Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	just_a	king_n	law_n	2,604	5	4.7027	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

which this Scribler refers And so much the rather because they will quite dissolve this Parliament by putting the King to death For the Parliament being but the Kings Parliament and great Councell and an Authority not an Interest originally called and authorised to sit by the Kings Writ alone which abates and expires by his death and enables not to consult without but only with the King of businesses concerning The King and His Kingdome as these clauses of the Writ import Carolus c. cum NOS de advisemento et consensu Consillij NOSTRI pro quibusdam arduis et urgentibus negotijs NOS Statum defensionem Regni NOSTRI ANGLIAE concernent quoddam PARLIAMENTVM NOSTRVM c. tenere ordinavimus Et ibidem vobiscum c. Regni NOSTRI COLLOQVIVM HABERE c. Quod personaliter intersitis NOBISCVM c. super DICTIS NEGOTIIS tractaiur Et ad faciendum et consentiendum his quaenunc et ibidem de Communi Consilio dicti Regni NOSTRI contegerit ordinari super NEGOTIIS ANTEDICTIS c. The King therefore being put to death the Parliament must of necessity be dissolved by it since it can be no more his Parliament his Councell nor conferre with HIM about HIS and HIS Kingdomes affaires for which they were called and elected to treat of as the Peoples Attorneys or Trustees the King being both the Head the beginning end and foundation of the Parliament which cannot subsist without him no more then a naturall body without an head or an house without a foundation as our * Modus 〈◊〉 Parliamentum Cook 4. I●stit c. p. 1. 2. c. Cromptons Iurisdiction of Courts f. 1. 2. So my Ple● for L●●ds p. 7. to 12. Law books resolve and so was it expresly adjudged and agreed 1. H. 4. rot Parl. n. 1. 14. H. 4. Cook 4. Instit p. 46. 4. E. 44. 44. b. That by the death of the King the Parliament is ipso facto dissolved as all other Courts held only by his Writ or Commission are Neither will the Act made this Parliament in the 17. year of this King To prevent Inconveniences which may happen by the untimely adjourning Proroguing or Dissolving of this present Parliament which enacted That this PRESENT PARLIAMENT now assembled shall not be DISOLVED prorogued or adjourned unlesse it be by Act of Parliament to be passed for that purpose continue this Parliament in being after the Kings death for these reasons First because the scope intent of this Act made before our late Warres was only to disable the King to adjourne prorogue or dissolve this Parl. by any Proclamation or Royall Act of his without the consent of both houses as the very title prologue and close of it resolve But never to continue it still a Parliament in case of the King death against which it never intended to provide it being a legall and absolute dissolution of it by the very fundamentall constitution of Parliaments and the Common Law of the Realme Secondly Because the King is the head and principall Member of this present Parliament and the first person in the enacting Parl. Be it declared and enacted BY THE KING c. and therefore when he ceaseth to be and is cut off the Parliament must of ne● cessity cease to be as well as if the Lords and Commons had all bin dead or murdered by the Army in which case the Parliament had bin ended notwithstanding this Act which cannot make a thing in being which is actually destroyed no more then a dead man to be alive Because it was never the intention of the King Lords and Commons who were all parties to this act to set up a new kinde of Parliament without either King or Lords or the Majority of the Commons house or to vest the Name power and authority of the Parliament in an eight or ninth part of the Commons house alone as now when the King Lords and residue of the Commons were cut off and forced away by the Armies violence Such a thought as this never once entred into their heads Therefore the murthering of the King the laying aside the Lords house secluding of most of the Commons must of necessity dissolve this present Parliament notwithstanding this Act as Master Prynne the Barrester proved long since before he was a Member in his Plea for the Lords p. 14 15. and so much the rather because without them no Act of Parliament can possibly be made this Parliament to dissolve it within the words or meaning of this Act. The Commons therefore now sitting having by their late exorbitant proceedings and cutting off the Kings and Lords too in Mr. Prynne the Barresters judgement disolved this present Parliament and thereby consequently dissolved all Parliament Comittees in City and countrey together with all Ordinances of Parliament and all * Cook 7. Rep. f. 29. 30. 31. Dyer 165. 4. E. 4. 44. 1. E. 5. ● a. 1. H. 7. 2 1. E. 3. 6 7. Commissions of the Commissioners of the Great Seale Iudges of the Kings Courts Iustices of the Peace Sheriffes and the like and the Generalls and all other Officers of the Armies Commissions likewise and put the Kingdome and Army into a miserable confusion Master Prynne the Member conceives he could then and now give them no other Title but that in his Memento which he fears the present age and posterity will have just cause to give them for the miseries they have brought and are like to bring upon them by their Vn-parliamentary and violent proceedings which he doubts wil end in their own ruine Secondly Master Prynne the Barrester in those very Pages proves That not only the KING but all the Lords and Commons ought to be present at the Parliament and fined if they absent themselves without just cause and that all things ought to be acted in Parliament by the Kings Lords and Commons joynt concurrence only he addes That if any of the Lords or Commons when summoned shall wilfully absent themselves that the rest may sit and proceed without them and by the Kings consent make wholsome Lawes for the Common wealth But he neither there nor any where else affirmed that the Lords and Commons could make binding Lawes or Ordinances of Parliament without the King or that the Commons alone could make Acts of Parliament without the Lords as a few of them now they presume or that the eight or ninth part only of the commons house sitting under a force when the rest of the Members are imprisoned secluded and driven away thence by the Armyes violence were a compleat Parliament or House of commons to vote order or act any thing except only to adjourne and take Order to remove the force or that what they voted or acted under a force was valid and binding to their fellow MEMBERS or any others but he expressely affirmes the contrary that whatever is voted or enacted whiles the Parl is under a force is void null

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

bad invention I shall reiect it as the extraordinary fancy of the Doctour and other Lo●alists or Jesuists void both of truth and loyalty Now what Mr. Prynne the Member could have written more in point of law and conscience positively and directly against the unlawfulnes and disloyalty of the Junctoes and their High Courts arraigning and putting the King to death and that in cold blood contrary to their faith Oaths Engagements even after the Treaty and above two yeares after his first imprisonment then what he hath thus written and printed as a Barrester by the House of Commons own Order and approbation dated May the 8. 1643. prefixed to the third part or whether these passages doe not most fully and punctually concurre with what he hath published and asserted in his MEMENTO to the eternall reproach and shame of this malitions Impostor and perverter of his words and opinion let all sober and unb●assed men resolve And if these passages be not sufficient his Histriomastix printed Anno 1633. p. 516 to 520. 825. 826. 943. with his answer to the Bill concerning it in the Star-Chamber wherein he did upon his oath condemne and abhor from his heart the popish Doctrine and practise of murdering and deposing Kings as contrary to the Oathes of Supremacy and Allegiance which he had taken as a Barrester His Epistle before his Quench-coal Published Anno 1638. wherein he interminis condemnes this Popish and Jesuiticall doctrine and practise as faction rebellion and treason His pleasant Purge for a Romane Catholick p. 104. to 112. printed 1642. where as an Vtter-Barrester he particularly refutes and censures the Popes and Jesuits doctrine and practise of killing or dep●sing Kings and absolving Subjects from their Oathes and Allegiance answering all their arguments and texts to prove it And the Antipathy of the English Lordly Prelacy both to Regall verity and Civil unity or an historicall Collection of the severall execrable Treasons Conspiracies Rebellions seditions State schismes Contuma●ies Oppressions and Antimonarchicall practises of our English British French Scottish and Irish Lordly Prelates against our Kings Kingdomes c. published by him as an Utter-Barrester and dedicated to the Parliament Anno 1641. will abundantly absolve him from this scandalous scriblers misrepresentation of his loyalty and false surmises contrariety of his writings as a Barrester and Member which have been alwayes loyall and harmonious against killing or deposing of Kings ayming at nothing but the Honor peace and happi●esse both of the King Kingdome Parliament Church without any private or sinister ends whatsoever as all impartiall PERVSERS of them cannot but acknowledge Thirdly Mr. Prynne the Barrester in the same first Part page 7 asserts and proves That popish Parliaments Peeres and Prelates have heretofore challenged and exercised a greater Iurisdiction over their Kings then this Parliament or any other since the embracing of the Protestant Religion ever claimed and doe in a great measure disclaime For proofe whereof he shewed That they had challenged a just and legall Power as they deemed it to depose their Kings produceth presidents to prove it and among others the presidents of King Edward the 2d and Richard the 2d who were first enforced to resigne their Crownes and after that not arraigned and condemned to lose their heads in a High Court of Iustice as now had a se●tence of deposition drawne up against them but were to be honourably treated and maintained all their lives page 7. 8. 78. to 80. and p. 9. he writes That our popish Parliaments Peeres and Prelates have oft translated the Crowne from the right Heires and setled it on others who had no right nor title to it producing examples to prove it In the close whereof he writes thus Such a transcendent power and jurisdiction as this to disinherit the right Heire and to transferre the Crowne to whom they thought meetest Neither this present nor any other protestant Parliaments Peeres or Subiects ever exercised though popish Parliaments Lords Commons have thus frequently done it And p. 86. he addes True it is Our protestant Parliaments never challenged nor exercised such Jurisdiction and I presume they will not do it And good reason had he thus to write because the * E●●act C●llection p. 657 658. Lords and Commons in Parliament in their Answer to his Majesties Declaration after his late victory against the Rebels on Sunday the 23. of October 1642. had but a few moneths before made this Protestation to all the world concerning the allegations That the Army raised by the Parliament is to murder and depose the King We hoped the contrivers of that Declaration or any that professed the name of a Christian could not have so little charity as to raise such a scandall especially when they must needs know the Protestation taken by every Member of both Houses whereby they promise in the presence of Almighty God to defend his Maiesties Person The promise and protestation made by the Members of both Houses upon the nomination of the Earle of Essex to be Generall and to live and dye with him wherein is expressed That this Army was raised for Defence of the Kings person our often earnest and humble addresses to his Majesty to leave that desperate and dangerous Army wherewith he is now encompassed raised and upheld to the hazard if his owne and the Kingdomes ruine And to come in person to his Parliament where he should be sure to remaine in honour and safety And our humble Petition directed to be presented to him by the hands of the Earle of Essex before any blow given to remove his Royall Person from that Army a request inconsistant with any purpose to offer the least violence to his person which hath and ever shall be deare unto us And concerning the Imputation laid to our charge of our raising this Army to alter the frame of Government and establish the Lawes of the Land we shall need to give it no further answer then this That if to raise an Army in our just defence when another is marching towards us to destroy us and our lawes be to alter the frame of Government then is that ARMY raised for that purpose otherwise it is for our owne and the lawes necessary preservation And not long after the * Ex●ct Coll●ct on p. 695. ●●6 Lords and Commons in their Remonstrance Novemb. 2. 1642. in answer to his Majesties Declaration the 26 of May 1642. concerning the Commission of Array hath these notable Passages But most injuriously most maliciously it is affirmed by the contrivers of this Answer That we told the King that we might without want of modesty and duty depose him Did we so much as once name that word the signification whereof we professed that we did not suffer it so much as to enter into our thoughts Did we say that with duty and modosty we might depose the King because we said we never suffered it to enter into our thoughts Or doe not they rather say