Selected quad for the lemma: friend_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
friend_n	call_v	party_n	warrantable_a	12	3	15.8373	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85944	Katadynastēs: might overcoming right. Or a cleer answer to M. John Goodwin's Might and right well met. Wherein is cleared, that the action of the Army in secluding many Parliament men from the place of their discharge of trust, and the imprisoning of some of them, is neither defensible by the rules of solid reason, nor religion. / By John Geree M.A. and pastour of Faith's under Pauls in London. Published by authority.	Geree, John, 1601?-1649.	1649 (1649)	Wing G598; Thomason E538_24; ESTC R18662	36,380	49

be supposed that by their Commission they were limited to judge only those enemies who were in Arms with the King and his partakers Those Parliament-men whom they have excluded have notoriously discovered themselves to be men of this engagement But was ever any accusation more unjust or senseless Did not they in the Treaty hold the King so hard to it as to justifie them and the Army in the war to the vertual condemning of himself and his And to grant all for which they ingaged against him and his party And can they for this be traduc'd as apparently friends and abettors of that party But he comes on with a third answer Page 4 5. That if the Parliaments call were warrantable to levy Forces against the King and his party then was the Armies call to act in the businesse under Debat● warrantable likewise But this consequence is very weak for the Parliament is the supreme Court and Councel in the Kingdom and in your apprehension I beleeve the supreme authority who were indeed called to that Trust by the people but being by their call made members of Parliament they became clothed with authority to consult and provide m●ans for the safety of themselves and the Nation according to the Laws and Constitutions of it And so issued out Commissions c. but this as private men they could not do But now the Army was not by any Commission clothed with any authority over the Parliament And therefore they cannot justifie their actings against the Parliament over whom they had no authority by what the Parliament did having so great authority yea in the conceit of our new Lords the greatest authority in the Land But he argues further Page 5 6. That if the Parliament-men by being made Parliament-men had formally and really power to raise an Army then that Army hath power to act whatsoever lies within the verge of their Commission c. This is not doubted But the thing which we doubt and deny is That the tenor of their Commission should be by strong hand to suppress all that by rationall grounds they should judg enemies of the peace of the Kingdom without dependance on Parliamentary judgment for they were as raised so to be regulated by the Parliament in their proceedings The power of judging being reserved in the Parliament The power of executing committed to the Army especially in case of doubt or difference Never would never did any State raise an Army on other terms unles they meant to make them Lords not Servants For who is likely to be more skilful in judging what is conducible to peace and publick weal A Councel of War or a Councel of State Therefore its clear that the Army in assuming power to judg their raisers authoritatively and so using force against them have exceeded the bounds of their Commission falsifyed trust and are injurious usurpers on the Parliament men Sect. 5. But he raiseth an Objection That it is not likely that the Parliament would give Commission to act against themselves He answers pag. 6. 1 That Law-givers when in their righe mindes may give out Laws against mad men which may be put in execution against themselves when they become mad And in case any of the Parliament men from whom the Commission issued had turned Cavaliers c. But this is a wilde answer for the excluded Parliament-men are in the same way and in the same principles in which they first gave out Commissions that is to have the King home separated from his evil Counsellors that his Throne might be establish'd in righteousness Therefore to argue That because their Commission might have been used against them if they had left the Body that gave it and united with the Kings party that Now it may be so used when they continue in Parliament and act on the same principles on which they issued out the Commissions is as poor a come off as could be expected from the weakest Sophister Nor hath his 2 Answer any more strength where he affirms That what one * Traiane Emperor spake expresly to an inferior Officer is said implicitly to al inferior Officers by their superiors to use the power they have for them if they rule well against them if they rule ill pag. 6.7 for they are also for the punishment of evil-doers and that without partiality And S. Peter requires submission not only to the King as supreme but unto governors sent by him for the punishment of evil doers But first if there were nothing peculiar in that saying of Trajane why is it so often mentioned of him as a note of eminency and honor Again though inferior officers should use their power and be respected in the use of it yet they must also remember their limits A Justice of Peace hath power but it is with limits in regard of place which if he exceed though his act be never so just he usurps and is punishable And so is he limited also in regard of persons Subordinate Magistrates are to govern to be obeyed by those under them but they are to be governed by the powers above them and not exercise authority over them for their Commission extends not so far Though we are to be subject to subordinate Magistrates yet in case of opinion of wrong we may appeal from them as Paul to Caesar which shews the supreme Magistrate is to censure their Sentences not they his You might have spared that Scripture which here you too lightly bring in that in this Armies Commission there cannot be pretence for that exception which is in that of Christ 1 Cor. 15.27 But when he saith all things are put under him it is manifest that he is exempted that did put all things under him God the Father being incapable of sin For though the superiour magistrate is not exempt from sin yet is he excepted out of the Commission of the inferiour Magistrate because his superiour in Magistracie and Par in Parem much lesse inferior in superiorem in codem genere non habet potestatem equall hath no authority over his equall much lesse the inferiour over the superiour in the same kind especially where the supreme Magistrate thinkes he doth well for whose judgement shall controll shall the inferiours controll the superiour Neither doth Mr. Prinne or any judicious Divine that I know affirm that any other inferiour Magistrates but the representatives of a Kingdom shall take order with the restraining of Tyrants or if any inferiour Magistrate may do it yet they and the representatives are to proceed by taking order with their ministers which are under the penalties of the law and within the verge of authority And there is no usurpation in this when penalties are inflicted on them that are under jurisdiction But he adds If the Army had not so for mall a call as the Parliament yet had they a call as materiall for the one had it from the persons of the people and the other