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 |
|
A84082
|
Animadversions on a book called, A plea for non-scribers. By Ephraim Elcock.
|
Elcock, Ephraim.
|
1651
(1651)
|
Wing E325; Thomason E636_2; ESTC R206574
|
62,788
|
67
|
should have brought another sort of Argument and have evinced That it was unlawful for a free people upon any grounds whatsoever to have changed their forms of Magistracy This seems to be their opinion * Every particular person standiâ—g in the relation of a Subject but the community is in the power and dignity above the Magistrates Numb 11.16 Hos Judices in magnis mortibus necâ—ssitas creavit Dici Dictatores poterant Flavius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vocavit quod nomen etiam Syllae Cynnae Marióque aliis Dictatoribus Romanis Graeci dedêre Petrus Cuaeus de Repub Hebrae lib. 1. cap. 12. which they express in these words For a privative or innovative power to be in them that is in the people * Every particular person standiâ—g in the relation of a Subject but the community is in the power and dignity above the Magistrates Numb 11.16 Hos Judices in magnis mortibus necâ—ssitas creavit Dici Dictatores poterant Flavius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vocavit quod nomen etiam Syllae Cynnae Marióque aliis Dictatoribus Romanis Graeci dedêre Petrus Cuaeus de Repub Hebrae lib. 1. cap. 12. when they stand in the relation of Subjects that is have an actual and legitimate supreme Magistracy over them we cannot yet see any warrant for I shall help them therefore to some spectacles through which they may discern this truth That the Community may change their form of Magistrary upon which the whole controversie depends The people of Israel before they had Kings were under an actual and legitimate Magistracy viz. The Councel of 70. Elders instituted by divine Authority they were governed in a way of Policy or free State by these their Representatives chosen from among the people The Judges were an extraordinary kind of Officers raised up by God upon emergent occasions otherwise in the intervalls of Judges Israel â—ad no Magistracy Now for this assertion learned Cunaeus is evident Necessity created these Judges in great conclusions of State And he saith further They may be called Dictators and mean Historians know that the Dictators power was extraordinary but Josephus calls them Monarchs which name the Greeks gave to Sylla Cinna Marius and other Roman Dictators The same Authour shewes that the Councel of 70. remained ever in the Hebrew Common-wealth from its first institution and handled those things that were summae potestatis of the supreme Authority Mr. Calvin is a clear witness too God ordained saith he among the Israelites an Aristocracy near a free State Aristocratiam Politiae vicinam Deus apud Israelitas instituit cum optimâ conditione res habere vellet Calvin Just cap. 20. Sect. 7. Edit 1553. I have noted the Edition because it is not divided into Bookes when he would have them be in the best condition And it was very near indeed to a free State for the Elders were chosen by lot equally out of all the Tribes Thus I have evinced that Israel was when first formed and organized into a political body under a Magistracy different from that they had under Kings Now that it was lawful for them to change this form of Magistracy is evident 1. From the Scripture Deut. 17.14 15. When thou art come to the Land which the Lord thy God giveth thee and shalt possess it and shalt dwell therein and shalt say I will set a King over me like as all Nations that were about me Thou shalt in any wise set him over thee c. In which Text you may see 1. That the power of keeping or parting with their present Magistracy is put in the peoples will if thou say I will set a King over me c. 2. That God directs them in a circumstance for the exception of this power Thou shalt chuse one from among thy Brethren c. which regulation of a circumstance had been in vain had they not had power to dispossess the Magistracy then in possession 2. From their actual changing of their Magistracy Israel chose them a King when they had Samuel for their supreme lawful Magistrate and Samuel had a special Command from God to yield to them Hearken unto the voice of this people in what they shall say unto thee But say Non-scribers the Lord both by his word and sign manifested his disapprobation and anger against their seeking a King 1 Sam. 8.7 when they had Samuel to their Judge even to their conviction To which I rejoyne that it was not the change of Magistracy which was the cause of that divine anger 1. God was angry because they did it in such an unseasonable time when it was so inexpedient they having so just a Judge as Samuel as is evident by comparing 1 Sam. 12. at the beginning with the 19. verse 2. Because they did it in distrust of divine assistance which had helped them by Judges extraordinarily raised in time of danger whereas they then put more trust in a King of their own chusing then in God that alwayes raised Saviours for them as appeareth 1 Sam. 12.6 7 8 9 10 11 12. compared with the 19. before quoted 3. Because they did it out of desire of the pomp of their Neighbour Nations who were under Kingly Government Quia Gentilibus conformari maliut Israel quam sorti a Deo immediatè oblatae acquiescere Wendelinus Christ Theol l. 1. c. 29. Thes 6. Zanch. Com. in Hos p. 134. Diodat in loca Regiminis quendam modum constituit quem persignificanter Flavius adversus Apionem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vocari posse ait quasi ter ejusmodi civitatem dixeris cujus praeses rectórque solus Deus sit De Rep. Hebraeorum lib. 1. cap. 1. Deut. 12.5 1 Chron. 17.1 to 14. Because they would rather be conformed to the Heathen then acquiesce in what was immediately given them by God The mistiming of an action and doing it upon base grounds may make an action otherwise lawful to become unlawful But say Non-scribers God hath sometimes disowned and condemned expresly the peoples Act in setting up a Government over them which hath been in specie lawful To their Testimonies out of Samuel which are 1 Sam. 8.8 12.16 17. I have answered already Those out of Josua 8.4 13.10 11. speak the latter of the election of Saul the former of Jeroboam's erection To them all I answer That the Common-wealth of Israel was as is well noted by Cunaeus out of Josephus a Theocracy of which God was in a peculiar manner the Governour and Law-giver As God would be consulted in all ceremonials so would he in all great matters of State Israel in the Wilderness had intimation that in the Land whither they were going the Lord would chuse some one place to put his name there when he would have a setled Habitation as well as they had intimation that then they should have Kings but yet if David notwithstanding his enquiry of the private opinion of Nathan the Prophet and his
irregular is not presently unlawfull Matth. 12.3 4. Davids eating the shew-bread was irregular but not unlawfull Man's Laws must all stoop in case of necessity to the divine Law of Nature and to the safety of the people Quoniam inquit Consul dum juris ordinem sequitur id agit ut câ—â— omnibus Legibus Romanum imperium corruat egomet privatus voluntati vestrae me Ducem offero the Supreme Law When Gracchus endeavoured to subvert the Romane State the Consul Scaevola refused to oppose him by force Scipio Nasica said because the Consul while he followes the ordinary course of Law suffers the Romane Empire with all its Laws to be in danger of perishing I a private man will be your Captain accordingly though a private man he repulsed Graechus with his complices So Scipio Africanus when the publique treasury should have been opened for the necessary use of the Common-wealth and the Quaestors because they did think it forbidden by Law refused it Valer. Max. li. 3. cap. 2. Valer. Max. li. 3. cap. 7. Scipio Isay being a private man took the keyes and opened the Treasury and made the Laws stoop to the publique benefit Nor will the irregularity of hindring Magistrates from doing unlawfull Acts be lesse defensible 1 Sam. 19.40.45 The peoples act in rescuing Jonathan from Saul will justifie it They had professed their subjection to Saul yet they hindred him from oppressing his son who had wrought deliverance in Israel The Army then might well and lawfully though extraordinarily and therefore irregularly in reference to ordinary rules hinder the Members of the House from Voting such a Peace as would have opprest not only one but all our Jonathans who had wrought deliverance for our Israel 3ly Non-scribers say that the Army affirmed the Judgement of the House of Commons incompetent and inconclusive in their constitution before they were purged Which may be thus answered That the Army affirmed the Parliament morally incompetent and inconclusive at that time because so many had shâ—fflâ—d themselves so far into the Kings interest as to prefer it before the Publique interest not Politically incompetent and inconclusive Soveraigne Power of Parliaments part 2. page 40. There is no reason why Non-scribers should be angry that the Army calls the House of Commons the Parliament it is such language as Mr. Prinne teaches The Parliament saith he is elective consisting for the most part of the principall men in every County City Burrough c. And again The Parliament consisting of the a blest men of all Counties Soveraigne power of Parliaments part 1. page 39. c. And in another place whatsoever the people of Rome might do either Centuriatis comitiis or Tribunitiis is and may be done by the Authority of Parliament The Lords were not elected out of Cities Counties Burroughs Cannot resemble the Romane Comitia therfore in Mr. Prinnes Judgement not so fitly to be called the Parliament These things considered Non subscribers had small reason to parallel the deposition of the King and Lords Plea c. page 21 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Med. 28. with the Act of Corah Dathan and Abiram as they do borrowing this similitude from the late Tyrant and fulfilling the prediction of the Publisher of that fine piece of Hypocrisie Vota dabunt quae Bella negârunt For 1. Moses was innocent in the administration of his Government the King and Lords betrayed the trust reposed in them In seditione enim duas omninâ— partes esse necesse est quae cum de contradictoriis plerunque certenâ— unius justam alterius injustam causaâ— esse consequitur Justa inquit Bartolas quae tyrannicum regimen deponere volet injuâ—ta quae justum Licita quae ad bonum publiâ—um illicita quae ad privatum tendit Itaque ait Thomas quia regnum TyrannicuÌ„ quod non ordinatur ad bonum publicum sed privatum regentis non est justuÌ„ perturbatio istius Regni non habet rationem seditionis Vindiciae contra Tyrannos Quaest 3. pag. 178 179. Appendix to Soveraign Power of Parliaments page 187. 2. The men that acted then were not the Supreme Magistrate nor so much as coordinate with Moses The house of Commons the faithful part of them I mean which are proved before to be legally a House are the Supreme Magistrates 3. The cause was ambition in Corah and the rest in the Parliament the safety of the people 4. The Action of Corah and his complices was sedition but in opposing a Tyrant the Tyrant and his complices are the seditious persons For in sedition that I may use Junius Brutus it is necessary that there be alwayes two parties who when they strive about contradictory things it must follow that the ones cause is just the others unjust That is just saith Bartolus that would depose a tyrannicall Government that is unjust which would depose a just Government That is lawfull which tends to the Publique good that unlawful which tends to a private good only Therefore saith Thomas because a tyrannical rule which is not ordered to the publick good but to the private benefit of the Ruler is not just the overthrowing of such a rule hath not the reason of sedition unto which Mr. Prinne adds out of Aquinas That it is the Tyrant rather that is seditious As for that place out of the Epistle of Jude wherein the error of some Christians is paralleld with Corah's sedition it makes nothing for Non-scribers For 1. These Christians were meer private men and the meaner sort of private men 2. The Power they would have deposed was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Aristotle understands by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Supreme Power in a Common-wealth they must therefore venter another strain of Criticisme about that word as well as they do about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which when they understand we shall tell them that the Laws of England and the People in their Representatives the Masters and Makers of those Laws have the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. The sin by the Apostle there reproved is the putting down of all Magistracie in generall not the deposing of faulty Magistrates or changing inconvenient forms for those that are better So that all Non scribers big words are but bruta fulmina Mr. Perkins on the Epistle of Jude ver 8. yet the People of England might do well to take notice in what a miserable case their Ecclesiastick and Civill Liberties were if such men's as Non-scribers domination were not strictly limited and narrowly confined But what will Non-scriber say if I prove that the former constitution of the Government of the Nation was not deposed or dispossessed by the present power The constitution of this Nation was a multiformed Government say Non-scribers and I adde that if it was a mixture of just species it was of Royalty Optimacy and Polity properly so called The Powers that were dispossest were Tyranny of a Scarlet