Selected quad for the lemma: power_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
power_n	king_n	parliament_n	sovereign_a	5,223	5	9.3738	5	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

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

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