Selected quad for the lemma: prince_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
prince_n	law_n	power_n	sovereign_a	3,887	5	9.6410	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

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