Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A45622
|
The stumbling-block of disobedience & rebellion cunningly imputed by P.H. unto Calvin, removed in a letter to the said P.H. from I.H.
|
Harrington, James, 1611-1677.
|
1658
(1658)
|
Wing H822; ESTC R35985
|
10,790
|
18
|
Soveraign power therefore a popular ballance even by the ordinance of God himself expressed in Scripture amounted unto Empire But you when you have asked in what part of the Word of God we shall find any such Authority given to popular Magistrates answer Not in the Old Testament you are sure For when Moses first ordained the Seventy Elders it was not to diminish any part of that power which was invested in him but to ease himself of some part of the burthen lying upon him as you will have to appear plainly by the 18th of Exodus where Moses upon the advice of Jethro chose able men out of all Israel and made them Rulers of Thousands Rulers of Hundreds Rulers of Fifties and Rulers of Tens Now I am sure that about this time the number of the men of Israel was above six hundred thousand and so any man may be sure that the elders thus chosen should we count but the Rulers of the thousands only must have come at the least to six hundred wherefore you cannot be sure that this makes any thing to the election of the seventy elders Well but out of these say you God afterwards in the Eleventh of Numbers willed Moses to chuse the seventy Elders You may do me a greater favour then you can suddenly imagine to tell me really for what cause or upon what authority your speech is so positive that God willed Moses to choose the seventy Elders out of those that were chosen in the Eighteenth of Exodus For whereas Moses is willed to choose them out of such as he knew to be elders such there were in honour among the people though not in power before the election of those advised by Jethro as appears Ex. 3â— 16. 4. 29. But had this been as you would have it what is the necessity that because there lay an appeal unto Moses from those in Exodus that is from the Jethronian Elders or Courts which sat afterwards in the gates of the Temple and of every City therefore there must needs lye an appeale from the seventy Elders or the Sanhedrim unto Moses especially while the whole stream of Jewish writers or Talmudists who should have had some knowledg in their own Common-Wealth unanimously affirms that there was no such thing Whereupon to the election of the former Elders saith Grotius in the place of these came the Judges in the gates and in the place of Moses the Sanhedrim Nor need we go farther than the Scripture for the certainty of this assertion where the seventy are chosen not to stand under Moses but with him not to diminish his burthen or bear it under him with an appeal in difficult cases to him as is expressed in the election of the Jethroinan Elders but to bear the burden with him and without any mention of such appeal Moses before the election of the Jethronian Judges had the whole burthen of Judicature lying upon him after their election the burden of the appeals only wherefore if the seventy Elders were indeed instituted to bear the burthen with Moses there thenceforth lay no appeal unto Moses which is yet clearer in this precept If there arise a matter of controversie within thy gates which plainly is addrest to the Jethronian Courts too hard for thee in judgment then shalt thou come unto the Priest and the Levite by which in the sense of all Authors Jewish and Christian is understood the Sanhedrim or to the Judg that shall be in those dayes the Suffes or Dictator and they shall shew thee the sentence of Judgment whence by the clear sense of Scripture all matter of appeal in Israel lay unto the Sanhedrim Your next Argument that there must be nothing in all this but easing the supreme Magistrate of some part of the burthen which was before too heavy for him without any diminution in the least respect of his power is that when God had taken of the Spirit which was upon Moses and put it upon the seventy Elders the Spirit yet rested upon Moses in as full a measure as it did at first I grant in a fuller for I believe his wisdom was the greater for this diminution of his power it being through the nature of the ballance apparently impossible that he could be any more then a Prince in a Common-wealth but your argument can be of no force at all unless you will have him to have been less wise for not assuming soveraign power where without confusion it was altogether impossible he should have held it A Pince in a Common-wealth subsisteth by making himself or being made of use unto the free course of popular orders but a soveraign Lord can have no other subsistance or security then by cutting off or tearing up all roots that do naturally shoot or spring up into such branches To conclude if the Congregation of the people in law to be made had such power as was shewn and in law so made the ultimate appeal lay unto the Sanhedrim why are not here two estates in this Common-wealth each by Gods own ordinance and both plain in Scripture well but when they came you will say to make unto themselves Kings what ever power they had formerly was now lost This at best were but to dispute from the folly of a people against an ordinance of God for what less is testified by himself in those words to Samuel They have not rejected thee but they have rejected me that I should not raign over them The Government of the Senate and the people is that only which is or can be the government of lawes and not of men and the government of lawes and not of men is the government of God and not of men He that is for the government of lawes is for the government of God and he that is for the government of a man is for the government of a beast Kings no question where the ballance is monarchical are of divine right and if they be good the greatest blessings that the government so standing can be capable of but the ballance being popular as in Israel in the Grecian in the Sicilian Tyrannies they are the direst curse that can befal a nation Nor are divines who will alwayes have them to be of divine right to be hearkened to seeing they affirm that which is clean contrary to Scripture for in this case saith Hosea They have set up Kings and not by me they have made Princes and I knew it not Pharaoh may impose the making of brick without the allowance of straw but God never required of any man or of any government that they should live otherwise then according to their estates It is true if a mans want make him a servant there are rules in Scripture that injoyn him the duty of a servant But shew me the rule in Scripture that obligeth a man who can live of himself unto the duty of a servant Hath God less regard unto
a nation then to a man Yet the people of Israel continuing upon a popular Agrarian though God forwarned them that by this means they would make themselves servants would needs have a King whence saith the same Prophâ—t O Israel thou hast destroyed thy self but in me is thine help I will be thy King which foretels the restitution of the Common-wealth for where is any other that may save thee in all thy cities and thy Judges of whom thou saidst give me a King and Princes I gave thee a King in mine anger that is in Saul and I took him away in my wrath that is in the captivity so at least saith Rabbi Bâ—chai with whom agree Nachmoni Gerschome and others Kimchi it is true and Maimonides are of opâ—nâ—on that the people making a King displeased God not in the matter but in the form only as if the root of a tree the ballance of a government were form only and not matter nor do our divines yet who are divided into like partys see more then the Rabbys Both the Royalists and the Common-wealthsmen of each sort that is whether divines or Talmudists appeal unto the letter of the law which the Royalists as the Translators of our Bible render thus When thou shalt say the Common-wealths-men as Diodati thus If thou come to say I will set a King over me like all the nations that are about me thou shalt in any wise set him King over thee whom the Lord thy God shall choose The one party will have the law to be positive the other contingent and with a mark of detestation upon it for so where God speaketh of his peoples doing any thing like the nations that were about them it is every where else understood But let these which are no nicities be as you will who seeth not that to argue from this place for the necessity of the King is as if one from that foregoing should argue for the necessity of the Judges The words are these Thou shalt come unto the Priest and to the Levitè which as was said is to the Sanhedrim and that is or to the Judg that shall be in those dayes Yet that the Judg not by any necessity implyed in these words but through the meer folly of the people came to be set up in Israel is plain by Josephus where he shews that the Israelites laying by their Armes And betaking themselves unto their pleasures while they did uot as God had commanded root out the Canaanites from among them but suffered them to dwell with them suffered also the form of their Common-wealth to be corrupted and the Senate to be broken the Senators nor other solemn Magistrates being elected as formerly which both in word and fact is confirmed also by the Scripture In words as where it is thus written When Josua had let the people go that is had dismissed the Army planted them upon their popular ballance the children of Israel went every man unto his inheritance to possess the land and the people served the Lord all the dayes of Josua and all the dayes of the Elders that out-lived Josua that is while the Sanhedrim continued after him but when the Elders hereof came to dye and the people elected them no successors they did evil in the sight of the Lord and having broken their civil orders forsook also their religion the government whereof depended upon the Sanhedrim and served Balim And for the matter of fact included in these words it farther appears where Judah said unto Simeon his brother come up with me into my Lot that we may fight against the Cananites and I likewise will go with thee into thy lot so Simeon went with him By which the tribes leaguing at their pleasure one with another it is plain that the Sanhedrim their common Ligament was broken Now except a man shall say that this neglect of Gods ordinance was according unto the law of God there is no disputing from that law to the necessity of the judg which happened through no other then this exigence quippe aut rex quod abominandum aut quod unuus liberae civitatis consilium est senatus habendus est wherefore the judg of Israel was not necessitated by the will of God but foreseen only by his Providence not imposed by the law but provided by it as an expedient in case of necessity and if no more can be pleaded from the law for the judg against whom God never declared much less is there to be pleaded from the same for the King against whom he declared so often There is nothing more clear nor certain in Scripture then that the Commonwealth of Israel was instituted by God the judges and the Kings no otherwise then through the imprudence and importunity of the people But you who have no better name for the people in a common-wealth then the rascal rabble will have Kings at a venture to be of divine right and to be absolute whereas in truth if divine right be derived unto Kings from these of the Hebrews only it is most apparent that no absolute King can be of divine right for these Kings if they were such by the law alledged then by the same law they could neither multiply horses nor wives nor silver nor gold without which no King can be absolute but were to keep all the words of this law and these statutes and so by consequence were regulated Monarchs Nay could of right enact no law but as those by David for the reduction of the Ark for the regulation of the Priests for the election of Solomon which were made by the suffrage of the people no otherwise then those under the Kings of Rome and ours under the late Monarchy What then is attributed by Calvin unto popular Migistrates that is not confirmed by Scripture and reason yet nothing will serve your turn but to know what power there was in the Sanhedrim to control their Kings to which I answer that both Skickardus and Grotius with the full consent of the Talmudists have assured you that in case the King came to violate those lawes and statutes it was in the power of the Sanhedrim to bring him unto corporal punishment Moreover it is shewn by the later out of Josephus that Hircanus when he could not deliver Herod from the Sanhedrim by power did it by art Nor is your evasion so good as that of Hircanus while you having nothing to say to the contrary but that Herod when he was questioned was no King shufle over the business without taking any notice as to the point in controversy that Hireanus who could not save Herod from the question was King The manner of the restitution of the Sanhedrim made by Jehoshaphat plainly shews that even under the Monarchy the power of the Sanhedrim was coordinate with that of the King at least such is the Judgment of the Jewish writers for saith Grotius the King as is rightly noted by the Talmudists was not to judg in some cases and to this the words of Zedekia seem to relate where to the Sanhedrim demanding the Prophet Jeremiah he said behold he is in your hands for the King is not he that can do any thing without you Nor except David had ever any King â—â—ssion or vote in this councel to which soon after he adds that this court continued till Herod the great whose insolencie when exalting it self more and more against the law the Senators had not in time as they ought suppressed by their power God punished them in such manner for the neglect of their duty that they came all to be put to death by Herod except Sameas only whose foresight and frequent warning of this or the like calamity they hâ—d as frequently conâ—emned In which words Grâ—tius following the unanimous consent of the Talmudists if they knew anything of their own orders expresly attributes the same power unto the Sanhedrim and chargeth them with the same duty in Israel that is attributed unto the three estates in a Gothick Model and charged upon these by Calvin Thus that there never lay any appeal from the Sanhedrim unto Moses nor except when the Jews were in captivity or under provincial government to any other Magistrate as also that they had power upon their Kings being that your self say Is the objection Paramount and which not answered you confess that the three estates coxvened in Parliament or any other popular Magistrate Calvin dreames of notwithstanding 〈◊〉 discontinuance or non usage on their parts or any prescription alledged by Kings to the contrary may resume and exercise that Authority which God hath given them when ever they shall find a fit time for it And this letter shâ—wing plainly that you have in no wise answered this objection it remains that your whole book even according to your own acknowledgment is confuted by this Letter Or if you be of another mind I shall hope to hear farther from you London Printed for D. Pâ—keman at the Rainbow in Fleetstreet 1658. p. 39 40 41 P. 41. P. 43. P. 45. De Leg. 3. Pol. lib. 2. De Leg 3â— P. 55. Calv. Inst. lib. c. 20. §. 31. P. 290. Judg. 20 P. 290 Num. 1. 46. Grotius ad Ex. 18. 21. Num. 11. Deut. 17. 8. P. 292. 1 Sam. 8. 7. Arist pol. 3. c. Hos. 8. 4. Hos. 13. Deut. 17. 14. Verse 9. Book 5. c. 2 Judg. 26. Indg. 1. 3. Pacuvious apud Livium lib. 23 Dan. 17. De jure B. ac p. Lib. 1. Cap. 1â— 2 Chr. 19. Ad Mat. 5. Ier. 38. 5. â— 289.