Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	good_a	just_a	law_n	2,761	5	4.7834	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A89918	Problemes necessary to be determined by all that have, or have not taken part on either side in the late unnaturall warre. For the making of their peace with God and disposing them to a hearty peace one with another. By reflecting upon what they have done, before they engage in a new more dangerous and doubtfull warre: dedicated to the Lord Major, aldermen and Common-Councel of the Honorable City of London. / By P.D.	Nethersole, Francis, Sir, 1587-1659.	1648 (1648)	Wing N497; Thomason E458_20; ESTC R203004	17,363	31

caeteris paribus if they contribute to both sides for meere private respects and whether such be properly called Neuters being indeed Vterques 15. Whether the personall or the Authoritative command of the Prince issued out of his supreme Court sitting in the time of such a Warre will more excuse though neither of them can absolve them on either side that have sinned of ignorance in such a Warre as aforesaid And whether the person or the Court of the Prince will be lyable to a more heavie judgement for having drawne others into sinne at that day when there will be a review of all things done in this world before him who is no respecter of persons 16. Whether a Soveraign Prince or State being a Politique head can or cannot do any wrong And whether the major part of the true body of the State can or cannot be in rebellion And whether the major part of the representative body of the State or of the supreme Court of Judicature taking the major part as it standeth for the whole can or cannot erre in judgement or be or be not lyable to any guilt And in what sense or senses all these are or are not true 17. Whether the sinnes of a Community as a Community can be done away by the Confessions of the particular guilty persons of the Community Or whether they by confessing their sinne and the innocent particular persons by not consenting thereunto shall thereby onely save their owne soules and such a publique acknowledgement of the sinne by the Community or at least by their heads and Representants as was enjoyned under the Law be not still required in the time of the Gospel 18. Whether there be not or ought not to be such a supreme Judicatory erected in every Christian State as was among the Jewes for the finall determining of all controversies whether Ecclesiasticall or Civil that may happen between man and man or between Community and Community or between private man and Community for the preventing of civill Warre And whether in mixed governments where the whole soveraign power or the use of any part or parts thereof is either equally or unequally divided between severall Estates there ought not to be such a Judicatory erected for the preventing of their encroaching upon one anothers power and of discord and warre between the said respective States upon that occasion if there be any Christian State which is yet defective in this point 19. Whether the plotting and attempting to empeach the freedome and to corrupt the sentence of such a supreme Judicatory by open violence be not a much greater crime then the doing any thing presumptuously contrary to the judgement of such a Court as was instituted Deuteron ch 17. ver 8 9 10 11. which was death by the Law of Moses v. 12 or then the slaying of the Chancellor Treasurer or the Kings Justices of the one Bench or of the other or of any other justices assigned to hear and determine being in their places doing their offices which is high treason by the law of the Realme 20. Whether the like practising and indeavouring to overawe that Soveraigne Majesty in which a State hath placed the whole arbitrary legislative power whether they have placed it in one or in the major part of many persons consenting in one be not the highest treason that can be committed in any State And whether this may not be done by seditious tumults of the common people as well as by men of higher rank And likewise whether the contriving and indeavouring to do the same things by cunning and malicious practices be not a hainous crime also though of an inferiour nature 21. Whether the refusing to deliver up notorious Delinquents to justice be not a just cause of making Warre with rigor against a whole City or Countrey so protecting them though no otherwise partaking in the sinne in the judgement of God himselfe in the Cases of Gibeah of Benjamin and of the City of Abel protecting Sheba And whether protectors of such Delinquents have good ground to promise themselves a good issue of such a Warre by their prosperous successe in a battel or two if they doe well consider the former of those stories 22. Whether the keeping of persons duly accused from being brought to a due legall triall either upon presumption of their innocence in respect of their former good life and fame or for their good deserts or for feare and jealousy of vndue proceedings against them or upon pretence of some questionable priviledge or all these laid together can amount to any more then a probable ground of a just defensive Warre And whether it be safe to run into a demonstrable great sinne in the generall upon a probable ground that in this or that speciall Case it is no sinne 23. Whether it be possible that a suit in Law or a Warre may be just on both sides in respect of the matter in question to which it is impossible that both parties can have a good title or cause of action And whether their thinking they have so which may in some measure justifie both parties in an action at law especially if both or either of them be trustees who may with good conscience stand for the questionable rights of those for whom they are trusted can be a sufficient justification in an action at Warre which in respect of the many unavoidable mischiefs that ever accompany all armes ought not to be commenced or continued but upon clearly just great and necessary causes 24. Whether the justice of every action at warre as well as at Law doth not depend intirely upon the tryall of the point in issue between the parties and whether all other whether interessed persons or by-standers ought not to take that as it may be found in their respective Declarations manifestoes and other pleadings leaving the judgment of secret motives to God who only can judge of their hearts and who may judge otherwise of the justice of warres then man may because he seeth not as man seeth And whether they be not bound in conscience to give equall credit to the respective Declarations of both parties in all matters of fact that have not fallen within their own private certain knowledge and to use the same weights and measures in pondering the validity of their respective allegations and to judge of them without passion prejudice or partiality 25. Whether all other things that may come into consideration in a warre besides the point in issue how important soever they may be in themselves yet in this triall by battell ought to be regarded either by the parties or by any other person interessed in the warre so far as to sway him in the giving of his assistance to the one side or to the other any more then the like things ought to sway a Juror in the giving of his verdict in a tryall at Law And particularly 26. Whether the extrajudiciall qualifications of the persons either between

whom a suite at Law or a warre is or by whom the one or the other is managed as whether they be Protestants or Papists religious or prophane civill or debauched make any thing to the justice of the warre or suit or ought to encline Jurors or Partakers to the one side or to the other 27. Whether the good or ill manner of managing a suite or a warre ought to be of any more weight with Jurors or Partakers seeing a good Cause may be ill managed and an ill well And whether a Suite or a Warre undertaken and commenced upon just grounds can turne to be unjust by any subsequent miscarriages in the one or in the other except the point in issue happen to be altered through the cleare discovery of some concealed further designe in one or other of the parties or some other intervening accident as it frequently falleth out in long-breathed suites at Law and came to passe in the Bohemian warre by the death of the Emperour Matthias which made a very considerable difference in the Case from that it was when the troubles began in his life time 28. Whether the accidental present interest or the future advantages or disadvantages of what kinde soever which may accrew either to the parties themselves or to the partakers or to any third person or to the publique by the respective issue of a warre or suite and whether the suspected or knowne designes or intentions either of the parties or of their partakers to make ill use of the victory ought to be of any more force with Jurors or Partakers or whether they ought to be blinde to them also and to all other like circumstances and respects 29. Whether the consideration of the accidental and consequential interest of God himselfe in the issue of a matter in debate between two parties that are in warre ought to engage souldiers or contributers to take part with the one or with the other more then Jurors in a like case the reason to the contrary being the same in both to wit because God hath no need of mans sinne in either to maintaine his Cause or glory and it being a manifest sinne in a Juror to have any respect thereunto how considerable soever such interest of God may be as will be cleare to the meanest capacity by putting the case between an Atheisticall Church-Papist and a godly zealous Protestant or Puritane touching the perpetual advowson of a great Rectorie and no lesse cleare in the case of a warre between two Princes semblably qualified touching their title to a Kingdome divided in the profession of Religion 30. Whether a meerly civil cause of cleare justice in which true Religion is much interessed though but by consequent may not justly be called Gods cause and ought not to be undertaken more heartily and maintained more vigorously by all good Christians in that respect especially when the interest of religion is the onely or maine motive to the opposition made by the adverse party which was the case of the great Henry the fourth of France who in that regard was commonly prayed for as fighting the Lords battels and is the case of the Prince Elector Palatine and of Prince Rupert his brother who in all appearance might ere this have recovered their ancient estates and dignities to which by the lawes of the Empire their title is unquestionable by the same means that the said King did his Crowne if God by his grace had not made his example too fearfull to them 31. Whether the entitling of God to any purely civil and clearly unjust cause in respect of the interest of his true Religion involved by consequent only in the successe thereof be not a sinne against the third Commandement and of a high nature and whether any damage which may happen to accrew to Gods true Religion by occasion of the issue of such a Warre will not be put to his account that was in the wrong in the point of the justice of the Warre though he were in the right in the point of the truth of his religion and whether that will not be a heavie aggravation of his sinne 32. Whether the parties and others interessed in a purely Civil Cause of dubious justice wherin Religion is no otherwise concerned then as abovesaid do well to engage themselves and to indeavour to ingage others therein under the title or colour of religion or whether it be not a great sin to do this wittingly and wilfully especially in them who being Ambassadours of a King that hath publiquely declared his kingdom not to be of this world and that accordingly refused to make himselfe a Judge of Civil inheritances between brethren will hardly be able to shew that they have any Commission from him to entangle themselves and much lesse to interesse his name in such affairs of this world and it being well knowne that in the old Law it was death for a Prophet to presume to speak a word in his name that he had not commanded Deut. 18.20 33. Whether it be lawfull for Christian subjects to take up Arms against their Soveraign for reformation of the Religion by law established or in defence of their Religion not established by law or of their lives or livelyhoods in danger by due execution of Law our blessed Saviour having expressely forbiden them to save their lives by such meanes with the addition of a most peremptory threatning if they do and of most gracious promises if they patiently lose their lives or livelyhoods for his sake And whether the truth or falsehood of their Religion or the power or number of them that attempt any of the things aforesaid doth make any difference in the case though they be the Major part of the true or of the representative Body of a kindome Or whether all these be not Anti-Christian proceedings directly contrary to the doctrine and practice of Christ and of all his holy Apostles and of the whole Church of God for many ages and particularly of the Church of England since the Reformation 34. Whether the defence of the Religion by law established be not more properly a defence of the law then of the Religion And whether it be not lawfull for Subjects of one Religion or profession to take up armes in defence of their lives or livelyhood against the violence and force of their fellow-subjects of a contrary Religion or profession though established by Law and though they pretend to have or have authority from their Soveraigne to massacre or plunder them for that Cause unlesse their said fellow-subjects first bring or endeavour to bring them to a due Legal triall And whether the truth or falsehood of their Religion or the number of the thus oppressed doth make any such difference in the case in point of justice that one man of what Religion soever hath not as much right to defend himselfe against violence as another or as a multitude or that a multitude of what Religion or number soever

insufficient plea for the justification of doing the least wrong in violation of that Covenant by way of prevention and much more for one of the Covenanters hazarding the life of the other because he was jealous or afraid that the other would have killed him 2. Whether it be lawfull for a private Christian to go to law with his neighbour upon the occasion of any wrong actually done to him if he may recover his right or be offered just and full reparation of the wrong done without Law And whether the plaintife may refuse the offer of an equall Arbitrement in a doubtfull case 3. Whether it be not more unlawful for a Christian Prince and his people to go to warre one against the other either for the maintenance of their respectively claimed rights or for the reparation of pretended wrongs or for any cause whatsoever that might have been determined by the law of the Land without warre And whether the party that refuseth the offer of reparation or arbitration or any other indifferent meanes to avoid warre be not so much more to blame as a warre is more hard to be managed without the sinne of the parties and the damage of many other innocent persons then a suit in law 4. Whether it be not more common for Superiours to oppresse their inferiours but more monstrous as well as more rare for Inferiours to oppresse their Superiours and so adjudged in our Law And whether the later be not the more abhominable before God though the former be the more generally hatefull among men because he that hath the most power is commonly presumed to have done even when he hath suffered wrong 5. Whether it be not at least as lawfull for a Soveraigne Prince to defend the just rights of his Crown against his people by those Armes wherwith he is intrusted by the positive Law of the Land as for a free People to defend their just Liberties against their Prince by having recourse to the unwritten equity of that Law or to the Law of nature And whether if severall sorts of the people have severall laws Customs and Franchises which their Prince hath confirmed to them by his Oath he be not thereby obliged to protect every sort of them in their respective rights against the other though greater in number and power till the Rights of the weaker party may be found incompatible with the good of the whole State by the free judgement of the major part of them in whom under him or with him the legislative power is after a full hearing of all interessed parties And whether the Prince having the whole Soveraignety in him may disassent if after this he yet be of a contrary judgement 6. Whether a Soveraigne Prince may not be as well deposed by the States of his Countrey taking the power belonging to him to themselves as by setting up another Prince in his place And whether a free people under a Monarch may not be aswell enslaved by their own lawfull Prince usurping an arbitrary power over them as by the Conquest of a forreine Prince or State And whether it be equally lawfull for Prince or people to resist in either case 7. Whether a Soveraigne Prince whose Crowne is not forfeitable can forfeit any of the known and acknowledged rights of his Crown by any unwarrantable act he may have been drawn into through the misinformation and seducement of evill Councellors And whether he be not bound in conscience to discover and deliver up such evill Counsellors to a due Tryall by Law in charity to himselfe and to his people And whether the people be not under the same obligation and may not be aswel seduced by their Leaders or Demagogues and whether their rights ought not to be as unforfeitable in the same case 8. Whether any man ought to be punished for having given evill counsel either to Prince or people unlesse it can be made appeare that he gave it against the light of his owne conscience or with an evil minde either to hurt the one or the other of them or to advantage himself or others or unlesse his Counsel were wicked aswel as damagable and such as is punishable either by some law of the land already made or deserveth that a new law should be made upon that occasion to punish his offence and all of like nature in time to come 9. Whether it be probable that in a well established government of long continuance the manner of legall proceeding in any common great criminal cause should be doubtful or unknowne And admitting it to be so in some case fallen forth whether all and every of the respective States in whom the Legislative power is being assembled together at the time be not bound in Conscience to agree the difference by such an indifferent Law or Ordinance as may be enacted by their joynt consent rather then to go to warre one against another and to draw the whole State into partialities upon such an occasion 10. Whether he who giveth the first stop to the proceeding of justice according to law in that Cause which thereupon becomes a pretence to begin a just Civil warre and will not agree to remove that stop be not the offender And whether the other though he happen to be the aggressor in the action at warre as he was to have been Plaintife in the action at Law if the cause had been tryed by law yet be not on the defensive part in the warre 11. Whether any warre of any Prince upon his own people or of any people against their Prince can be lawfull but a pure defensive and whether it be possible or can be conceived how a warre between them should be purely defensive on doth parts without supposing a failing on both sides in giving way to the course of Justice or a great misunderstanding between them 12. Whether it be not as possible that a Civil warre between Prince and people may be unjust on both sides as a forraine warre between Prince and Prince State and State or a Suite in law between man and man and all these upon many and all the same grounds as if the matter in question be not worthy to be striven about by law or armes or if some third person be wronged by their strife or have better right to that they strive for then either of the parties c. 13. Whether obedience to the forcible commands of Prince or people will be a sufficient-plea for having shed or any way communicated in the shedding of blood in such a warre at his tribunal who will not admit of obedience to any Law made by their joynt Authority for a defence of the least breach of any law of his 14. Whether Neutrality or Partialitie be more agreeable to the duty of good subjects in such a Warre as aforesaid and whether willing contributers to both sides in such a War be not guilty of the sinnes of both and greater sinners then the partakers on either side

well-meaning but unskilfull men have with great prudence distinguished the justifying causes of their having raised and continuing an Army and forces from the things which might by consequent have come into danger if they had not raised an Army and forces to defend them among which Religion is one And this the penner of his Majesties said Declaration had done as carefully from the beginning in these words Our quarrel is not against the Parliament but against particular men c. 42. Whether by the perusall of the said respective Declarations and of the said Preface it be not also most evident that his Majesty and his two Houses of Parliament do both pretend to have taken up defensive Armes and in defence of all and every the same things And whether it be not also evident that his Majesty in his said Declaration maketh the protecting of Delinquents whom he nameth from being brought to a Tryall by their Peeres according to the Law of the Land the onely cause of the setting up of his standard and raising defensive Armes against them and as many of his subjests as should rise in Rebellion against his Majesty and the Law in behalfe of the said pretended offendors and in justification of their actions specified at large and alledged to be High misdemeanors and Treason And whether the three causes upon which onely the Lords and Commons pretend to justifie their having taken up defensive Armes in their said Declaration of the fourth of March 1642 be not also reducible to one to wit that of bringing notorious offenders to condigne punishment whose practises are set forth at length in their declaration of the fourth of Aug. 1642 and of whom they then named none but the Lord Digby For the pretended violence and destruction of the said Lords and Commons and of the Parliament and the pretended foreigne invasion of this Kingdome which are the other two Causes neither were then nor by Law could have been charged on his Majesty but on the said Lord Digby and other unnamed Incendiaries And whether it be not thereby manifest that there were two Actions at Warre on foot at the same time the one between the King and his Parliament the other between the Parliament and his Majestie 43. Whether the penner of the said Declaration of the Lords and Commons of the fourth of August 1642 did not with great prudence carefully and frequently disavow and indeavour to disprove their having possessed themselves of Hull or of the Militia or Magazine to be the grounds of the Warre first in these expresse words to that purpose page 496. of Husbands Collection Then if they will not come to help the Parliament and save themselves especially now that the question is so clearly stated and that it appeareth that neither Hull nor the Militia nor the Magazine are the grounds of the Warre which is so furiously driven on against us by a Malignant party c. And afterwards page 497 All this before we meddled with Hull or Magazine or Militia c. to those words But to destroy the Parliament * See the words at the end of page 24. And yet more fully and clearly ibidem Yet willingly would we give his Majesty satisfaction in these particulars and so have we offered it could we be secured that disarming our selves and delivering them up to his Majesty we should not for our own destruction put the military sword into the hands of those evill Councellors and ill-affected persons who are so prevalent with his Majesty And whether the Penner of certain late Declarations of the Lords and Commons particularly that 4º Martii 1647. concerning the Papers of the Scots Commissioners wherein are these words page 68. As to the Militia although that be the foundation of security to vs and our prosterity and was the principall immediate ground of our Quarell c. And these in the same page Have we fought all this while with the King for the Militia to subject it to the arbitrement of the Scots Commissioners were well advised in those and other like passages there being as I humbly conceive nothing more cleare then that the Militia by which word brought into use by this Parliament I doe not understand the power of araying or charging the subjects of this Kingdome with such and such armes which regularly cannot be imposed without the joynt authority of King Lords and Commons but the power of assembling and conducting the subjects so armed for the suppression of all Rebellions insurrections and invasions undoubtedly ever was in the King alone and was clearly acknowledged to be so by this very Parliament when they petitioned his Majesty to put the whole Militia into the hands of such persons as should be recommended to his Majestie by both Houses of Parliament 1o. Martii 1641 When they made their first Ordinance for the ordering of the Mllitia whereby they give power to Collonels and Captaines to lead conduct and employ his Majesties subjects according as they from time to time shall receive directions by his Majesties authority signified by both Houses of Parliament 2º Martii 1641 And when they resolved upon the Question That in this case of extreme danger and of his Majesties refusall the Ordinance agreed on by both Houses for the Militia doth oblige the People and ought to be obeyed by the fundamentall Laws of this Kingdome 15o. Martii 1641. And whether the true ground of the fracture of the Parliamentarian party into Presbyterian and Independent and of the sharp controversy arisen between them upon other pretences be not which of them should have the Lions skin before he be dead And whether if the Independent could have gone sheere away with it whole it be not already manifest that they would have been subdivided againe upon the same ground And whether there be any hope of seeing an end of these bitter disputes till the sword be put again into the hand where it hath been of old And whether there be not meanes to place it there in such a way as may be much safer for the people and no lesse safe for the Houses of Parliament then to have it in their hands who being Two may at length also come to strive about it 44. Whether the penner of his Majesties Declaration of the twelfth of August did not with like prudence also distinguish the Delinquents named therein into two ranks charging the former of them to have been the Contrivers Fosterers and Fomentors of mistakes and jealousies betwixt body and head his Majesty and his two Houses of Parliament whom his Majesty thereby requireth to be delivered into the hands of Justice All the charge against the later rank being their having levied Warre against the King contrary to the Statute of the 25. yeare of King Edward the third as is pretended but in obedience to severall Ordinances of this present Parliament as is confessed which Ordinances they are therefore allowed to pleade And whether those noble Lords and others so