Selected quad for the lemma: conscience_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
conscience_n	humane_a	law_n	obligation_n	1,134	5	9.8189	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A59904	A vindication of The case of allegiance due to soveraign powers, in reply to An answer to a late pamphlet, intituled, Obedience and submission to the present government, demonstrated from Bishop Overal's convocation-book, with a postscript in answer to Dr. Sherlock's Case of allegiance, &c. by William Sherlock.	Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707.	1691 (1691)	Wing S3375; ESTC R11110	75,308	83

first Case tho the Subject is taken Captive yet the foundation of the Relation is not destroyed for his Prince is on his Throne still in the actual administration of the Government tho he be violently torn from him so that this Relation may continue because he has a Prince to whom he is related but when the Prince is fallen from his Kingdom and Power the foundation of the Relation is at present destroyed the Kingdom is translated to another Prince and the Subjects and their Allegiance translated with it Our Author proceeds to argue from the Case of Ioash The Doctor 's distinction that is about a Divine Entail is against him 'T is true God did entail the Kingdom of Judah on the Family of David and for that reason they ought not to submit to an Vsurper But this is so far from being a reason why they may submit to one in other Kingdoms where Entails are made by Laws that it is a reason and a very good one why they ought not But before we hear his Reason I must observe that he mistakes the use of my Distinction which was not to prove That because God had entailed the Kingdom of Iudah on the Posterity of David and had reserved to himself a right in the Kingdom of Israel to nominate their King and entail the Crown when he pleased that therefore the Subjects of those Kingdoms might not submit to any other Kings whom the Providence of God placed in the Throne without such a Divine Nomination and Entail for it appears from what I have already discoursed that they both actually did and lawfully might submit to such providential Kings when either there was no King by God's Nomination or Entail or no such King was known but the use of the Distinction was to shew that in such Theocratical Kingdoms where God challenged a peculiar right to make Kings by his express Nomination or Entail though God may see fit sometimes to set a providential King upon the Throne yet whenever he nominates a new King or discovers the right Heir to whom the Crown belongs by a Divine Entail the Reign of such Providential Kings is at an end and the Subjects may and ought to depose or kill them and own the King of God's nomination so that if he will prove any thing from my Distinction with reference to other entailed Kingdoms he must shew that my Distinction proves that in such Kingdoms where God makes Kings only by his Providence a Humane Entail of the Crown will justifie Subjects in deposing and murthering a new King who is placed and setled in the Throne by Providence while the Legal King or Legal Heir is Living as much as God's express Nomination or Entail would justifie the deposing a Providential King in the Kingdoms of Iudah and Israel And now let us hear his Reason For says he God's entailing the Crown of Judah was the Law of that Kingdom in that respect and the people of other Kingdoms are as much bound to observe their own Laws as the people of Iudah were theirs All Humane Laws that are just bind in Conscience and according to the Doctor 's own Principles these Laws were made by God's Authority So that the Doctor mistakes the Question we do not oppose Humane Laws to God's Authority but we oppose Laws which are made by God's Authority and which are Rules to us to Providence which is no Rule When God entailed the Crown upon David's Posterity they had then a Legal Right to it and so hath every Family in other Kingdoms upon which an Entail is made by the respective Laws of the Countrey But what would our Author prove from this That in every Hereditary Kingdom the Legal Heir has a Legal right to the Crown as well as in Iudah and did I ever deny it or that the standing Laws of every Countrey are the Rule for Subjects in setting up Kings when it is their own free Act and Choice and who denies this too There is a Dispute indeed whether the Laws of England do oblige Subjects in all cases to make the next Lineal Heir to the Crown their King but no man ever denied but that in making Kings Subjects are bound by the Laws of the Land when it is their own free and voluntary Act. I am sure my Hypothesis is not concerned in this Question and therefore be it how it will it can prove nothing against me Or would he prove that when an Entail is setled either by Divine or Humane Laws God never interposes by his Providence to set up a King who has not this Entailed Legal Right This was manifestly false both in the Kingdom of Iudah and Israel which God had reserved for his own Nomination or Entail and yet He set up several providential Kings Athaliah in Iudah and Baasha and Omri and Ahab and Ioram and others in Israel and in all other Kingdoms at one time or other Or would he prove that when God by his Providence has setled a Prince in the Throne without a Legal Right Subjects ought not to obey him and submit to him as their King This is confuted by the Examples of Iudah and Israel who submitted to Athaliah and their providential Kings who had no Legal Right by a Divine Nomination or Entail and are yet never blamed for it Or would he prove that a Human Entail of the Crown does as much oblige Subjects in Conscience to pull down a King who is setled in his Throne by God's Providence with a National Consent and Submission but without a Legal Right to set the Legal Heir on his Throne again as Iehoiada was by virtue of the Divine Entail to anoint Ioash and slay Athaliah This is the single Point he ought to prove but I do not see that he offers any thing like a proof of it The sum of his Argument is this That a Human Entail of the Crown made by the Laws of any Countrey does in all Cases and to all intents and purposes as much oblige Subjects as a Divine Entail which is only the Law of the Kingdom too For the people of other Kingdoms are as much bound to observe their own Laws as the people of Judah were theirs The Dispute in general about the Authority and obligation of Humane Laws is very impertinent to this purpose for no man denies it But yet we think Divine Political Laws much more sacred and universally obligatory than any meer Human Laws tho they are made by men who have their Authority of Government and consequently of making Laws from God and I believe our Author is the first man who has equalled Humane Laws with those Laws which are immediately given by God But the Dispute between Divine and Humane Laws and a Divine and Humane Entail of the Crown are of a very different nature though they be both the Laws of the Countrey for which they are made as will easily appear if we compare God's making Kings by a providential settlement of them

in the Throne with a Divine and with a Humane Entail A Divine Entail is God's setling the Crown on such a Family by the express Revelation of his Will and though God should after this settle a Prince in the Throne by his Providence to whom the Crown did not belong by this Entail such a Providence would not justifie Subjects in submitting to such a providential King when it is in their power to set the right Heir upon the Throne for this would be to expound Providence against the express Revelation of God's Will But a Human Entail is only a providential settlement of the Crown on such a Family and what is setled only by Providence may be unsetled by Providence again for where God makes Kings only by his Providence he can unmake them by his Providence also and make new ones This discovers the fallacy of what he adds We do not oppose Human Laws to God's Authority but we oppose Laws that are made by God's Authority and which are a Rule to us to Providence which is no Rule Now I would ask our Author Whether the Laws of England which entail the Crown are not Humane Laws If they be I ask Whether they do not oppose these Humane Laws to the Authority of God in making Kings by his Providence for do they not refuse to obey a King whom the providence of God has placed and setled in the Throne upon a pretence that he is not King by Law And then I think they give greater Authority to the Laws of the Land than to God in making Kings which is to oppose Humane Laws to God's Authority To avoid this he will not call them Humane Laws but Laws made by Gods Authority but the Question is Whether they are Humane or Divine Laws It is a childish piece of Sophistry and argues a great contempt of his Readers to call Humane Laws Laws made by God's Authority because Sovereign Power which makes these Laws is God's Authority as if there were no difference between Humane and Divine Laws because they are both made by God's Authority though the one are made by the immediate Authority of God the other are made by men who receive their Authority from God whereas in the first Case the Authority of God gives an immediate Divine Authority to the Laws made by God which therefore are said to be made by God's Authority in the other case the Authority of God terminates on the Person and does not immediately affect his Laws Sovereign Princes have their Authority from God but their Laws are the Laws of Men and the difference between them is this that Divine Laws which are made by God himself have a Superior Authority to Men and to all Humane Laws though made by a delegated Authority from God for God grants Authority to Men only in subordination to himself and the Authority of his own Laws He might as well have said That all the By-laws of a Corporation are the King's Laws because made by his Authority granted to them by Charter and therefore there is no difference between the private Laws of the City and the Laws of the Kingdom as being both made by the Authority of the King This may satisfy our Author That though Humane Laws in some sense may be said to be made by God's Authority yet when men oppose a legal Entail of the Crown to the Authority of God in making Kings they oppose Humane Laws to the Authority of God Well! but these Law are our Rule they are are so when they are not over-ruled by a Superior Authority but that they may be by the Authority of God And the Providence of God is no Rule to us If by this he means that we must not make Providence the Rule of Good and Evil to us i. e. that we must not think it lawful for us to do whatever the Providence of God does I grant it for the Laws of God are the Rules of Good and Evil not his Providence but if he means the Providence of God cannot direct our Duty cannot lay some new Obligations on us and discharge our old ones this is manifestly false in a thousand Instances every new Condition Providence puts us in every new Relation it creates it requires some new Duties and lays some new Obligations on us I shall instance only in the Case before us If the Providence of God can remove one King and set up another tho this does not alter the Duty of Subjects to their Prince yet it changes the Object of their Allegiance as it changes their Prince the Laws of God prescribe the Duty of Subjects to their Prince but the Providence of God makes him And now let us consider the opposition he makes between Humane Laws of Entail and Providence for he confesses they do oppose Laws made by the Divine Authority that is the Laws of the Land which entail the Crown to Providence or to the Providence of God in making Kings that is they think themselves bound in Conscience to adhere to that King tho out of possession who by the Laws of the Land has a legal Right to the Crown against that King who is actually setled in the Throne by the Providence of God Now if we will consider the sense of things and not the words this is no more than to say that they oppose the Providence of God against Providence his former Providence against his later Providence that is they will not allow the Providence of God to change and alter whatever Reasons the Divine Wisdom sees for it but what God has once done that they are resolved to abide by whatever he thinks fit to do afterwards which is to oppose God's Authority and to shackle and confine Providence that it shall not alter its usual methods in the Government of the World or when it has disposed of the Crown once shall never be at liberty while that Family lasts to dispose of it again to any other For what are these Laws which he says are made by the Divine Authority and are our Rule They are the Laws of Succession which entail the Crown And how does God settle the Crown on any Family by such Laws No otherwise but by his Providence so over-ruling the hearts and counsels of Men as to consent to such an Entail which gives a humane Right to the Crown and bars all other humane Claim So that an Hereditary King by a humane entail of the Crown with respect to God is only a Providential King as much a Providential King as the first of the Family was who obtain'd it by Election or Conquest or worse Arts not by God's express nomination of the Person So that to opppose the Laws of Entail made not by God's immediate Authority as they were in the Kingdom of Iudah but by the over-ruling influence of Providence against God's setting up a new King on the Throne by other Acts of his Providence is to oppose Providence against Providence God's Providenee in

setling the Crown in such a Family by a legal Entail against his Providence in setling a new King upon the Throne It is all but Providence still and I desire to know why the Providence of an Entail is more Sacred and Obligatory than any other Act of Providence which gives a Setled possession of the Throne What follows is pretty and nothing more The Land of Canaan was divided among the Twelve Tribes by God's express Command and this answers to God's Entail of the Crown on David ' s Family the possession in all other Countries is only by Providence and this answers to a humane Right and Title to the Crown Well! there is something of likeness between them and what then And therefore according to the Doctor 's way of reasoning every Man who wrongfully possessed himself of another Man's Estate in that Land Canaan must be made to restore it for God had expresly given it to the other and to his Family But in all other Countries if a Man by Providence get his Neighbour's Estate he must have it for the event is God's Act and it is his evident Decree and Counsel that he should have it Now the fundamental mistake which runs through all these kind of Arguments is this That they make the events of Providence in private injuries Thefts Robberies Encroachments of one Subject on another Subject's Rights to be the very same with God's disposal of Kingdoms and to have the same effects whereas all private injuries are reserved by God himself to the correction and redress of Publick Government and Humane Courts of Justice and therefore his Providence has no effect at all on such personal Rights but the very nature of the thing proves that such disputes which are too big for a legal decision or any humane Courts for the decision of which God has erected no universal Tribunal on Earth he has reserved to his own judgment such as the Correction of Sovereign Princes and the transferring Kingdoms and Empires and here the final determinations of Providence in setling Princes on their Thrones draws the Allegiance and Submission of Subjects after it and in such Cases God does not confine himself to determine on the side of Humane Right but acts with a Soveraign Authority and gives the Kingdoms of the World to whom he pleases as he can best serve the Wise and many times the unsearchable designs of his Providence by it which shows how much our Author is out in applying what I said of God's making Kings to God's disposal of private Estates It is to say that God as well as Men is confined to humane Laws In making Kings I said In disposing of Estates saith our Author as if disposing of Estates and making Kings were the very same thing whereas God has erected humane Judicatures to Judge of the first but has reserved the second to his own judgment and when God himself judges he judges with Authority with Wisdom with Justice superior to all humane Laws Our Author might as well have said That we must not resist private Men or Inferior Officers when they are injurious because we must not resist a Sovereign Prince when he illegally oppresses us as that we must not dispossess a private Subject who has injuriously possessed himself of our Estates because Subjects must not pull down a Prince who is setled in the Throne without a legal Right The Poet would have taught him the difference between these two Cases Regum timendorum in proprios Greges Reges in ipsos Imperium est Iovis Subjects are under the Government and Correction of Princes Princes under the Government of God And besides this according to my Principles Kings must be thoroughly setled in their Government before it becomes unlawful for Subjects to dispossess them and then if he will make the Cases parallel He who unjustly seizes another Man's Estate must be throughly setled in it before it becomes unlawful to dispossess him but that no private Man can be who is under the Government of Laws and has not the possession of his Estate given him by Law and when he has whether right or wrong he must not be violently dispossessed again but in Causes superior to Laws as the revolutions of Government and the translations of Kingdoms are there may be a thorow settlement by a setled possession without Law and must be so where Laws cannot determine the controversy that is where there is no superior Tribunal to take cognizance of it So that as our Author has stated the Case it signifies nothing to the present purpose for whether private Mens Estates be setled by a Divine or Humane Entail it is the same case if they suffer any Injury from their Fellow-Subjects they must seek for Redress from publick Government but I could have told him a way how to have applied this case to the purpose but then it would not have been to his purpose but to mine In Canaan where God allotted every Tribe and Family their Inheritance none could pretend a Right to any Portion of Land but what was allotted them but in other Countries which were left in common Possession and Occupation gave a Right Thus in Iudah none had an ordinary Right to the Crown but those who were nominated by God or had the Crown descended on them by a Divine Entail but in other Countries Possession and Occupation gave a Right to the Allegiance of Subjects In Canaan when God had setled such an Inheritance in a Family it could never be perpetually alienated but tho it were sold it could be sold for no longer time than till the year of Iubilee when all Estates were to return to their old Proprietors again but in other Countries Men may part with their Estates for ever Thus in the Kingdom of Iudah tho God by his Sovereign Authority might set up a Providential King yet this did not cut off the Entail but when ever the true Heir appeared Subjects if they were at liberty were bound to make him King and dispossess the Usurper but in other Kingdoms a Kingdom may be lost as well as an Inheritance sold for ever In Answer to that Objection That the Laws of the Land in such Cases as these are the measure of our Duty and the Rule of Conscience and therefore we must own no King but whom the Laws of the Land own to be King that is in an H●reditary Monarchy the right Heir I granted That the Laws of the Land are the Rule of Conscience when they do not contradict the Laws of God but when they do they are no Rule to us but their Obligation must give place to a Divine Authority Suppose then there were an express Law that the Subjects of England should own no King but the Right Heir and notwithstanding this Law as it will sometimes happen and has often happened in England a Prince who is not the right Heir should get into the Throne and settle himself there if the Divine Law