Selected quad for the lemma: power_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
power_n	law_n	prince_n	sovereign_a	3,774	5	9.4515	5	false

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

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

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

empeached of treason might not then without danger have submitted to their tryall appointed by Law supposing the formerly accused Members had also then submitted to a Legal tryal and should have been tryed first and would have been acquitted by their Peeres so as there had been no pretence of a just Warre on his Majesties part for their detainer 45. Whether the sixth Article preferred against the said accused Members be not by his Majesty avowed to be the chiefe head of their Charge aswell in his Majesties said Declaration as in the Articles themselves the said Article being comprised in these words That for the compleating of their traiterous designes they have endeavoured as farre as in them lay by force and terror to compel the Parliament to joyne with them in their traiterous designes and to that end have actually raised and countenanced tumults against the King and Parliament And whether the maine Charge against the Lord Digby and other Incendiaries in the Parliaments said Declaration of the fourth of August 1642. be not the very same viz. their combining to bury the happinesse of this kingdome in the ruine of this Parliament and by forcing it to cut up the freedom of Parliament by the roote as it is expressed page 494. And whether the maine charge of the Army against the eleven Members be not to the same effect And whether in common discourse some do not charge Others to be as guilty of the same crime as any of the accused by the Army by the Houses or by his Majesty 46. Whether they who in their private judgements have absolved the Speakers of the two Houses in which they are but the shadowes of his Majesties sacred person from all blame in what they did the last summer can with much equity or justice condemne his Majesty for having withdrawne himselfe from the tumults at Westminster when time was allowing all to be true which hath been alleaged by his Majesty and others in his behalfe for motives inducing him thereunto And whether any thing and what and how much is wanting to make the retirement of a part of the Members of both Houses to an old Army which had refused to be disbanded at their appointment a just parallel to the retirement of a much greater part of the Members of both Houses to Yorke or Oxford and there contributing their assistance toward the raising and maintaining of an Army And whether if this last mentioned Army had found no more opposition in their march to Westminster and through London then the forementioned Army did the last year the said Members needed to have done any more then was then acted by the General and Officers of the said Army for the compassing of their designe **** Desunt nonnulla **** 47. Whether upon the whole matter Whereas it was alleaged on both sides that they took up Armes in defence of his Majesties person of the true Protestant Religion which words ought to be understood of that which in this Kingdome is established for true of the Lawes and Liberties of the Kingdome and of the power and Privilege of Parliament The truth be not That the last onely to wit the Privilege of Parliament was in Question if the question were about matter of right none of the former having been or having on either side been said to be in any danger otherwise then as the freedome of Parliament was by both sides pretended to have been intended to be by the ther impeached And whether freedome being the maine Priviledge of Parliament and the providing for the freedome of the Parliament and of all other Assemblies having been said to belong to the King by the Prelates Earles Barons and the Communalty of this Realme assembled in Parliament at Westminster of purpose to take advice of this busines in the seventh yeare of King Edward the first And that by the Statute then made it was declared that it is the Kings part through his Royall seigniory straitly to defend force of armour and all other force against his peace and to punish them which shall do contrary according to the Lawes and usages of this Realme and that all the Subjects thereof are thereunto bound to aide the King as their Soveraigne Lord a all seasons when need shall be Whether I say in the late action at Warre taken as commenced on the part of the Parliament the onely point of fact in issue were not whether his Majesty either did proceed or would have proceeded according to the Laws and Usages of this Realme in the accusation of the Lord Kimbolton now Earle of Manchester and of the five Members of the House of Commons charged with an indeavour by force and terror to compell the Parliament to joyne with them in their Traiterous Designes and with having to that end actually raised and countenanced Tumuls against the King and Parliament I say would have proceeded Because his Majesty taking notice that some conceived it disputable whether his proceedings against the persons aforesaid by his Atturney were legall and agreeable to the Priviledges of Parliament was pleased to wave those his proceedings and to Declare That when the minds of men were composed he would proceed against them in an unquestionable way And whether in the late action at Warre taken as commenced on his Majesties part the onely point of fact in issue were not whether his Majesty did ever refuse to deliver the Lord Digby or any other duly accused Incendiary to a Legall tryal before the beginning of the Warre 48. Whether his Majesties Sollicitor have not fully declared his being of opinion that the justice of the great Cause yet depending between the King his Master and his two Houses of Parliament must come at last to be determined by matter of fact in a speech by him made at Guild-hall at a Common Hall there held on Friday 6. October 1643. upon the occasion of desiring the assistance of our Brethren of Scotland in this Warre in the words to be read page 5. of the Copie of that Speech published according to Order and printed by R. Cotes in 1646. And whether the truth of any matter of fact be not more surely determined by producing witnesses upon Oath then by Tryall by Battell The words last cited In case they be called in we are to consider then what alteration this is like to make we are therefore to consider how it comes about that the Party comes to be so equall that so many should engage themselves on the other Parry as we see they do certainly a great many of them do it being uncertain in their judgments to which side to cleave Another Party they do it because that they out of feare desire to keep their estates and stand Neuters For the first of those certainly both at home and abroad those that are averse they look upon us as a Protestant Kingdom but divided among our selves they heare Protestations on both sides that both Parties do protest to maintaine the Protestant Religion the Lawes of the Kingdome and the Liberty of the Subject and they see and read the Declarations that go out on both sides and the matter of fact being that that makes the cause they know not what to believe of that The words cited page 18. All this before we meddled with Hull or Magazine or Militia shew plainly that our Act in securing them was not the cause of the Kings taking up Armes and exercising hostility upon his loving and loyall subjects which was in the thought and endeavours of those about the King who then had and still have the greatest influence upon his Councells before we thought of Hull or Militia or any thing else of that nature And then that our resigning of them now would not prevaile with him to make him lay down his Armes and return to his Parliament and gratifie the earnest and longing desires of his people to enjoy his presence favour and protection But that if he could recover either by our resignation or any other way pieces of so much advantage to him and weakning to us use would be made of them to our infinite prejudice and ruine the intention being still the same not to rest satisfied with having Hull or taking away the Ordinance of the Militia But to destroy the Parliament c. FINIS