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 |
|
A33908
|
Dr. Sherlock's Case of allegiance considered with some remarks upon his vindication.
|
Collier, Jeremy, 1650-1726.
|
1691
(1691)
|
Wing C5252; ESTC R21797
|
127,972
|
168
|
of his Cause and tells his Soldiers they were ingaged in a Holy War and that his Design was to revenge the Injuries done to Religion by Darius and Xerxes Kings of Persia who made a barbarous Descent upon Greece and violated all Laws Humane and Divine And in his Letter to Darius he sets forth by way of Declaration how the Grecian Colonies in Ionia and about the Hellespont had been oppressed and harassed by his Predecessors How Greece was over-run with Fire and Sword And besides other terrible Articles of Accusation he tells him That his Father Philip was assassinated by some Persian's Instigation And at last appeals to the Gods with a great deal of Assurance Now I don't find Darius ever offered to purge himself and therefore the Charge might be all true for ought appears to the contrary And if so I hope the Doctor will be kinder to Alexander's Title and not Censure such a Religious Expedition especially where Liberty and Property were so much concerned And if this won't do there are several other considerable Circumstances after Darius his Death to alledge in behalf of Alexander's Legal Right 1. We don't find Darius his Son who was taken with his Mother at the Battel of Issus outlived his Childhood and therefore it may be taken for granted he never put in his Claim 2. Alexander married Statyra Darius his Eldest Daughter which made him at the lowest a Matrimonial King And no doubt this Lady would not contest the Administration of Affairs with him at that time And for fear the Doctor should find out a Salick Law in Persia it may be observed in the Third place That Oxatres Darius's Brother submitted to Alexander and rid in his Guards And now for ought I see his Title is clear on all sides But the Doctor attempts to prove from the Authority of the Convocation that the Iews were bound to submit to Alexander when he summoned Iaddus the High Priest and the rest of them to surrender though it cannot be denied that Darius was then living In Answer to this I shall prove First That this Assertion is a manifest Misconstruction of the Convocation Secondly That considering the Condition Darius was then in such a Submission as the Doctor contends for must be unlawful by his own Principles First The Doctor misrepresents the Convocation 'T is true the Convocation asserts The Iews were the Subjects of Alexander after his Authority was settled among them But then they plainly suppose that Alexander's Authority was not settled while Darius lived For 1. They inform us That Iaddus sent Alexander word that he could not lawfully violate his Oath of Allegiance to Darius whil'st that Prince lived Now in reporting this Answer of Iaddus they don't add the least mark of Censure or Disapprobation Whereas it 's their Custom throughout their whole Book when they relate any unwarrantable Passages of History to shew their dislike and to condemn the Fact This Method as it was necessary to declare their Opinion and make their Narrative instructive So there never was a more important occasion to pursue it than in the place before us For if they were of the Doctor 's mind they must have thought Iaddus was wonderfully to blame for giving Alexander such a categorical peremptory Denial And therefore they ought to have censured and exposed such a dangerous Mistake for fear of the malignity of the Precedent Not submit to Alexander while Darius lived What a mortal Obstinacy was this No less in the Doctor 's Divinity than a direct standing out against Providence and opposing a Divine Right And would the Convocation who are wont to take notice of lesser Failings suffer an Error of such a pernicious Consequence to pass without the least stroke of Correction This if the Doctor 's Sentiments and theirs had been the same would have been an unpardonable Omission A Negligence that common Honesty and Discretion could never have been guilty of But to shew they were of a different Opinion we find Iaddus's Behaviour justified by the Authority of their Canon where we have these remarkable Words If any shall affirm that Iaddus having sworn Allegiance to King Darius might lawfully have born Arms himself against Darius or have solicited others whether Aliens or Jews thereunto he doth greatly Err. They tell us in the foregoing Chapter out of which this Canon is drawn that Alexander desired Iaddus to assist him in his Wars against the Persians and in the Canon which is nothing but the Historical Part formed into Doctrines and practical Truths They assert that it 's a great Error to say that Iaddus might have born Arms against Darius i. e. that it was unlawful for Iaddus to have assisted Alexander and by consequence that his refusing this Prince was a commendable Instance of Loyalty And yet after all this Evidence the Doctor is pleased to say That the Convocation in their Canon takes no Notice that Jaddus could not submit to any other Prince while Darius lived No Notice Do they not say it was unlawful for Iaddus to have born Arms or to have solicited any others to a Revolt Which is as plain a Justification of his Incompliance with Alexander's Demands and as full an evidence that Success does not transfer Allegiance as is possible And is all this nothing But the words whil'st Darius lived are not transcribed from the History into the Canon it 's granted However this Omission upon which the Doctor founds himself is not at all material For 1. The Sense of the Canon concerning the unlawfulness of Iaddus's taking Arms against Darius is indefinitely expressed and by the Rules of reasoning ought to be understood without any limitation of time unless the subject matter requires it which it 's far from doing to the Doctor 's purpose in the Case before us For the Canons being but an Abridgment of the History of the Chapters drawn into practical Propositions They ought to be taken in the same Sense and understood in the same comprehensive Latitude with the History unless there is a plain Exception to the contrary For unless the Chapters and Canons are to be understood alike to what purpose is the History premised in the one and repeated in the other Since the Chapters are the Body from whence the Canons are extracted they ought to regulate their Meaning and explain their Ambiguities if there should happen to be any Besides it 's the Custom of Conclusions of this Nature to be contracted into a lesser Compass than the Principles from which they are inferred All unnecessary lengths of Expression being industriously avoided upon such occasions What wonder is it then to find the Canons less wordy than the Historical Chapters 2. Unless the Canon holds out the full meaning of the Chapter the Sense must be uncertain and uninstructive They tell us it was unlawful for Iaddus to have taken up Arms against Darius But how long was this Allegiance to last Why according
it as he pleases And thence it follows that when he has given it away by express Grant the former Possessor has no longer any Right and if not any no Legal one Farther If a Legal Right should continue after God has expresly given it away this absurdity will follow That God cannot repeal a Humane Law and consequently has a lesser Authority than Men. I have already proved that Revelation and Success are quite different Principles and that we have no manner of reason to infer God's Approbation from the latter as from the former and therefore the Doctor can take no Advantage from this way of Reasoning To return to the Kings of Babylon whose Title may easily be made out from the Scripture For first Iehoiakim submitted to Nebuchadnezzar and became his Servant and was afterwards deposed by him for his Revolt After him Nebuchadnezzar being Sovereign Paramount sets up Iehoiachin Son to Iehoiakim who was afterwards carried away Captive and his Uncle Zedekiah made King by the Babylonian Monarch Thus we see the Kings of Iudah who only had the Right to govern that Nation became Vassals to the King of Babylon held their Crowns of him and were contented to reign durante Beneplacito And though Nebuchadnezzar might possibly oblige them by unjust Force to these Conditions yet after they had submitted their Act was valid and obliged to Performance This is sufficient to make Nebuchadnezzar a Legal Monarch But this is not all For Moab Ammon Tyre Sidon c. are expresly given to him by God himself and all those Princes together with Iehoiakim and Zedekiah are commanded to come under the Protection and to own the Authority of the King of Babylon And destruction is denounc'd against those who refused to comply That Nation and Kingdom which will not serve the same Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon and that will not put their Neck under the Yoke of the King of Babylon that Nation will I punish saith the Lord with the Sword and with the Famine and with the Pestilence till I have consumed them by his hand Thus we see the Kings of Babylon reigned Dei Gratia with a Witness They had their Charter for Government signed and sealed in Heaven and delivered to Notice and publick View by Authentick and Unquestionable Hands This certainly is enough in all reason to make Nebuchadnezzar a Rightful Prince If the Doctor has any Thing of this Nature to justifie the present Revolution the Cause is his own Therefore if he knows of any Prophets he would do well to produce them Let them but shew their Credentials and prove their Mission and we have done But if he has none of this Evidence the places cited by the Convocation that God takes away Kings and sets up Kings are foreign to his purpose 'T is true when God speaks from Heaven all Humane Laws ought to give place and be silent But then we must consider that Revelation and the Doctor 's Notion of Providence are widely different the the one is an infallible Direction the other will lead us into all the Labyrinths of Confusion and Injustice And make us Abettors of all those unaccountable Practises which ungodly Power has the Permission to act If any Man will be of this Opinion he ought not to make the Convocation his Voucher Do they not say then that God removes and sets up Kings Not just in the Doctor 's Words They affirm That God has ever used the Ministry of Civil Magistrates in other Countries as well as in Iudea c. And may not all this be done without giving his Authority to Usurpers 'T is true they instance in Nebuchadnezzar But this Prince had both the Submission of the Kings of Iudah and the immediate Appointment of God either of which were sufficient to make his Title unquestionable And since his Authority was thus fortified it 's no wonder that the Convocation pronounces that the Iews were bound to obey him So that in their Sense God is said to take away Kings and set up Kings either 1. By express Nomination This way if there was no other the Babylonian and Persian Monarchies may be defended The former has been spoke to already And of the latter it was foretold by Isaiah long before the Birth of Cyrus That he should be a Conqueror that God had holden his right Hand or strengthened him to subdue Nations And that he should restore the Iews to their own Country which could not be done without the Destruction of the Babylonian Empire 2. God is said to take away and set up Kings when he suffers one King to conquer another and the right Heir is either destroyed or submits And since we are not to expect new Revelations we are to conclude God removes Kings no other way but this Which is no Limiting the Providence of God in governing Kings and protecting injured Subjects as the Doctor supposes For God can when he sees it convenient either turn their Hearts or take them out of the World or incline them to Resign These are all easy and intelligible Expedients and don 't bring any of those Difficulties of Providence upon us as the Doctor has entangled himself with This keeps the ancient Boundaries of Right and Wrong unremoved and settles the Duty of a Subject upon a Legal Basis. Indeed where Revelation fails what is so reasonable a Direction to steer by as the Constitution which is confirmed by the Laws of Nature and the Authority of God Is not this a much more accountable Method than to resign up our Consciences to Violence and impetuous Accidents and to make Treason our Oracle Now setting aside the Scripture-right the Babylonian and Persian Monarchs had to their Empire it 's easy to conceive that these victorious Monarchs either destroyed those Kings they dispossessed or made them submit their Claim as Edgar Atheline did to William the Conqueror That this practice of dispatching them was usual to settle the new Conquests and prevent Competitors is very probable Upon this account it was that Nebuchadnezzar slew Zedekiah's Sons and all the Nobles of Iudah And at the fall of the Babylonian Empire Belshazzar was slain as we may learn from Daniel and Xenophon And how kindly the Romans used their Royal Captives may be guessed without other Examples by the Treatment of Perseus and his Family Now where the right Owner of the Government is destroyed though never so wickedly the Usurper becomes a Lawful Prince For Possession is a good Right where there is no better These Observations are sufficient to justify Submission to the four Monarchies without having recourse to the Doctor 's new Scheme I am now to attend the Doctor to Alexander the Great whom he gives a hard Character and thinks any Prince who gets the Throne may pretend as much Right as he Whether the Ground of Alexander's War was defensible or not is not material to the pointâ— However he insists very much upon the Justice