wars and Anarchy are against the Interests of Society Must we defend the Prince's Right with the destruction of the Nation and the Ruine of his Subjects This perhaps may be a Case in the New Atlantis or Vtopia But I ask another Question may we abjure and sacrifice a lawful Prince for the safety of his Rebels and Enemies Which is most necessary that the Nation should be governed or that such a Prince should govern it And if he be driven out of his Kingdom and cannot govern must we th●n have no Government Or how shall the Nation be governed if the Subjects are bound to pay Allegiance to no other Prince Let us remember the Rump and Cromwell and all these Questions are answered The Loyal Members of the Church of England in those days thought it necessary that the Nation should be governed by the lawfull Prince they reserved their Allegiance for him when he was driven out of his Kingdom and could not govern and they refused to pay Allegiance to Usurpers In short it is better to be without Government than to do Evil for the sake of those who will not be governed by their lawfull Governours But this is to make all Mankind the Slaves and Properties of Princes as if all Men were made for Princes not Princes for the Government of Men. To this I oppose some other Sayings of the former Dr. Sherlock in his Case of Resistance If the King be God's Minister he is upon that Account as much greater than all as God is pag. 104. The whole Nation is as much Subject to the higher Powers a● any single Man pag. 107. Sovereign Power is inseparable from the Person of a Sovereign Prince p. 200. We must not deny Duty to be Duty because we may suffer by it p. 215. And
Allegiance when he changes my King In another place he states it thus The Laws of God are the Rules of Good and Evil to us not his Providence but Providence lays new Obligations upon us by creating new Relations The Laws of God prescribe the Duty of Subjects to their Prince but the Providence of God makes him I Answer 1. That impious Doctrine which teaches that the Cause which Providence prospers is God's does seem the unavoidable Consequence of the Doctor 's Principle for he teaches that all Events are God's doing and that he positively decrees appoints accomplishes all Usurpations But if all Events are God's doing he is certainly the Author of that which he does and in such Events which are necessarily and inseparably accompanied with Iniquity he must be the Author of the Iniquity too And as to the Event of Usurpation if he decrees assists and accomplishes it if he does all this for Usurpers we must needs conclude that their Cause is Gods ' for it is impossible for God to do more than this for any Cause whatsoever 2. If the Laws of God and not his Providence are the Rules of Good and Evil to us then it follows undeniably that Providence of it self can never direct us how to distinguish between Good and Evil and therefore when the Question is whether an Action be lawful or not we must have recourse to Laws and not to Providence to determine it Thus when we dispute about Allegiance to Usurpers the Question must be whether there be any Law that requires it and if there be no such Law it is certain there is no such Duty It is true that the divine Providence does change our Condition and Relations and by introducing new Relations does oblige us to new Duties But it is also certain that all Changes which befall our Selves or the Persons to whom we are related do not extinguish our Relations and Obligations to them and therefore we must have some other Rule besides Providence to instruct us when they are extinguished When I am in Prison or my Father i● in Prison here is a providential Change but no Cessation of Relation or Duty When the Course of civil Government is interrupted by Rebellion and the Prince cannot actually administer here is a providential Change which affects my Sovereign but is no discharge of my Allegiance And how then shall I know when the Events of Providence do extinguish my Duty My Duty does not cease upon every Change in the condition of my Sovereign that is made by Providence and it is impossible that the Events of Providence should direct me when it is extinguished by any Event of Providence And therefore I must be directed by some other Rule which may inform me when any Duty is extinguished by a Change of Providence and that Rule can be nothing else but Law either divine or humane Law Thus it appears that though a Change is made sometimes in our Duties by the Events of Providence yet our only Direction is Law and thither we must appeal at last in all our Controversies about the Change of Duty and the result is that if there be no Law that requires Allegiance to Usurpers the Events of Providence cannot make it to be a Duty Providence 't is true does make Kings and God transferrs my Allegiance when he changes my King But the Question is whether Providence does not make Kings by Permission and whether when my lawful Prince is dispossessed my Relation to him is extinguished and the only way to determine those Doubts is by appealing not to Providence but to Law and Reason The Doctor tells us That we must conform our selves in the discharge of those Duties that Providence lays upon us according to the nature and intention of the Providence But how shall I know that it is the intention of Providence when an Usurper is advanced that I should pay Allegiance to him I know that God disapproves Usurpations and strictly forbids them and declares that he will punish them and I know also if Usurpation be so great a Wickedness that God's Providence does not assist or authorize it though he does not interpose his irresistible Power to hinder it this I am taught by natural and reveal'd Religion and I find no Precept in either to assist any Man in his Wickedness in the whole Progress of the Usurpation I find nothing but Injustice in the Rebellion or Invasion in setting the Usurper on the Throne and in supporting him on it and therefore I have reason to conclude that since my Assistance is unlawful neither the Nature nor the Intention of the Providence does require it There remain some other Objections and Evasions in the Vindication which relate to Providence and I will consider them as they occur He objects against our Principle that it opposes Providence to Providence the force of the Objection is this God does settle the Crown on any Family no otherwise but by his Providence and when an Vsurper is setled in the Throne he is advanc'd by Providence too and therefore to oppose an Hereditary Right which is made by the over-ruling Influence of Providence against God's setting up an Vsurper by other Acts of his Providence is to oppose Providence against Providence his former Providence against his later Providence Now there is no absurdity at all in opposing Providence to Providence A Divine Entail is nothing but an Act of Providence and yet the Doctor thinks that the Providential Advancement of an Usurper is of no validity against it and thus himself does oppose Providence to Providence God's Providence may make Kings by Nomination by the conveyance of a legal Right and by granting Possession without Settlement and Possession with it And if it be no Absurdity to oppose and prefer the first to all the others and the fourth to the third why is it absurd to prefer the second to the third and fourth It would be absurd indeed if the latter Providence were as clear a Declaration of God's positive Will as the former but that is the great Controversy between us All Men are agreed that when a lawful King is on the Throne he has God's Authority but not that an Usurper setled or unsetled is invested with it I am sure there is a Providence that is only permissive which conveys no Authority which we cannot possibly distinguish but by the moral nature of Events and I think it is no absurdity to distinguish Providence nor to oppose Wrong to Right a permissive Providence to a legal Right which is establish'd by God's Authoritative Providence And this single Observation that for all that yet appears an Usurper is advanc'd only by permissive Providence is a sufficient Answer to all the Reflections which he makes upon our opposing Providence to Providence He observes that this is to shackle and confine Providence and that we will not allow God's Providence to change and alter We only maintain that God's permissive Providence is no