Selected quad for the lemma: england_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
|
withall engaged themselves to hold the Countrey of the Netherlands under the obedience of their Prince and natural Lord as they ought to do for so are the words of their protestation in Mr. Prinne's Book yet in the year 1581 Hugo Grotius de Antiq Reâ—p Batavicae cap. 5. Paulus Merula de statu Reip. Bataviae Diatâ—iba Johannes de Latt Descrip Belgicae tit Hollandia cap. 7. Henricus Sâ—terus Suecia pag. 131. Seq pag. 202. 206. 216. they solemnly abjured the King of Spâ—ine who was â—â—e Hereditary Earle of Holland And the Earles of Holland were not in any thing short of a justly regulated King and had as much Authority there as the Kings of England among us as the Authors in the Margin inform us The States of Sweden in the year 1544 changed their Elective Kingdom into an Hereditary which they entayled upon Ericus the eldest Son of Gustavus their King then and his issue male and if such issue failed upon John the Kings second Son and his heirs male and in like manner upon Magnus and Charles Duke of Sudermannia the Kings younger Children to this they sware solemnly Yet Ericus for his Tyranny was deposed by the States and John the second Brother crowned he dying and leaving Sigismund King of Poland and John Duke of Ostrogothia his 2. sons behind him Sigismund was crowned King of Sweden yet because he endeavoured to destroy the Protestant Religion established among them and Warred upon them he was deposed by an Act of the States Assembled at Stockholm in the year 1599 and in the year 1600 both he his posterity excluded from all government in Sweden by a Decree of the States assembled at Lincop nay more they excluded from the Kingdom John Duke of Ostrogothia the brother of Sigismund because they feared lest he out of naturall love to his brother should enter into any part or Covenant with Sigismund and his heires which might bring detriment to their countrey and then they chose Charles Duke of Sudermannia for their King And if the States of Holland might abjure their Earl and not be scandalous to us nay and we joyn with them as our Nation did in Queen Elizabeth's dayes if the States of Sweden might abjure Sigismund Ministri in hac sententia constanter permanserunt posse viz. Magistratum sub leges vi cogi Buchanan Rerum Scot. lib. 17. his brother and issue and not be scandalous to us nay more and we help Gustavus the Son of Charles whose right was built upon Sigismund's ruine I can see no cause why our actions and engagement should be scandalous to any honest man among them or any other Nation that approved the equity of those actions in Holland or Sweden Scotland it may be will frowne because the current of Pensions from England is stopt but they that laid the foundation of Reformation in Scotland were of another mind then their present Kirkmen Mr. Knox defended the Lawfulness of putting Tyrants to death in a Generall Assembly In the Scotch Queen Maries dayes Buchanan Rerum Scot. lib. 20. Magis formidamus nimiae lenitatis apud omnes bonos reprehensionem quà m apud malâ—s crudelitatis calumnium Actio contra Mariam Scotorum Reginam pag. 100. Plea c. page 60. the Ministers were constant in this opinion that the Magistrate might be brought by force under the Lawes and the Earl of Morton and other Scotch Lords Ambassadors to Queen Elizabeth justified their deposition of Mary and affirmed that they might by the Law of Nature and their Countrey have dealt more severely with her and that her life and the successors of her Son depended upon their clemency their Oration which was presented to Queen Elizabeth a Latin Printed Copy whereof I have ends thus We more feare to be reprehended by good men for our over-much Lenity then we do to be slandered by the bad with cruelty Were Scotlands Kirkmen the true successors of Mr. Knox and Buchanan we could not offend them but we being their successors in the truthes they professed and the Scots Apostatizing we may well cast them in with Non-scribers and contemne the offences they take against us with Let them alone c. But the imposing of the Engagement say Non-scribers is scandalous because it takes away the Liberty of Conscience which the Imposers professedly maintain and they cannot see any reason but that they should leave Conscience free in Civill matters who would have it free in matters of Religion But besides that the Imposers of the Engagement have not for ought I know owned the Patronage of so vaâ—â— Libertinisme in matters of Religion as Non-scribers would â—ather upon them their Argument may be retorted upon themselves It is scandalous that they who hold tolleration of difference in outward formes of Discipline unlawfull should claime a tolleration in Civill matters and it would be scandalous in the Magistrate to tollerate any thing Festus Hommius col Anti-Bellarminianum Disp 34. Thes 4.5 Sam. Bolton Arraignment of error pag. 335. 336. Plea c. pag. 61. or to grant any priviledge which by the Priviledged is looked upon under the Notion of sin and Learned Presbyterians into the number of whom Non-scribers itch to be received rank opinions destructive to the publike Peace with such as are blasphemous and contrary to Fundamentall truthes and allow the Magistrate an equall nay greater Power to punish them that are seditious then them that are so erroneous Concerning the Agreement of the People I have this only to say that the Parliament never owned it and therefore Non-scribers do meerly Calumniate them in laying it at their doores But their new strain of Poetry wherein they would make Sphynx a resolver of riddles I must say that for ought I have read Isti quidem orationi Oedipos epus conjectori est qui Sphyngi interpres fuit Plautus in Paenulo Act. 1. Scen. 3. Plea c. page 42. the proposing of riddles is onely attributed to Sphynx the resolution to Oedipus And for the Riddle it self since Non-scribers are the Sphynges I will make them according to their own Poetry the unriddlers Non-scribers call the Government by Kings Lords and Commons the constitution of the People yet make the People subject to it So that the people by their own concessions may have a radicall virtuall Power of Soveraignty which when they have derived and it is in the Magistrate formally they are to obey the Magistrate made by them The people as a Community gave their Power to their Representatives as singulars are required to Engage They who aggregately as a Community are the Originall of power may severally and personally be the Recipients of it The rest of their Rhetorick is spent in bewayling the Tyranny Plea c. page 61. 62. 64. oppression Injustice which our Nation as they say is under notwithstanding the imposers of the Engagement professe opposition to Tyranny and make Justice and Liberty their Motto But that you may know
yet will not this make them coordinate with the Commons The means are subordinate to the end The Patron is but an honorary servant to his Client As if a Patron having bargained with his Clients adversarie for a share of the profits should betray his Clients cause he would not hurt his Clients rights So the conspiracie of great ones to the hurt and destruction of the people cannot detract any thing from the Peoples right They will fall into the punishment the Law ordains against prevaricators and the Law will permit the people to choose another Patron and pursue their own right Thus Junius Brutus If the House of the Lords then refuse to judge Hamilton's Army publick Enemies if they continue in a destructive Treaty with a Tyrant their Judiciall power which themselves desert is lost The legislative power may deprive them of that power for the future 2. The Fountain of this power considered will shew them not to be coordinate with the Commons The fore-praised Author out of the British Antiquities and an old Law-book called The Mirror shews that the Lords were raised out of and by the Commons of late they have been made by the King Now if the King be not coordinate with the Representers of the People much lesse can they be that have their Honor from him The Kings of England heretofore have been constrained by Parliament to lessen the number of their meniall Servants And although the late Kings might be tolerated to make mushrom Lords to furnish out a Court-jigge or a Coronation-Pomp yet could they make none to equall them who gave Laws to them both the Commons of England 3. The Lords sate in a personall capacitie onely not so much as representing their own Families thence were their Brethren and Sons Members of the House of Commons as Denzill Hollis Nathaniel Fienes c. So many single Persons cannot equall the Representives of the whole people The Senate of Rome who had a greater power then the House of Lords were not equal to the Colledge of the Tribunes of the people Neither should we grant that there were an equalitie of Power between the King Lords and Commons would it follow that therefore they have no power one over the other There are exceptions from the generall rule Par in Parem non habet potestatem Neither will their Major be firm should we keep the terme coordinate For 1. The End of Coordination of Powers is that if one should prove pernicious to the Common-wealth there might not be wanting a Power to restrain it and if necessity require the taking of it away there might be a face of publick Authoâ—ity remaining 2. Superiors may become obnoxious to their Inferiors when by contract they make themselves so Much more may coordinates become obnoxious to each other if they be all bound to pursuc one end and some prevaricate 'T is to be confest indeed that ordinarily Coordinates have no privitive power over one another but yet the Rule holds not in all cases where one Coordinate endeavors to destroy the End for which it was ordained the other Coordinate may remove it The End of both their Coordination being to be preferred before the means conducing to it and it being not onely dangerous to let the remedie fall into the hands of the multitude but unlawfull for the innocent coordinate to quit his station Constantine the great Pari potestate praeditiâ— notum verò est quod vuâ—go dicitur Par in parem non habet imperium nibil-ominus tamen Conâ—tantinus Licinium Christianos in iisque nobiles plaerosque religionis sive causâ sive praetextu re egantem divexantem contrucidantem bello peâ—it religionis liberum cultum Christianis vi impetrat fidem denique frangentem ad pristinam saevitiam revertentem Thessalonicae morte mulciari jubet Vindiciae contra Tyrannos Quae. 4. pag. 204. and Licinius were both of them Emperors in one Common-wealth of equall power and that vulgar saying is well known Par in parem non habet potestatem yet notwithstanding when Licinius banished vexed killed many Christians and among them many Noble ones either because of their Religion or under that pretence Constantine waged war upon him by force procures for the Christians free exercise of their Religion and at last puts Licinius to death at Thessalâ—nica who had broken his promise and returned to his former cruelty so Junius Brutus who also adds that when the Empire was divided between Constantines three Sons and Constantine the eldest maintained the Arrians Constans the yongest the orthodox the yonger threatned the elder to force him to restore Athanasius whom he had banished The Consuls were set up at Rome Ne potestas soâ—â—tudine corrumperetur Florus l. 1. c. 9. Suet. in Julio cap. 49. Plea c. p. 21. lest a power without companion should turn to Tyranny the Consuls therefore were coordinate yet when Caesar affected Tyranny his Collegue Bibulus proscribed him and had he had strength would doubtlesse have executed the sentence he pronounced But yet there is another stumbling block Those that removed the King and Lords are not an House of Commons they are but a parcell of one of the Estates the majority being excluded by them and kept from them by force of Arms. To which I answer 1. By denying that the House did exclude the Members that were excluded at the first the force that was used in exclusion of them was not by the consent of their fellow-Members as appears by their Message to the Generall and Councell of War Neither doth the omission of the prosecution of the Authors of it argue their consent The punishment of an Error suppose that this we speak of be one may be omitted by Authority if such punishment be dangerous to the Publick Peace Page 9. 10. but of this the Exercitation Answered speaks sufficiently 2. By denying that they are kept out by force but by Order of the House which hath power to punish its offending Members The majority of the House that followed the King to Oxford were excluded by Vote The House past severall Votes to exclude them that would not take the Covenant yet none ever questioned the remaining part to be an House unlesse it were the Oxford Cavaliers The majority of the Lords House were excluded by Vote Petition of 12500. c. and kept out by the minor part and yet the Lancashire Ministers call this minor part The House of Peers in their Petition and their Answer received August 25. 1646. the Answer of the House of Peers And I can conceive no reason why the exclusion of some Members out of the House of Commons should make them no House and the exclusion of the major part of the House of Peers not make â—hem no House unlesse it be that Non-scribers have forsâ—ken their former principles But Plea c. p. 23. this Vote by which the majority was excluded was contrary to the Vote of that