Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A46764
|
The title of an usurper after a thorough settlement examined in answer to Dr. Sherlock's Case of the allegiance due to sovereign powers, &c.
|
Jenkin, Robert, 1656-1727.
|
1690
(1690)
|
Wing J573; ESTC R4043
|
113,718
|
92
|
worst King can be But the present Doctrin which the Doctor maintains brings Mischiefs upon both King and People which the contrary to it would prevent and so is worse than that in its Effects and Consequences There is no Doctrin that can secure Kingdoms from all Dangers and Calamities but Passive Obedience is as effectual to that end as the State of Human Affairs will admit and the Divine Providence takes care of all extraordinary Cases And when it is proved that a Doctrin is delivered in the Scriptures and has been taught by the Catholick Church from the Apostles Times and is the best and most beneficial to Societies that can be taught no good Man will dispute the Truth of it though great Inconveniences may sometimes happen which neither that nor any other Doctrin can prevent But if the Doctrin of Passive Obedience should expose Subjects to never so many and great Inconveniences the Doctor 's Notion must expose Men to the same and much greater For Passive Obedience teaches only That Kings may not be resisted by their Subjects But the Doctor goes further and must say That if Kings can once get fully possessed of the Properties of their Subjects and throughly setled in their Encroachments upon their Rights and Liberties they have from thenceforth a Divine Right to them and their Authority over their Subjects is increased and extended with their Power and Usurpations for all is the Gift of God by his Providence after a through Settlement Again he objects P. 34. But have not Pyrates and Robbers as good a Title to my Purse as an Vsurper has to the Crown which he seizes by a manifest Force and Violence Does not the Providence of God order and dispose all these Events And are we not bound then as much to submit to Pyrates as to Vsurpers To which he answers That the dispute is not about Human and Legal Right in either Case but about Authority But neither is the Objection concerning Human and Legal Right but Divine Right for the Conveyance of Authority by God's Providence supposes a Right to enjoy and exercise it and that Objection is That Pyrates and Robbers have as good a Right to their Booty as an Usurper's Right and Title can be to his Crown and that the Divine Providence may as well be said to dispose of the Properties of Subjects as of the authority of Kings For though an Indictment may be brought against Robbers in Human Courts yet by being in full Possession they may by the same Reason be said to have a Divine Right to the Goods they have taken and that they are not obliged in Conscience to make Restitution by which Usurpers are said to have a Divine Right and Authority from God to Rule the Dominions in which they have unjustly setled themselves And this I think I have already proved or if I had not the Doctor himself has granted it Has he forgot that he told us before P. 12. That the Scripture never speaks of God's bare Permission of any Events but makes him the Author of all the Good or Evil which happens either to private Persons or Publick Societies What then can his Distinction between Human and Legal Right and Authority signifie I cannot but think notwithstanding this Distinction that a Purse may rather be transferred by Providence than a Kingdom for a Purse may be lost and found as a Kingdom can hardly be Yet if a Man should find a Purse of Gold I suppose it would be no Excuse for him to say that Providence had given it him if he should refuse to restore it to the right owner though in this Case he came by it without any Fault of his without any Expectation or Fore-sight it was his good Luck or Fortune or in other Words it was the pure Act of Providence and if Providence dispose of any Rights it must be in such Cases where only Providence without any Human Act or Endeavour takes away from one and gives to another But if the Right to a thing can remain after it is lost it must surely remain after a Man is by Fraud or Violence deprived of it unless it be not the Possession but the Sin in acquiring it which transfers the Right That which he observes of Athaliah that she was not killed nor deposed before Joash was proclaimed King and placed in the Throne is only a Circumstance of Time not at all material I shall not enquire Whether Joash had the whole Power of the Kingdom in his Hands or whether he could on the sudden be throughly setled in his Government when Athaliah yet appeared as Queen and cryed out Treason not apprehending herself totally divested of all Power as the Argument supposes But if it be lawful to dispossess an Usurper it must be lawful to pay Allegiance to the Rightful Prince before the Dispossession of the Usurper for it is lawful to dispossess the Usurper for the sake of the Rightful King and the very Act of Dispossession is the most considerable Act of Allegiance And for this Reason the Doctor maintains That in all other Kingdoms it is unlawful for the Subjects who live under the Usurper to dispossess him in behalf of the Rightful King because there is no Allegiance due to him till he gets into Possession But in the Case of Joash he acknowledges it was otherwise and the Convocation justifie the whole Process of that Action So that by the Doctor 's own Principles in that Peculiar Case where God himself had entailed the Kingdom they might as well have deposed and slain her first and then have set up Joash if it had been as convenient and easie to be done But when the Right Heir had been six Years concealed it could not be Safe for them to depose the Usurper till be had been proclaimed and shewn to the People to give them full Satisfaction that he was yet alive and this way was taken as the most Safe and Easie not that it was upon any other Account of the least Consequence which was done first What he says besides in answer to this Objection and of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah has been spoken to already There is nothing till we come to his Sixth Argument which has not been considered in answer to the foregoing Parts of his Discourse For if God does not confer Sovereign Authority upon Usurpers if he does not remove Kings and set up Kings against Human Laws if he limits his own Providence so as not to absolve Subjects from their Allegiance during their Rightful King's Life then it is in vain to say That those who refuse to comply p. 37. must renounce the only Principle whereon Passive Obedience is reasonably grounded and consequently renounce the Doctrin it self That those are bold Men who will venture to say in plain Contradiction to Scripture That God cannot remove or set up Kings and that this limits the Providence of God in governing Kings and protecting Innocent and Injured