Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	church_n	power_n	word_n	8,543	5	4.3980	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A91250	Prynne the Member reconciled to Prynne the barrester. Or An ansvver to a scandalous pamphlet, intituled, Prynne against Prynne. Wherein is a cleare demonstration, that William Prynne, utter barrester of Lincolnes Inne, in his soveraigne power of parliaments and kingdomes, is of the same judgement with, and no wayes contradictory to William Prynne Esquire, a Member of the House of Commons in his memento. Wherein the unlawfullnesse of the proceedings against the King, and altering the present government is manifested out of his former writings and all cavils and calumnies of this scandalous pamphleteer fully answered. / By William Prynne Esquire, barrester at law, and a Member of the House of Commons.	Prynne, William, 1600-1669.	1649 (1649)	Wing P4043; Thomason E558_5; ESTC R203281	19,546	27

Pamphletter relates his words and the Titles of all his 4. Parts manifest consisting of Lords and Commons and that in a condition of freedom and safety sitting in a full and free Parliament But he never meant nor intended it of the House of Commons alone acting and voting without and against the House of Lords nor of a House of Commons sitting acting under a horrid Arme● force as now much lesse of a remnant of a Commons-House sitting and Voting when near nine parts or ten of their fellow-members are by a mutinous Army imprisoned secluded and driven away from the House or of 40. or 50 Commons sitting under a force and usurping to themselves without and against the consent of their secluded Fellow Members the supreame Authority of the Kingdom making Acts of Parliament and erecting a New High Court of Justice without the Lords or their Fellow Nembers consents to indite arraigne condemne and execute the King as a Traytor and without the whole Kingdomes or Scotlands and Irelands joynt consents of which he is likewise King Such a Parliament as this consisting of some 50. or 60 Commons only without King Lords or the rest of their Fellow Commoners he never heard nor read of in any age and so could never intend it and therefore in his Memento might very well mind them of committing Treason within this Law whatever they Vote order or ordain or Enact in such a thin House under a force whiles the other Members are secluded being by Mr. Speakers owne Declaration of July 30. 1647. and the Ordinance of both Houses August 20. 1647. declared to be meerly null and void to all intents even at the time of its Voting Ordering Ordaining enacting ever after and so no prea at all 〈◊〉 justifie such Members in the case they be indicted a●d arraigned of High Treason for it 3 Whereas this Pamphletter p. 11 suggesteth That Wil● Prynne the Member in the rehearsal of the Statute of 25. E. 3. hath foulely miscarried and falsified the words of it in his Mement● For where as the Statute mentions nothing at all touching deposing the King he urgeth the Statute thus That it is no lesse then High Treason for any man by overt act to compass or imagin the deposition or death of the King Adding the word deposition which is no where found in the whole Statute To this Mr. Prynne the Member answers 1. That this Ignoramus hath foulely mis-recited and falsifyed his words by omitting part of them which are these First I shall minde them that by the Common Law of the Realme which he omits the Statute of 25. E. 3. and all other Acts concerning Treasons omitted likewise by this Scribler it is no lesse than High-Treason for any man by overt Act to compasse or imagine the deposition or death of the King quoting Cook and Stamford in the margin and 21. R 2. Plac. Cor. num 4. 6. 7. in the Text. Now though the word deposing be not in the Statute of 25. E. 3. yet it is in the Lawbooks which he cites and in the Parliament Roll of 21. R. 2. which this Dulman never read Therefore this absurd observation and censure of his might well have been spared Secondly To compasse the deposing or imprisoning of the King is in expresse Words declared to be Treason by the Statutes of 26 H. 8. c. 13. 1. E. 6. c. 12. 1. Eliz c. 6. 13. E. c. 1. and is no lesse then High Treason within the meaning and intention of 25 E 3 c. 2. though not within the Letter as our * Cook 3. instit ch ● p. 5. 6. 12 13. and 7. Rep. 10 11 Law-books and all the Judges of England have resolved Therefore Mr. Prynne the Member stands rectus in Curia against this ignorant false aspersion 4ly What Mr. Prynne the Barrester writ concerning the Oath of Supremacy quoted p. 11 12 he doth still averre as to the first branch of it which is distinct from the latter as applyed to the whole Parliament not to the House of Commons alone or those few Members now sitting in it under a force of which he never intended that passage to whom it is here misapplyed Only he must inform this Gentleman that the latter clause of this Oath And do promise that from henceforth I shall bear true allegiance to the Kings Highne his heirs and lawful successors and to my power shall assist and defend all Iurisdictions Priviledges and Preheminences granted or belonging to the Kings Highnesse his Heirs and Successors on united and anexed to the Imperiall Crowne of this Realme So help me God c. Is a distinct clause from the former which hee and his Confederates in their late proceedings have quite forgotten and shall one day answer for such wilfull perjury in this or the world to come if they repent not of it 5thly Whereas he addes p. 13. That the Oath of Allegiance relates only to the Popes unlawfull exercise of Authority and Iurisdiction within the Kingdome And that William Prynne the Member in his rehearsall makes the Oath to run thus That the Pope neither of himselfe nor by any Authority of the Church of Rome or by any other means nor any other hath power c. and so instead of the words with any other implying the Authority of the Pope joyned with others he makes it a distinct clause nor any other and so upon this forgery including the Parliament within those words nor any other he would make this proceeding against the King to be contrary to the Oath of Allegiance Mr. Prynn● the Member answers First that though this Oath doth principally relate to the Popes unlawfull exercise of Authority and Jurisdiction within this Realme yet it relates not only and solely to it as he pretends The whole scope of this Oath is To secure our Kings from being deposed or murdered by their Subjects or any other The greatest danger the Parliament then feared as to those two Treasons and Mischiefs was principally from the Pope and his Popish Instruments who maintained and averred the lawfullnesse of deposing and murthering Christian Princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope by their Subjects or any other Against which mischife this Oath and Statute principally provides it being contrary to the Doctrine and Practise of all Protestant Churches and Subjects But can any man argue This Oath provides against the deposing and murthering of our Kings by the Pope or Popish Subjects or Parliaments by any influence or authority from the Pope Ergo it is lawfull for Protestant Subjects and Parliaments to depose and murther their Kings without infringing this Oath Doth not that Law and Oath which provides against the greatest and most likelyest Assassinates and Deposers of our Kings provide likwise against the lesser and more unusuall and is not a Protestants deposing and murthering of his Prince as treasonable as unlawfull as a Papists yea and farre worse in this respect because it hardens and justifies them therin scandalizeth

this Kingdome in his Soveraigne Power of Parliaments yet he and the Committee of the Commons House which authotized it doth in the very Title of that Booke in expresse termes condemne the Papists and popish Parliaments of Treachery and Disloyalty to their Soveraignes both in Doctrine and practise and of Trayterous Antimonarchiall ●ractises and attempts upon the Persons Crownes and Prerogatives of their Kings in deposing and murdering them And manifests the Iurisdiction Power and priviledges claimed b● the Lords and Commons not the Commons alone without the Lords or the tenth part of the Commons under the Armies force whiles the rest are imprisoned and secluded by them to be farre more loyall dutifull and moderate then those claimed and exercised by our popi●● Parliaments Prelates Lords and Commons Ergo he refu●es William Prynne a Member of the House of Commons in his breife Memento to the present unparliamentary Iunto wherein he diswades them from their present dislo●all proceedings to depose and execute Charles Stewad their lawfull King as being a Iesuiticall and popish practise contrary to the practise and principles of all protestant Parliaments and the manifold Petitions Remonstrances Declarations Protestations Solemne Leagues Covenants and Engagement of this present Parliament Whether Prynne be against Prynne in this and whether Prynne the Barrester Member be not both unanimous against their proceedings herein let the world this ignorant mistaken Pamphleter now judge Secondly Mr. Prynne the Barrester in the foure first Pages of the first Part of his Soveraigne Power of Parliaments in as positive and earnest manner as can be condemnes and censures the Ies●its and Papists doctrines and practises in deposing and murdering Kings and Princes as treasonable damnable wicked and hereticall and particularly chargeth them for attempting to destroy and murder Hi● Majesty and 〈◊〉 ●osterity as well as Queene Elizabeth and King Iames alleaging many protestant Writers of our owne Church as Doctour Iohn Whi●●● Bishop Iewel Bishop Bilson and others condemning them for this their doctrine and practise which can stand neither with peace nor piety Ergo Mr. Prynne the Member who doth the very same in his Memento are both accorded and not against one another but both against this Pamphleters and his Confederares Iesuiticall popish Assertions and practise Adde hereunto that Mr. Prynne the Barrestet not onely in his Truth triumphing over falshood antiquity over novelty printed by Order of the Commons House 1644. and in his sword of Christian Magistracy supported Anno 1646. hath asserted the Power and Prerogative of Christian Princes and Kings as much as any man in Ecclesiasticall matters but in his third part of the Soveraign power of Parliaments and Kingdomes p. 62 63 determines thus Thirdly Neither is this any parcell of the Controversy between the King and Parliament Whether Subjects may lay violent hands upon the persons of their Princes wittingly or willingly To deprive them of their Lives or Liberties especially In cold blood when they do not actually nor personally assault their lives or chastityes or for any publike misdemeanours without a precedent sentence of imprisonment or death against them given judicially by the whole State or Realme As in s●me elections and Heathen Kingdome in 〈◊〉 times * where they have such authority to araigne or condemne them for all unan●mously disclaime yea abominate such trayterous practises and Iesuiticall positions as execrable and unchristian Fourthly Neither is this the thing in difference as most mistake it Whether the Parliament may lawfully raise an Army to goe immediately and directly against the person of the King to apprehend or offer violence to Him much lesse intentionally to destroy Him or to resist his owne Personall attempts against them even to the hazard of his life For * S●● 〈…〉 Collection of all Remonstrances c the Parliament and their Army too have in sundry Remonstrances Declarations Protestations and petitions renounced any such intention or designe at all for which there is no colour to charge them when neither the Parliament nor their forces in this their resistance have the least thought at all to offer any violence to the Kings owne person or to oppose his legall just soveraigne authority The very words and languages of Mr. Prynne the Member in his Memento who is still consonant to himselfe in both And p. 92. to 98. he addes 〈◊〉 proves * Cook 7. Report 〈◊〉 case of f. 11 P●il●● A●ch de 〈◊〉 Vinda●i c. 17● That hereditary Kings are Kings before their 〈…〉 coronation which is but a ceremony That it is false and 〈◊〉 to affirme that Heredit●ry Kings before their Coronations ti●● they are anoynted are not sacred nor exempt from violence That Saules person was sacred exempt from his Subjects violence not because he was anointed as if that onely did priviledge him but because he was a King appoynted by the Lord himselfe That these texts and speeches of David 1 Sam. 24. 6. 10. c. 26 v. 21. 23. 2 Sam. 1. 12. 16. The Lord forbid that I should doe this thing unto my Master the Lords anointed to stretch forth my hand against him seeing he is the Lords anointed I will not put forth my hand against my Lord for he is the Lords anointed And David said to Abishai when he would have slaine Saul Destroy him not for who can stretch forth his hand against the Lords anointed and be guiltlesse The Lord forbid that I should stretch forth my hand against the Lords anointed For wast thou not afraid to stretch forth thy hand against the Lords anointed Thy blood shall be upon thy head for thy mouth hath testified that thou hast sl●ine the Lords anointed c. Prove That Subiects ought not wilfully or purposely to murder or offer violence to the Person of their Kings especially in cold blood when they doe not actually assault them That David and his men might not with safe conscience stretch forth their hands nor rise up against their Soveraigne King Saul to assault or kill him thus in cold blood without any assault or present provocaetion which had been treachery and unpiety in a Sonne in Law a servant a subiect a successor who slew the Amalekite that came and brought him tidings of Sauls death together with his Crown and bracelet instead of giving him a reward a● he likewise * 〈…〉 put Baanah and Richab to death as Traytors who having murdered King Ishbosheth though his enemy and corrivall instead of rewarding them and hanged up their hands and feet because he reported himselfe had slaine him to gain a reward from David which concludes that it was not lawfull for any of Sauls own men to slay him no not in an exigent by his owne command Aud he concludes That the evasion of Doctor Ferne That Davids dem●●nor c. was extraordinary derogating exceedingly from the personall safety of Princes yea and exposing them to such perils as they have cause to con the Doctor small thankes for such a