How Did William Prynne Justify The Power Of Government

These ideas of limited government would be used in the English Civil War in the 17th century (1642-1649). William Prynne’s in his book Soveraign Power of Kingdomes and Parliaments challenged the power of King Charles I. Prynne argued royalist supporters of the king who believed that the king was infallible. Prynne justified his ideas through both Roman, canon, and English Common Law. Prynne interpreted the Roman law concept lex regia as meaning that the people gave power to the ruler but required him to follow their law. Similarities between the thinking of Prynne and the Concilitarist movement also exist. Both justified their existence on Roman law’s singulis major, universis minor. This declared that a general body was greater than one ruler either an English king or Pope. Further, both movements used the doctrine of equity believing that sometimes extreme or
The early Roman law text Corpus Iuris Civilis clearly advanced ideas that called for limited government. Magna Carta was the major event to usher in constitutionalism as it sought to put an English king under the law. Further, the efforts of various disputes in canon law allowed for challenges to the supreme authority of the pope. Either by European rulers like Phillip IV of France or the conciltarists. Finally, these ideas inspired many. These ideas justified the English civil war. In many ways we Americans have to pay great respect to these ideas. Our earliest forefathers, the pilgrims, knew the value of these ideas. They had challenged English authority and went to the new world in hopes of starting a new land that could protect their rights. Thus, they were very wise to carry a copy of Magna Carta with them (Greenberg and Sechler “Enduring Influences” PP.1047). They knew the power of these ideas of law and how they could breed a more limited government for the