HAd the Compi [...]er of the late absurd Pamphlet, inti­tuled Prynne against Prynne, as many guts in his Braines as he hath in his Belly or as much Honesty & Sincerity in his Head & Heart, as he hath disloy­alty & insincerity in both, he could [...]ot have been so irrationall or dishonest, as to have published such a peece of Folly and Non-sence as this, instead of answering the Me­mento; which (though a Right worshipfull Colonell and a Mem­ber too) yet he dares not encounter; his braines being all sunke into his guts; & his Pen as blunt as his sword, that never yet slew nor wounded one Cavalier, though he hath gained and received some thousand of pounds for his Grand Services in these late Warres. When this Great Champion dare op [...]nly appeare in the field against any thing I have written, with his name thereto affixed, (of which it seemes he is ashamed) I dare assure him, William Prynne, the Barrester, or William Prynne the Member; will hand to hand en­counter. W. P. the Colonel, or W. P. the Burgesse of W. though a Gyant in bulke, but a Pigmy in most things else. But to come brief­ly to the matter.

It is very true, which he relates, pag. 1. That William Prynne Esquire a Member of the House of Commons, did in his Briefe Me­mento endeavour to diswade the rest of the Members sitting in Par­liament from acting or proceeding against the King. And had they been so provident, wise and loyall, as to have given an eare to his seasonable & timely advise, they had never plunged themselves & the Kingdome into such difficulties and confusions as now they have done by their unjust and illegall tryall and condemnation of the King, to [Page 6] have His head severed from his shoulders, by a New erected high Court of Iustice; without authority, law, justice, or any legall or ju­diciall proceedings: for which they found no warrant nor president in William Prynne the Barrester his Soverain Power of Parliaments & Kingdomes; but many arguments against and dehortations from it.

First, The very Title of his Booke (had the purblinde Pamphle­ter perused it) might have deterred him and his fellow-members from such a [...]esuiticall and popish proceeding, to the eternall infamy and scandall of our Religion: it is this. The treachery and disloy­alty of Papists to their Soveraignes in Doctrine and Practise, together with the first part of the Soveraigne power of Parliaments and Kingdomes. Wherein the Traiterous Antimonarchicall Do­ctrines, practises and attempts of Papists upon the Persons, Crowns Prerogatives of their Soveraignes: with the dangerous designes, affests and consequences, of their present illegal arming, and accesse to the Kings person, by meanes of evil Councellors, are briefly discove­red. The Iurisdiction, Power, priviledges claimed, exercised by our popish Parliaments, Prelates, Lords and Commons, in former ages, exactly paralleld with those now claimed by the Lords and Com [...]mons in this present Parliament: which are manifested to be far more loyall, dutifull, moderate; more consistant with, lesse invasive [...], and destructive to the pretended Soveraigne power and Prerogative of the King, then those in former ages. And the High Court of Par­liament proved by pregnant Reasons and Authorities; to be the mos [...] soveraigne power of all other in this Kingdome, &c. By William Prynne, Utter-Barrester of Lincolnes Inne, with this License of the Commons House affixed to it. It is this second day of May 1643. Ordered by the Committee of the House of Commons in Parliament for printing: that this Booke intituled the Treachery and disloyal­ [...]y of papists to their Soveraigns &c. be printed, by Michael Sparke Seino [...], Iohn White: Whence the Argument stands thus.

Master Prynne the Barrester, though he mainteined the High Court of Parliament to be the most Soveraigne Power of all others in 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▪ [Page 7] 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, [Page 8] 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. ForS [...] [...] 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 [Page 9] 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, [Page 10] 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 [Page 11] 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 [Page 12] 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 it, that will needs make Presidents to be rules and patternes? Sure when we said, That some Presidents were such, as that they ought not to be rules for us to follow, we might by any ingenious Reader, with much more probability beene thought to have intended those of deposing Kings, then to have said that with duty and modesty Kings might be disposed, because we affir­med that we had not suffered such things to enter into our thoughts.

And although they would perswade his Majesty that there is little confidence to be placed in our Modesty and duty, yet as God is witnes of our thoughts, so shall our actions witnesse to all the world, that to the honour of our Religion, and of those that are most zealous in it, (so much strucken at by the Contrivers of that Declaration under odious names) we shall suffer more from and for our Soveraign, then we hope God will ever permit the mallice of wicked Councellors to put us to, and though the happines of this and all Kingdomes depen­deth cheifly upon God, yet we acknowledge that it doth so mainly de­pend upon his Maj. and the Royall Branches of that Root, That as we have heretofore▪ so we shall hereafter esteem no hazard too great, no [...] reproach too vile, but that we shall willingly go through the one, and undergo the other. That we and the whole Kingdome may enjoy that [Page 13] happinesse, which we cannot in an orderly way of providence expect from any other fountain or Streams, then those from whence (were the [...]oyson of evill counsels once removed from about them) wee doubt not, but we and the whole Kingdom should be satisfied most abundantly.

Therefore Mr. Prynne the Barrester as well as M. Prynne the Mem­ber, and both Houses of Parliament too, are point blanke against the present arraigning, deposing and executing of the King, con­demning it as a Popish and Iesuiticall Practise, never owned, but disclaimed by every Protestant Parliament, and by this Parliament in two expresse Declarations, two solemne Protestations, and in the solemne League and Covenant since; all which this Pamphleter tooke, and assented to, as readily as any other Members; and therefore cannot excuse himselfe from most detestable prevaricati­on and perjury, in violating these his solemne Protestations. League and Covenant, with his Oathes of Supreamacy and Allegiance to boot, which he hath oft times taken, the guilt and infamy whereof must rest upon his conscience, and eternally cry for vengeance a­gainst him, unlesse he expiate it by timely and deep repen­tance.

Fourthly, Mr. Prynne the Barrester in his Epistle to the Reader before his fourth Part, thus expresseth himselfe. For my own pa [...]e as I have alwayes been, and euer shall be an Honour, a Defender of Kings and Monarchy, (the best of Government. whiles it keeps within the bounds which law and conscience have prescribed) so I shall never so far degenerate below the duty of a man, a Lawy­er, a Scholler, a Christian, as to misinforme or flatter either, nor yet (out of any popular vaine-glory) court either Parliaments or people to the prejudice of KINGS IVST ROYALTIES, but carry such an equall hand between them, as shall doe right to both, Inju­ry to neither, to preserve, and support their just and legall Sove­raigntyes, jurisdictions, Rights, within their proper limits without tyrannicall invasions, or seditions incroachments one upon another, This is Mr: Prynne the Barresters sence.

And in the third Part of his Soveraign Power of Parliaments and Kingdomes: page 147. he concludes thus. Let Gods curse and mens for ever rest upon all those, who are in love with any warre, [Page 14] especially a civill, within their own dearest Countries bowells; Or Dure abuse my loyull syncere Lucubrations, to any disloyall sini­ster designes to the preiudice of their Soveraignes, or the States wherein they live; which he never published, to countenance or encou­rage any tumultuous, REBELLIOUS factions, ambitions, Trayterous Spirits, to mutiny or Rebell against their Soveraigns: but only out of a cordiall desire to effect such a speedy, honourable, safe, religious, sempeternall Peace between King and Parliament, as all true Chri­stian English hearts, both cordially pray, long for, & endeavour. Ergo Mr. Prynne the Member, and Barrester, is still one and the same man, an assertor of Monarchy and Loyalty, and no wayes contradictory to himselfe in any of his writings; and Gods curse and mans must rest upon this unpurified Pamphleter, for his malicious perverting of his words, against their scope and purpose, to justifie the deposing and murthering of the King; and altering of our Monarchy.

5ly. Mr. Prynne the Barrester, neither in his 4. Part of the Sove­raigne Power of Parliaments, nor in his Appendix to them, hath produced any one President (no not of any one Popish Parliament or Kingdome) that ever judicially condemned or executed their law­full King, were he never so Tyrannicall, impious or flagitious; much lesse any Protestant Parliament or Realme, who condemne and ab­hor both the Doctrine and Practise of murthering or destroying their Kings, as Jesuiticall, Papall, impious, Heriticall and damnable; abjured by the very Oath of Allegiance; as he proves expresly. Part. 1. p. 1. 2. 3. 4. Therefore Mr. Prynne the Member, in his Memento, is of the selfe same Judgement, as he was in his Soveraigne power of Parliaments: in both which this Pamphleter (a Member of the high Court of Iustice, who condemned the King to death) may read his Neck-Verse, and fatall destiny if he repent not.

All other Passages truly quoted out of Mr. Prynne the Barrester, to prove the Soveraigne Power of Parliaments and Kingdoms, (not of a Peece of a Parliament, or Kingdome, much lesse of a ninth part of a Commons House sitting under a force, who are neither a Parlia­ment nor Kingdome) Mr. Prynne the Member still averres, in this and his owne genuine sence, as they are printed in his Books, not as they are mangled, and misapplied by this idle Scribler, to those few Commons now sitting, p. 5. 6. &c,

2dly Whereas he alleageth p. 7. 8. 9. 10. That William Prynne the [Page 15] Member his first Argument against the Iunto is: That their pro­ceedings against the King is an Offence within the Statute of 25. E. 3. concerning Treason. I William Prynne the Barrester doe remem­ber, that in the beginning of this late Warre the Cavaliers used the same Argument against the Parliaments raising Armes, and I then made this Answer to it, p. 107. of my said first Part: That The Par­liament and Whole Kingdome, being the Highest Power, cannot by any publike 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. E. 3. c. 2. of Treasons; which extends, not to the whole Kingdom, or Court of Parliament repre­senting it (of which no Treason was ever yet presumed) &c. William Prynne the Barrester and Member is still of the same opinion, and not repugnant to him selfe; who speaks there, of a WHOLE KING­DOME, AND COVRT OF PARLIAMENT (as this Page. 5 6 8 9. 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 [Page 16] 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 ourCook 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 [Page 17] 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.

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 [Page 18] 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 and crosseth the very practise and principles of the prote­stant Religion? If so, then both are alike within the intent and mea­ning of this Law and Oath, though the Pope and his instruments be pincipally intended.

2dly. These clauses in the Oath: That the Pope neither by him­selfe▪ nor with any other hath any power or authority to depose the King &c. That I will bear true Allegiance to his Maiesty, his Heirs and Successors, and him and them will defend to the utter most of my power, against all attempts whatsoever, (a universall affir­mative from or by the Pope or any others) which shall be made a­gainst his or their persons, their Crown, and Dignity, by reason or colour of any such sentence or Declaration, or otherwise: Which last words in the dis-junctive coupled with the former generall ones: and compared with the following clause: And that neither the Pope nor any person whatsoever, hath power to absolve me from this Oath, or any part thereof &c. and with the first branch of it. I do truly and sincerely acknowledge, professe, testify, and declare in my Conscience, before God and the world, that our Soveraigne Lord King Charles, is lawfull and rightful King of this Realme, and of all his Ma­jesties Dominions and Countries: with this addition, that all Prote­stant Subjects are enjoyned to take this Oath, as well as Papists, and more especially every member of the Commons house of Parl. without taking whereof he is utterly disabled to be a Member, Doe infalliby evidence, that this Law and Oaths related not only, though princi­pally, to the Popes Usurpations in this Realm, but to all other Sub­jects usurpations to depose or murther the King by any usurped or pretended Authority, or High Court of Justice whatsoever.

But that which clears it unanswerably is this; That this very Act provides, That every Gentleman or person of higher degree, or any person or persons, which hath born or shall bear any Office or place of Captain, Leiutenant, or any other place, charge or Office in Camp ar­my, [Page 19] or Company of Soldiers, or Conducters of Soldiers, shall goe or passe voluntarily out of this Realme, to serve any forreign Prince, State, or Potentate (be it Protestant or Popish,) before that he shall become bound by obligation with two such suertyes as shall be alowed of by the Officers therein limited to take the same Bond, unto our Sovereign Lord the Kings Majesty, HIS HEIRES and SUCCESS [...]R; in the sum of [...]wenty pounds of currant English money at the least, with condition to the effect following, shall be a Felon. The Tenour [...]f which condition followeth: viz. That if the within bounden shal not at any time thereafter be reconciled to the Pope, or Sea of Rome, nor Shall enter into or consent unto any practise, plot or conspiracy whatsoever against the Kings maiesty his heirs and Successors: or any of his or their Estate or Estates, Realmes or Dominions: but shall within convenient time after knowledg thereof had, reveal and disclose to the Kings maiesty his heirs and Successors, or some of the Lords of his or their Honourable Privy Councell all such practises, plots and conspiracyes, that then the said Obligati­on be voyd. Which condition being generall, extending to any Plot, practise or conspiracy whatsoever, against the King, His Heirs and Successors or any of his or their Estate or estates, Realms or Dominions; without any limitation to the Pope, or other sorraigne Prince, State or Potentate, or to popish Recusants only; and reach­ing as well to plots, practises and conspiracies by any Subjects what­soever, as well within the Realme as without; be they protestants, pa­pist, or whatsoever Sect or Religion: fully clears and proves the Oath of Allegiance to extend though principally to the pope and forraign Princes and States, and their Treasons and Conspiracies, yet only unto them; but likewise to the Treasons, Plots, Practises & con­spiracies by any subjects whatsoever within the realm, & to the presert disloyal votes, acting & Iesuitical proceedings of the members now sitting.

Thirdly, For the pretended perverting of the words of this oath by Mr. Prynne, viz: Nor any other; for, nor with any other, It is but the Printers oversight & omission, Nor doth it alter the sence in sub­stance, For if the Pope cannot joining with any other, (suppose the Members now sitting in the Commons house or the high Court of Iustice) lawfully depose nor murther the King, then certainly those Any other, cannot lawfully depose, nor murther him without the Pope; within the true meaning of this Oath, under pain of deepest [Page 20] perjury and Treason to boot: which I desire this Pamphletter now seriously to consider, if he hath any honesty or conscience lest within him.

6thly. What is objected out of Mr. Prynnes Appendix p. 14 is already sufficiently answered and cleared in the first and second section; and there is nothing in it, which can justifie the late triall, arraignment and condemnation of the King in the least degree, triable by no law of God or man by such an usurped and illegall Iurisdiction, amounting to Tyranny in the superlative Degree. And for the condemnation and beheading of Mary Queen of Scotts; it was not by her own Parliament and Subjects in her own Kingdom, for any Treason against them; but for Treason committed in England against Queen Elizabeth, where she was a Subject and no Queen at all; and that by a surprise, as some relate.

7thly. To that objected, p. 15 Touching the name and Title which WILLIAM PRYNNE the Member is pleased to give to the Parliament (he meanes the 45 Commons; who are no Par­liament) now sitting, calling it, A present unparliamentary Iunto. I William Prynne the Barrester do call to mind, that when the King and divers of the Lords and Commons in the beginning of our late Troubles had deserted the Parliament, I did then in my said first Part of the Soveraigne Power of Parliaments p: 43, 44 maintaine 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 legally present, whether they will or no.

To this Mr. Prynne the Member answers. First, That what he hath written as a Barrester in these two Pages of his First Part, will prove fatall to this Pamphletter and his Junto now sitting, if well considered, and truly recited. For first, he there proves; That there can be no Parliament without the King, who ought to be alwayes personally present, in or neare his Parliament: which he hath more fully manifested as a Barrester, in his Plea for the Lords, p. 7. to 13. by many Authorities and Records. The 45. Commons therefore now sitting without the Lords and their Fellow Members concurrence, and against their Votes, having illegally and trayterously condemned the King to loose his Head; and act­ing as an intire Parliament, without the King, Lords or their Fellow Members, can be no Parliament at all, but a meer unpar­liamentary [Page 21] J [...]nto, by Mr. Prynne the Barresters Resolution, to 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 ourModus [...] 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 [Page 22] 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 allCook 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 [Page 23] 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 Part: 2. p. 86: And that no proceedings ought to be in Parlia­ment when most of the Members are absent or driven away from it. Part. 2. p. 7: which he proves more largely whiles a Barrester and be fore he was a Member; In his Levellers Levelled: and his Plea for the Lords.

Therefore this Pamphletter hath much abused Master Prynne in this his misquotation and misapplication of his words

[Page 24] 3dly. Mr. Prynne the Barrester in the first part of his Soveraigne power of Parliaments, which this Scribler quotes p. 28. cites and cen­sures, the unwarrantable Practise of King Richard the 2d (for which he was articled against in the Parliament of 1H. 4. when he was deposedGr [...]fton p 329. Mr. Saint Iohns Speech. 1640. p: 33. 1. H4 n 21. 22. 48.) That in the 21 years of his Reigne, he unduly packed a Parliament, and by his extradordinary armed Guard of 4000: Che­shire Archers over-awed and forced it to Repeal the Parliaments of 10 &. 11 Ri [...]h. 2. and to attaint and condemne the Duke of Glo­cester, Earle of Warwick, and Earle of Arundell (then likewise executed) of High Treason: After which adjourning the Parlia­ment to Shrewsbury, [...] 2 [...]. R. 2. c. 12. 16. 1. H. 4. c. 3. Walsing­ham Hist. Angliae p. 394. Gra [...]ton Holinshed he there subtilly procured an Act to passe by common consent. That the power of the Parliament should remaine in some few persons, who (AFTER THE PARLIAMENT DISSOLVED) should determine certaine petitions delivered, but not answered therein. By colour whereof, these Committees procee­ded to other things generally touching the Parliament, and that by the Kings appointment in derogation of the state of the Parliament, and discommodity and pe [...]nicious example of the whole Realme. And by colour and authority thereof, he caused the Parliament Rolls to be altered, against the effect of the foresaid grant For which cause the said Parliament and all Acts and proceedings therein were nulled and declared void in 1. H. 4. c. 2. 3. This very president Mr-Prynne the Member cites in his Memento, p. 9▪ 10. as the nearest p [...]tterne he could meet with, parallell to the present sitting Iunto. Who without any Act of Parliament, being not above the 9th. or 10th. part at most of the Commons House, and sitting under an Armed force, have taken upon them, not only the name and power of the whole Parliament, to alter, null, repeal Votes, Orders and Ordinan­ces made in a full and free House, Vote out their fellow Members, and lay aside the Lords House, but likewise presumed to repeal old, and make new Acts of Parliament, to erect a new High Court of Iustice to try, condemne and execute the King himselfe without any witnesses legally and publikely produced against him; to adjourn and put off the Terme it selfe to the great ob­struction and delay of Justice, to order a new Great Seale of Eng­land, to be made without the Kings Effigies or Motto: to alter all the ancient Writs, formes and proceedings at the Common Law in the Kings name and Stile, to enact Commissions of Judges, Sheriffs [Page 25] and Justices of Peace and the like to continue after the Kings death, which are absolutelyCook 7. Rep. 30. 31. Dyer 165. a. null and expired by it: to enact and pro­claine it to be High Treason for any man to proclaime Prince Charles, King of England after his Fathers death (who is King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland immediatly after his Fathers execution, as is adjudged by all the Judges of England in Calums case Cook 7. f. 10. 11. and Cook 3. Instit. p. 7. 1. [...]ac. ch. 1.) though bound thereto by the Common Law, the Oathes of Supremacy and Allegi­ance, the solemne League and Covenant, and the Statute of 1. Jacobi ch. 1. Wherein the Lords and Commons in full Parliament where All the whose body of the Realme and every Particular Member thereof, were either by person or representative by the Lawes of the Realme deemed to be present, did with all possible publike joy and acclamation, as A memoriall so all posterities, a­mong the Records of the High Court of Parliament for ever to endure of their Loyalty, obedience and hearty and humble [...] ▪ publish, declare and ENACT; That they being boun [...]en there un­to both by the laws of God and Man did recognize and acknow­ledge; that the Imperiall Crowne of the Realme of England, and of all the Kingdomes, Dominions and Rights belonging to the same, did immediatly by inherent birth-right, and lawfull and undoubted Succession discend and come to his [...]ost excellent Ma­iesty [...] being Lineally, Justly and lawfully ne [...]t and sole Heire of the blood Royall of this Realme. And that by the goodnesse of Almighty God and lawfull right of Discent, his Majesty was of the Realmes and Kingdomes of England, Scotland France and Ireland the most mighty and potent King: and thereunto they did most humbly and faithfully submit, NOTE. and oblige themselves, their News and Posterities for ever, until the last drop of their bloods be spent: Beseeching his Maj [...]sty to accept of the same, as the first fruits in that High Court of Parliament, of their loyalty and faith to his Maiesty and his royal progeny and posterity for ever. And to Vote and declare High Treason, to be no Treason; and Loyalty and Allegiance it selfe, to be High Treason (contrary to all rules of Law, Justice, Honesty, Religion, Reason, Conscience and1. H. 4. c. 10 1. [...]. 6. c. 1 [...]. [...] 1 Ma [...]iae c. 1. Cook. 3. Inst [...]t. p. 2. 21. 22. 23. expresse Acts of Parliament) to terrifie and scare poore ignorant people from their Loyalty and duties: when as all wise men admire, decide, scorne such pittifull exorbitant Bulls and Bugbeares; which will affright themselves most at last when [Page 26] Scelera, sceleribus [...]enda, Licentia scelerum est quae regna invisa tuetur; and armed violence be grown out of date; as they will (no doubt) ere long. And then this Iuncto, will wish with all their souls (but over late) they had harkned better to Mr. Prynnes timely M [...] ­mento, which will then rise up in judgement against them, and this Pamphletter, to condemne and leave them without the least ex­cuse.

Upon the whole matter then, it will appear to all the world. That Mr. Prynne, both as a Barrester and Member is semper idem, and no Changling, turn-coat, or Apostate from his first principles and Engagements, as this perjured Pamphetter is; to whom he wisheth more Grace, Truth, Honesty, and lesse Deceit, Falshood and Hypo­crisy in his heart, and next Impressions, wherein he expects he will answer the principal Considerations in his Memento, with the Decla­rations, Remonstrances, Protestations, Petitions, Promises of both Houses, and the Solemn League and Covenant, therein recited, to which he hath not in this Pamphlet attempted to return the last shadow of an Answer, such a worthy Champion hath he shewed him­self, and so unable to encounter his Antagonist, Mr. Prynne, either as a Barrester or Member of the Commons House, Who having written more then any man in def [...]nce of the Soveraigne Power of Parlia­ments and Kingdoms, considered only as they are rightly constituted and qualified; is thereby engaged more then any man, to oppose the abuses extravagances, & unparliamentary, disloyall Proceedings, of any, who shall presume to wrest, abuse and pervert his Loyall Or­thodox writings contrary to his sence and meaning to justifie their unwarrantable, illegall, Tyrannicall and Treasonable Actions, as this Pamphletter, and some others of late have done.