Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	king_n	say_a	sovereign_a	23,708	5	10.0425	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A91359	Prynn against Prinn. Or, the answer of William Prynne, utter Barrester of Lincolnes Inne: to a pamphlet lately published by William Prynne Esquire, a member of the House of Commons. Intituled A Briefe Memento to the present un-parliamentary Juncto, touching their present intentions and proceedings to depose and execute Charles Steuart, their lawfull King. January 25. 1648. Imprimatur Theodore Jennings.	Purefoy, William, 1580?-1659.	1649 (1649)	Wing P4228A; Thomason E540_6; ESTC R205753	6,607	15

Superiour if they be taken particularly and distributely as single men as the words parem superiorem in the singular number and the like explaine the meaning of the Bookes to be but it wee take them collectively in Parliament as they are one Body and represent the whole kingdome then these very Authours resolve in their fore-quoted words that they are above the King and may yea ought to restraine and question his actions his male admistrations if there be just cause Secondly Bracton explaines himselfe how he is highest and without a Peere to wit in distributing justice That is he is the highest Justiciar in the kingdome but as low as any in receiving justice And further that the Oath of Supremacy that the King is the onely supreame Governour relates onely or at least principally to the Popes and Forraine Princes authorities formerly usurped in this Realme as the Title words and scope of the Statute of 1. Eliz. cap 1. and the very next words in the Oath it selfe undenyable manifest therefore it referres not at all to Parliaments or their jurisdiction Power Superiority Preheminence or Authority nor are they so much as once thought of by the prescribers of this Oath which had its creat on and authority from the Parliament And I William Prinne the Barrester having thus answered the Oath of Supremacy This semblable answer may be added touching the Oath of Allegiance that the Statute 3. Jacobi 4. which creates this Oath is intituled an Act for better discovering and repressing Popish Recusants and that the Oath it selfe relates onely to the Popes unlawfull exercise of authority and jurisdiction within this Kingdome and that it so appears to be by the sayd William Prynne the Member his owne Rehearsall of it In this objection save that in this Rehearsall he hath delt as before and hath made bold in this particular also to satisfie the words of the Oath which in truth runnes thus That the Pope neither of himselfe nor by any Authority of the Church of Rome or by any other means with any other hath power or Authority to depose the King But the said William Pryn the Member in his said Rehearsall makes the Oath to run thus That the Pope neither of himself 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 And touching William Pryn the Member his Arguments That there is no President in the old Testament of any one King judicially impeached arraigned deposed or put to death by the Congregation As also that no Protestant Kingdome or State did over yet depose their King I William Pryn the Barrester do refer the Reader to my Appendix annexed to my fourth part of the Soveraign power of Parliaments manifesting p. 1. by sundry Histories and Authors That in the ancient Roman Kingdom and Empire in the Greek and German Empires derived out of it in the old Grecian Indian Italie Hungary Bohemia Denmark Poland Sweden Scotland yea of Judah Israel and others mentioned in the Scripture the Supream Soveraignty and power resided not in the Emperors and Kings themselves but in their Kingdomes Senates Parliaments People who had not only a power to restrain but to censure and remove their Emperors and Princes for their Tyranny and mis-government In which Appendix also is an Answer to the principall Arguments which are produced to prove that Kings are above their kingdoms and Parliaments and not questionable or accountable to them nor censurable by them for any Exorbitant actions and p. 2. are these words I shall infallibly prove That in the Roman State and Empire at the first in the Greek Empire since in the German Empire heretofore and now in the antient kingdom of Greece Egypt India and elsewhere in the Kingdoms of France Spain Hungary Bohemia Denmark Sweden Poland Scotland and most other kingdomes in the world yea in the kingdomes of Judah and Israel and others mentioned in Scripture the highest Soveraign Authority both to elect continue limit correct depose their Emperors Kings to bound their Royal power and prerogatives to enact Laws create new Offices and forms of government resided alwaies in these whole Kingdomes Senates Dyets Parliaments People and not in the Emperors Kings or Princes persons Lastly as page 110. in the deposition of Mary Queen of Scots mother to King James is set forth Together with the approbation of the fact by the State of England at that time Touching the name or Title which William Prin the Member is pleased to give to the Parliament now sitting calling it A Present Unparliamentary Juncto I William Prin the Barrester do call to mind That when the King and divers of the Lords and of the Commons in the beginning of our late Troubles had disserted the Parliament I did then in my said first part of the Soveraign power of Parliaments page 43 44. maintain and prove That the remaining part was a Parliament notwithstanding the personall absence of the rest and that as long as those absent are Members of the Parliament they shall still be judged legally present whether they will or no. FINIS Jan. 25. 1648. Imprimatur Theodore Jennings

touching William Prin the Member his first Argument That their proceeding against the King is an offence within the Statute 25 Edw. 3. concerning Treason I William Prin the Barrester do remember That in the beginning of this late warre the Cavaliers used the same Argument against the Parliaments raising Arms and I then made this Answer to it page 107 of my said first Part That the Parliament and whole Kingdom being the highest power or any Member of the Parliament cannot by any publique Acts or Votes of theirs consented to in Parliament become Traytors or guilty of High Treason against the King either by the Common Law or the Statute of 25. Edw. 3. cap. 2. of Treasons which running in the fingular number If a man c. That is any private man or men by their own private Authority shall leavy War against the King it ought to be judged high Treason and extends not to the whole Kingdom or Court of Parliament representing it of which no Treason was ever yet presumed the rather because the Parliament by this very Act is made the judge of all Treasons that are doubtfull and was never yet included within the words or meaning of any Law concerning Treason and therefore cannot be guilty of it Hence the depositions of Archigallo and Emerian two ancient Brittish Kings by the unanimous assent of the Lords and Commons for their Rapines Oppression and Tyranny and of Edward the second Richard the second Henry the sixth Edward the fourth by Acts of Parliament the creating of Richard the third King with the frequent translocations of the Crowne from the right Heire at Common Law to others whohad no good Title by the whole Kingdome or Parliament no lesse then high Treason in private persons was never yet reputed much lesse questioned for or adjudged high Treason in the whole kingdome or Parliament or any cheife active Members in those Parliaments which by the law are unrepealable of Treason for any their judiciall actions and Resolutions in such cases being only tercious and erroneous reversible by other Acts in Parliament not trayterous and rebellious as appeares by all the fore quoted Statutes and by the statute 13 Eliz. cha 1. which makes it high Treason for any person to affirm that the authority of the Parliament of England is not able to make Lawes and Statutes of sufficient force to alter limit and bind the Crowne of this Realme and the descent limitations and inheritance and Government thereof or any mans Title or Right thereto And for direct Authorities in this very point Rob. Trisilian and Belknap then cheife Justices Holt Fulthorpe and Burgh Judges Lockton Kings Serjeant and Blake the Kings Councell in the Parliament of 11. Richard 2. were some condemned and executed others and banished the Realme as guilty of high Treason Onely for affirming under their hands and seales That the Duke of Glocester the Earles of Arundell and Warwicke were and that other Lords and Commons might be guilty of high Treason for procuring a Commission and other proceedings Voted in Parliament and might be punished for it as Traitors which opinion of theirs was also at another Parliament prima Henry 4. chap 2 3 4. held a traiterous opinion and the Judgement given against those Judges for this Traiterous opinion tending to the utter subvession of Parliaments was resolved and enacted to be just This Judge Belknap foresaw and therefore was unwilling to put his Seale to this opinion saying there wanted but a hurdle a horse and a halter to carry him where hee might suffer the death hee deserved for quoth he if I had not done this I should have died for it and because I have done it I deserve death for betraying the Lords Which makes me wonder at a passage in Speed who Records it now frequent in Malignants mouthes That the very shop where the Barrons originall Treasons were forged was the Parliament house wherein from time to time they forced on the King Edward the second presumptuous and treasonous ordinations not only to reforme the Kings house and councell and to place and displace all great Officers But even claimed a joynt interest in the Regiment of the kingdom together with the King which William Juge a Judge of the Common Law with other like sticklers Traiterously perswaded them was according to Law which grosse slander of the Parliament House would have been capitall at least in former ages and may now indanger the neckes of those who speak or maintaine the same of this present Parliament And I William Prinne the Barrester have added these words pag. 108. Never did any of our Kings charge any Parliament with high Treason hitherto much lesse indict or wage warre against their Parliaments as Traytors though they have questioned and deposed Kings for offences against and for being enemies or Traytors to the kingdome Let none then dare to affirme that the Houses of Parliament are or can be Traytors now for providing for their own and the Kingdomes safety Ad to this for a further answer to the said argument of Treason produced by William Prynne the Member in his present Pamphlet that in his Rehearsall of the sayd Statute hee hath foulely miscarried and falsified the words of it For whereas the Statute mentions nothing at all touching deposing the King he urges the Statute thus That it is no lesse then high Treason for any man by overt act to compasse or imagine the deposition or death of the King Adding the word deposition which is no where found in the whole Statute And as touching William Prinne the Member his argument that this proceeding against the King is contrary to the Oath of Allegiance I William Prinne the Barrester did heretofore meete with the like objection touching the Oath of Supremacy in relation to the late war Viz. That the King is the onely supreame Governour of this Realm and that Bracton Fleta and our Law Bookes resolve that the King hath no Peere in the kingdome for so he should lose his Empire since Peeres or Equalls have no command over one another much more then ought he not to have a superior or mightier for so he should be inferiour to those who are subject to him and Interiors cannot be equall to Superiours The King ought not to be under man but under God and the Law If then justice be demanded of him by way of Petition because no Writt runnes against him though antiently some Writts did if he doe not justice this punishment may be sufficient to him that he may expect God will revenge it Nemo quidem de factis suis presumat disputare multe for●●●● contra factum sum venire c. Therefore the King is above the Parliament and whole Kingdome not they above him And this objection I William Prinne the Barrester answered thus in my sayd first part pag. 104. That the meaning of all these Bookes is that the King is above every one of his Subjects and hath no Peere nor