Selected quad for the lemma: judgement_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
judgement_n	king_n	parliament_n	treason_n	2,197	5	9.2136	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A91153	A brief necessary vindication of the old and new secluded Members, from the false malicious calumnies; and of the fundamental rights, liberties, privileges, government, interest of the freemen, parliaments, people of England, from the late avowed subversions 1. Of John Rogers, in his un-christian concertation with Mr. Prynne, and others. 2. Of M: Nedham, in his Interest will not lie. Wherein the true good old cause is asserted, the false routed; ... / By William Prynne of Swainswick Esq; a bencher of Lincolns-Inne.	Prynne, William, 1600-1669.	1659 (1659)	Wing P3913; Thomason E772_2; ESTC R203220	47,789	64

violence to no man neither accuse any falsly and be content with your wages The 4. is Rom. 13. 7 8. Render therefore to all their dues c. Owe nothing to any man but love one another The 5. is Prov. 24. 21. My Son fear thou the Lord and the King and meddle not with those who are given to change The 6. is Ps. 4. 8. Whatsoever things are true whatsoever things are honest whatsoever things are just whatsoever things are lovely whatsoever things are of good report do And if he can found his present or former Parliament Republike or Interest will not lie and forecited Conclusions on these Principles I shall be his Proselyte till then I cannot I dare not but renounce them I shall not follow him in his Wild-goose chase any further to prove the old Parliament undissolved and now revived what he writes of * Cromwels Parliaments and Conventions during the preternatural dead Interval from April 53. to May 59. That they had not the legal force and vertue of Parliaments That they were nothing in Law of themselves being creatures of another extraction though he writ the quite contrary in his life-time That the Members of this revived Parliament sitting in them did not own them for legal Parliaments That their sitting in them as Parliaments could not prejudice nor conclude the Body now sitting becanse a body of men in equal power and right cannot be concluded by particular acts done by their own Members without consent of the rest And that though they did not own those Parliaments nor the power that called them yet their many and great complaints of their being secluded from them by force or new Oathes as an infringement of the Peoples right in Parliament were just and they might well complain because their complaint of violation was grounded only upon the General Right inherent in the People will fully manifest the Parliament of King Charles to be fully dissolved by his death notwithstanding any private Members sitting in it afterwards his pretended Parliament of Commons then and now sitting to be no Parliament at all nor yet revived in Law or verity that yet M. Prynne and other Members might justly complain of their forcible seclusion from it in the peoples general inherent right as themselves did when secluded from Cromwels Parliaments which they held void and null And that if it be still in being and was only suspended by Cromwels 6. years force in respect only of the actual exercise of their power not their inherent right which is now revived All the secluded Members Lords and Charls Stewart too ought in right and justice to be recalled and remitted to their rights from which they were forcibly interrupted as well as those now sitting having no legal power ground nor colour to seclude them as I have already proved To cloze up this Question I shall propose this Dilemma to my dissenting Opponents If the old Parliament were totally and finally dissolved by the Kings death as Rogers confesseth and Nedham grants in point of Law and Reason Then those few Commons sitting after his death and now again cannot possibly be a Parliament nor Committee of Parliament in any sence 1. Because never summoned by any writ to any such Parl. as this 2. Because never elected intrusted by the people who elected thē in the old Parliament to sit in this or any other Parliament without a King and House of Lords 3ly Because not new elected by their old electors or any other Counties Cities Boroughs since the Kings death to sit alone as then or now they do 4ly Because permitted desired to sit at first only by the Army-Officers their former mercenary Servants and now invited to sit again only upon some of their motions having no pretence of Law or right to elect or create them a Parliament or Representative of the People of England much lesse then of Scotland and Ireland 5ly Because they are not the fifth part of a Commons House for number or quality by our old Laws Statutes or the new Instrument or Advice most Counties Cities Boroughs of the Nation having not so much as one Knight Citizen or Burgesse in it to represent them and Scotland Ireland none at all and so by the Armies own Declaration at St. Albans their own Agreement of the People and own Votes for An Equal Representative can be no Parliament at all but the highest archest usurpers over the whole Kingdoms Rights and Privileges In the * Parliament of 15 E. 2. in the Act for the Exile of the two Spencers Cl. 15 E. 3. m. 32. dorso the Parliaments of 4 E. 3. rot Parl. n. 1. 28 E. 3. n. 9 10. 21 E. 3. rot Parl. n. 21. 21 R. 2. rot Par. n. 15 16. 22 R. 2. rot Par. n. 3. Plac. Coronae n. 7 to 16. it was adjudged resoved declared by the King and Parliament that the accroaching and usurping of REGAL POWER by the ' two Spencers Roger Mortymer Earl of March the Duke of Glocester Arundel Archbishop of York the Earls of Arundel and others by keeping the Lords Great Men and Counsel of the King from his presence the Parliament and Council by placing and displacing publike Officers at their pleasures By condemning executing Lords and others of the Kings Subjects without his privity by might and power both in and out of Parliament By not permitting the King to hear the petitions and complaints of his Nobles and People and to do them justice against these usurpers oppressions to their own and the Kings disinheriting By compelling the King to grant pardons to Rebells and others who slew his faithfull Lords and Subjects By seising disposing of the Kings Treasure and Revenues at their pleasures and enforcing the King to grant them a Commission to manage his Royal affairs trust and revenues in restraint and derogation of his royal power and prerogative was no lesse than High Treason by Law For some of which encroachments of Regality some of them were Banished others of them Beheaded and Executed as Traytors and their Estates confiscated by Iudgements and Acts of Parliament If then the encroaching and usurping of REGAL POWER in any of these particulars be no lesse than HIGH TREASON by the resolution of these Parliaments then questionlesse the usurpation exercise not only of Regal power in the highest degree in calling creating dissolving Parliaments giving the royal assents to Bils Pardons executing Lords Commons creating publike Officers making new Seals issuing out Writs Commissions making Warr and Peace coyning Money c. but also of Parliamental power too in making new Laws Acts Treasons repealing altering old Lawes and forms of Processe imposing new Taxes Excises Forfeitures Militiaes erecting new Courts Judicatures neither of all which the King can do by his regal Power but in and by the Parliament only wherein both the Power of the King in its highest orb and of all the Lords Commons are united concentred must needs be the highest Treason that

thereupon forfeit his Kingship and Crown and became a private person and enemy dissolved the Constitution both of the Kingdom and Parliament and not only violated all Law in the branches but plucked up the very root of it in destroying the Parliamentary Establishment as much as in him lay and thereby introduced another Law of Arms From whence he deduceth 3. Conclusions 1 The Justice of secluding the Members 2ly The Sufficiency of the authority that condemned and executed the King 3ly The Legality of the remaining Members continuing and sitting as the Parliament and Supreme Authority of England which after the Kings beheading and other Members and Lords seclusion descended and was transmitted to them by the Law of war for the people This he determines to be Law and Reason too sufficient to convince both Royallists and Presbyterians of the Lawfulnes of the Power and present sitting acting as a Parliament by those few Members at Westminster secluding all the rest To which I answer 1. That if the Kings death by Law Reason dissolved the Parliament in an orderly cause because his writs of summons abated by his death they could not treat with him concerning his and his Kingdoms affairs nor he consent to any Bills after his decease Which he freely grants Then by the self-same Reason Law his violent death must dissolve this Parliament as I have largely proved 2ly If the Kings levying war against the Parliament did actually dissolve the very Constitution Law of the Parliament and Kingdom and made him no King at all but a private person which he layes for his foundation then it must necessarily dissolve the Parliament and Kingdom too and make them no Parliament no Kingdom at all as well as himself no King For how can the Parliament continue when its very Constitution is dissolved 3ly By this Position it inevitably follows that we had neither King Parliament Kingdom nor any Laws at all but only of Warr from the beginning of the wars or first battel at least between the Kings and Parliaments forces many years before his death But this the King kingdom Parliament the sitting as well as secluded Members both Armies and our whole 3. kingdoms ever denied in all their Votes Orders Ordinances Declarations Remonstrances Petitions Treaties Propositions whatsoever from 1641. till December 1648. and Nedham himself in his Diurnalls and Mercuries In all which the Parliament both Houses and Army-Officers stiled him their KING and the King and his party ever stiled them the Houses of Parliament Therefore this position must be a most Notorious Falshood wherein Interest doth grosly lie 4ly Those he stiles the honest faithfull Members in their very Votes of Non addresses passed by force and fraud in their Knack for the Kings tryal● Impeachment Proceedings Sentence of condemnation against him after our seclusion in their Declaration of 17 Martii 1648. after his death and sundry other Papers ever stiled and acknowledged him TO BE KING and ENGLAND HIS KINGDOM notwithstanding the wars between him and the Parliament Therefore the very war did not Vnking nor make him a Private person nor dissolve the Constitution of the Kingdom and Parliament else there could not be a war against or between the King or Parliament if the war it self unkinged him unparliamented them and dissolved all their constitutions 5ly No person by the a Law of God Nature Nations the Great Charter Laws Statutes of England and Votes of Parliament ought actually to forfeit or to be ipso facto deprived of his Office Freehold Liberties Estate Life without a legal proceeding tryal conviction judgement attainder Much less then the King himself the Supreme Magistrate and Governor of the Realm in whom all have a common interest unkinged and made a private person or publike Enemy and totally deprived of his Crown and Soveraignty Therefore his actual levying war against the Parliament without before any legal impeachment conviction or sentence of deposition could not unking nor make him a private person as the cases of Edward the 2. and Richard the 2. and the b Parliaments which deprived them of their Kingships after their resignations clearly resolved against this Jesuitical new Doctrine 6ly If the King by his bare levying war against the Parliament actually lost his Kingship and became a meer private person before any sentence of deprivation then by the self-same reason law every Traitor levying war or conspiring against the King every Murderer Theef Felon corrupt Judge Justice Mayor Sherif Inferior Officer by the very committing of Treason Murder Felony Adultery Bribery Injustice and breach of their respective trusts should be actually attainted of those offences their Lands Offices presently confiscated without any Indictment trial verdict judgement against them yea every act of Adultery by any Husband or Wife should actually dissolve the bond of marriage for ever without and before any Sentence of divorce between them which * Mr. Wheatly publikely recanted as a dangerous error And how destructive such new Nedham Interest Law would prove to all mens lives liberties estates yea to every mans soul since every act of sinne by like consequence should actually damn and make even Saints themselves to fall totally and finally from Grace and Gods favor let all judicious men resolve 7ly If this be Law then had the King and Parliament upon any Treaty after the wars accorded he ought to have been new proclamed installed crowned King again and the Parliament resummoned by new writs 8ly He confesseth this to be the very principle of Barclay the Jesuit from whom he borrows it p. 34. Therefore his present Parliament and Republike built thereon are purely Jesuitical by his own confession 9ly This Jesuits position is not so bad as his He speaks not of every Civil war made by a King upon his Subjects for which there may be just occasions but only of a King warring upon his people of purpose to extirpate and destroy them which he saith it seems almost impossible any King should be so mad as ever to attempt Which the King in his war against the Parliament by his victories proceedings against the Prisoners Members Towns he took during the wars in sparing all their lives actually really and oft times verbally and professedly disclamed in all his Proclamations Speeches Remonstrances Messages to and Treaties with the Houses Therefore his war against them did neither unking him nor make him a private person and publike Enemy by this Jesuites resolution 10ly If the Kings war against the Parliament did really unking him then certainly the Generals Army-Officers and Armies actual levying war upon both Houses of Parliament by secluding securing the Members and King did really uncommission and unarmy them and made them no Officers no Army at all but a rebellious rout and all Members concurring with them therein no Members no Parliament at all The sequel is infallible Therefore Nedham must either now disclaim this desperate Jesuitical position with all his 3. Treasonable

possibly can be committed both against the King Kingdom Parliament Lords Commons People all injured usurped on tyrannized over dishonored and oppressed thereby in the highest degree Which should discourage deterr all those who have any dread of God Men or love to Parliaments and their Native Country from usurping such a power as well for their own as the publick weal If the long Parliament be still in being and now revived as Nedham pleads but proves not at all his own principles evincing the contrary then all the Lords and secluded Members ought in right and Justice to be freely admitted for the premised reasons else those now sitting and acting without them will incurr the guilt of High Treason for Usurping both Regal and Parliamental power by meer force without any Act of Parliament which an express Act of Parliament made by assent of all the 3. Estates cannot transfer unto them as the Statute of 1 H. 4. c. 3. and Parliament of 1 H. 4. rot Parl. n. 25. expresly resolve and I have proved in my Narrative p. 22 23 24. since the Highest regal and Parliamentary trusts for the publike good safety reposed in many by the people cannot be transferred nor delegated unto a few nor the Parliament power trust assigned over any more than the * Regal Having dispatched these grand questions I shall be briefer in the 4th being only this Whether the Oathes of Supremacy Allegiance and Homage to the late King his Heirs and Successors were finally determined by and expired at his death Nedham p. 41 42. and Rogers p. 33. affirming they are because the old form of Kingly Government is lawfully as they say extinguished and a new form introduced and so the Oath impossible because the persons and things to whom they were made are at an end Which opinion having largely refuted in my Concordia Discors proving those Oathes to be still obligatory and binding by unanswerable Scripture-presidents and authorities to which neither of these Antagonists reply one syllable I shall briefly reply to what they object 1. That the frame of our Kingly Government was not legally dissolved but violently and trayterously interrupted only as he saith this Parliament and Republike were by Cromwels intrusion 2ly That by the resolution of our Statutes Judges Laws which admit no Interregnum we have still a Kingdom a King an Heir and Successor to the Crown in actual being though out of actual not legal possession to whom we may and ought to make good our Oathes 3ly That our fellow-members and subjects who took these Oathes as well as we can neither absolve themselves nor us by their perjury or treachery in violating them by their late forcible illegal proceedings and new Ingagement against the King his Heirs and successors 4ly That it is both possible just necessary safe honourable Christian for them and us and our 3. Kingdoms Churches Religion to call in the right heir and successor to the Crown upon honorable Terms there being no obstacle to it but only want of will or the covetousness rapine ambition guilt or fear of punishment in some particular persons in present power against the general desire and interest of our 3. whole Kingdoms Nations endangered embroyled oppressed and well-nigh totally ruined exhausted by his long seclusion 5. That these Objectors and others slighting neglecting violating absolving themselves and others from the conscientious obligation legal performance of these sacred Oathes obliging themselves in particular and the whole Kingdom in general to the late King his Heirs and Successors in perpetuity is no argument of their piety saintship religion fear of God honesty truth justice but of their avowed Atheism Impiety Injustice contempt of God and all his threats judgments denounced inflicted upon Perjured infringers of their Oathes Covenants to their King and others 6ly That for the violation of these Oathes the whole three Kingdoms have deeply mourned suffred in sundry kinds ever since 1648. and are now likely to be ruined by Taxes Contributions Oppressions of all sorts losse of trade unseasonable weather diseases epidemically reigning and other judgements 7ly That Abraham himself the father of all the faithfull swearing by God that he would not deal falsly with Abimelech nor with his Son nor with his Sons son but according to the kindness he had done to Abraham Gen. 21. 23 24 c. and his care to perform his Oath hath justified not only the lawfulness of all our Oathes to the King his heirs and successors but confirmed our Obligation to them all and how conscientiously we ought to perform them without fraud or falshood yea disowning all those from being of his faith or spiritual seed who make little conscience to perform them 8ly Thus as the Apostle resolves Gal. 3. 16 17. That the Covenant made by God to Abraham and his seed in Christ before the Law which was made 430. years after cannot disannull that it should make the Promise of no effect So the New Ingagement made taken after these two Oathes to our New Governors and their late Oath to be Constant as well as True and Faithfull to their new Republike without King or Single person or House of Lords obliging those who take it if binding not only to sundry Perjuries Treasons and constant perseverance in them without repentance cannot disannull these former Oathes to the King his heirs and successors and make them of no effect as Rogers tells us which I have elswhere proved 9ly John Rogers p. 9. informs us that Cleomines the Lacedemonian sware to his friend Archonides that he would do all things joyntly with him and Act nothing without his HEAD were in it After which watching his time he cut off his Companions head and to keep his Covenant after he had par boyled it he kept it by him honored and preserved it and upon every weighty matter or consultation would set his Scull by him and tell it what he purposed saying that he did not violate his Ingagement or break his Oath in the least séeing he did ever take counsel with the head of Archonides and did nothing without it Verily my Antagonists and those Members they plead for have dealt more falsly with the late King Lords and their fellow Members than Cleomines with Archonides they twice Swore Protested Vowed and Covenanted too over and over to be true and faithful to the King and to act all things Ioyntly with him the Lords and their fellow Commons in Parliament and transact nothing without their heads and advice were in it But though afterwards watching their opportunity they cut off the Kings head and some of the Lords as he did his Friends suppressed the whole House of Lords and secluded most of their fellow Commoners yet they do not set either their heads sculls or any of their seeming persons before them in the House when they consult upon every or any weighty matter nor tell them what they purpose And yet they and these their Advocates tell us and