Selected quad for the lemma: act_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
act_n	king_n	parliament_n	writ_n	3,273	5	9.6734	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A77858	An humble examination of a printed abstract of the answers to nine reasons of the House of Commons, against the votes of bishops in Parliament. Printed by order of a committee of the honourable House of Commons, now assembled in Parliament.	Burges, Cornelius, 1589?-1665.	1641 (1641)	Wing B5672; Thomason E164_14; ESTC R21636	38,831	83

yet both Church and Kingdome binde them to give themselves in all other particulars wholly to the Calling study and exercise of the Ministery which they have received in the Lord Collos 4 17 that they may fulfill it III. REAS. of the House of Commons BEcause Councels and Canons in severall ages do forbid them to meddle with Secular Affaires I. ANSVVER To this 3. Reason a five fold Answere is directed Councels and Canons against Bishops Votes in Parliament were never in use in this Kingdome and therefore they are abolished by the Statute of 25. Hen. 8. II. ANSVVER So are they by the same Statute because the Lords have declared that the Bishops vote hereby the Lawes and Statutes of this Realm and all Canons that crosse with those are there abolished III. ANSVVER So are they by the same Statute as thwarting the Kings Prerogative to call Bishops by summons to vote in Parliament IV. ANSVVER So are they by the Vote of the House of Commons 21. Maii 1641. because they are not confirmed by the Act of Parliament EXAMEN I put all these Answers together because they will not need distinct Examinations they being much what coincident at least in the maine scope which is to keepe this third Reason out of the Court as being no sufficient evidence in Law to eject the Defendants out of their holds in Parliament against some of their desires It is acknowledged that no Councels or Canons not confirmed by Parliament have here in England any power to bind the subjects either of the Clergie or of the Laitie as hath been clearly Resolved upon the Question this Parliament in both houses But whether the House of Commons referre to any Canons so confirmed I may not take upon mee to affirme or deny because they have beene pleased to forbeare to cite those to which they doe referre Nor can it bee I thinke denyed that any Canons were in use within forty yeares before the Statute of 25. Hen. 8.19 to which I conceive the Answerer hath relation against Bishops votes in Parliament and so Bishops bee shot free from such Canons if urged against them in that capacity as binding Lawes But what neede the Answerer to have taken all this paines of multiplying of Answeres to shew that no Councels or Canons not ratified by Parliaments bee binding to Bishops in this or any case whatsoever For where hath the House of Commons so urged them Surely not here They have not vouched them as Lawes to thrust the Bishops out of the House of Peeres as sitting there against the Lawes already in being but as rationall Arguments and prudentiall Grounds to induce the Parliament to use their Legislative power to abrogate the Lawes if any be for their sitting there seeing that many godly Bishops in former Ages have made divers religious and wholesome Constitutions and Provisions against such exorbitant usurpations of the Clergie For however those Canons bee not formally obligatory here yet are they really worthy the Consideration of those who have a power to reduce Bishops by a binding Law to that which heretofore so many learned and pious men of their owne Coat and Calling have pronounced and decreed to be just and necessarie Further than this the House of Commons bee not engaged And who knows not that the Bishops and their Officers have and still doe urge divers Canons of forraigne Councels and domestique too that never were confirmed by Parliament upon both Clergie and Laitie when such Canons make for the Bishops or their Officers And these must take effect like the Laws of the Medes and Persians And yet now when they see such Canons turned upon themselves although not as Lawes but as rationall arguments only how witty they be in putting off all by the Statute of 25. Hen. 8. which makes nothing at all against the House of Commons or this Reason produced by them And what offence or incongruity was it in the House of Commons to urge Canons and Councels against the Bishops in this particular when no Divine that ever complained of such usurpations of the Clergie hath held it incongruous to presse the very same against them I will not trouble my selfe or others with many instances that alone shall suffice which hath beene before * Exam. of the first Answe to the first Reason alledged out of Matthew Parker Archbishop of Canterburie That Prelate taxing the excessive exorbitances and scandalous courses of the Clergie in the reigne of Richard 1. was not affraid to give this as the chiefe if not the only reason of all that prodigious breaking out Quod contra Orthodoxorum Patrum decreta c. that contrary to the decrees of the Orthodoxe Fathers the Clergie did too much intermeddle in worldly businesses If then so great a Prelate did well in laying this home to the charge of the Clergie that their not regarding the Decrees and Canons of former Councels was the maine cause of all the evills committed by them it cannot unbecome the House of Commons assembled in Parliament and passing a Bill against Bishops Votes in Parliament to produce and use the Canons and Councels of Bishops themselves against such courses held on and maintained by our Bishops against the judgement and solemne determinations of their owne Predecessors in the Prelacy in all the Churches of Christ As for the Declaration of the Lords that the Bishops Vote in Parliament by the Lawes and Statutes of the Realme I meddle not with it because as I am ignorant of the Lawes and Statutes by which they vote so am I not acquainted with what the Lords have declared thereupon Only I have heard that divers Abbots voted as anciently in Parliament as Bishops yet are taken away Yea this Answerer hath informed mee Answer to Reason 7. that anciently the Bishops were assisted in Parliament with a double number of Mitred Abbots and Priors But Sir Edward Cooke could find no more in the Parliament Rolles but twenty seven Abbots and two Priors Commentary on Littleton Institutes Sec. 138. Nor doe I know the difference of the Tenures of the one or of the other or why in regard of originall right Bishops should rather vote in Parliament than Abbots and Priors so long as those Orders continued in being That great Master of Law before named tels us that both Abbots and Bishops were called to Parliament by the Kings Writ else they came not there Ibid. although they held of the King Per Baroniam Witnesse the Abbot of the Monasterie of Feversham founded by King Stephen who albeit hee held by Barony yet for that hee was not called by Writ hee never sate in Parliament And perhaps it is not simply a Barony that gives all the Bishops a right to fit there for I have read somewhere that all the Bishops of King Henry 8. his foundation have not Baronies annexed to them Yet they are called by Writ and vote as Peeres in Parliament But bee their right what it will I

heare nothing from the Answerer how farre this right extended The Lords have I believe declared in this very Parliament that the Bishops have no votes in causa Sanguinis and I thinke the Bishops have found it to be so And to my ignorance it is a scruple whether they had originally any libertie of Votes in Civill and State affaires and were not restrained meerly to matters of Religion Ibid The reason of my scruple is because I finde in the same Commentaries of Sir Edward Cooke for I confesse I aspire not so high as to looke into the Rolle it selfe a transcript of an ancient Record forbidding them to intermeddle Rol. Pat. de An 18. H. 3. 1 16 17. upon paine of forfeiting their Baronies with any matters concerning the Crowne the person of the King his Estate or the State of his Councell the words are these Mandatum est omnibus Episcopis qui conventuri sunt apud Gloucestriam die Sabbati in Crastin ' Sanctae Katherinae firmiter inhibendo quod sicut Baronias suas quas de Rege tenent Vide Pol. Virg. in H. 3. ● diligunt nullo modo praesumant Concilium tenere de aliquibus quae Coronam Regis pertinent vel quae Personam Regis vel statum suum vel statum Concilii sui contingunt scituri pro certo quod si fecerint Rex inde se capiet ad Baronias suas Teste Rege apud Hereford 23. Novemb. c. This was in the 8. of Hen. 3. and in a great Councell or Parliament In Hen. 3 ad an 1234. not in a private Councell of Domesticks of his owne Court as Polydore Virgil and Matthew of Westminster would insinuate Touching the Kings Prerogative it is too sacred to be handled by common or private hands Farre be it from me to set bounds to it or to wade farre in it Only I believe that the Kings Prerogative is for the good of his people and if any person unworthy and altogether unfit and therefore uncapable should by the Prerogative Royall be called to and imployed in any place or office of trust wherein the whole Kingdome is interressed this were an abuse of the Prerogative caused by Him that did misinforme the King and there is no doubt but a just King who should be so abused would soone upon better information recall such a Grant or Writ If then the Bishops shall be found to be persons altogether unfit for such high honour and trust wherein all the Kingdome is so deeply concerned I only ask I determine not what thwarting of the Kings Prerogative it could justly bee said to bee to passe an Act with the Kings Soit fait c. unto it that no more such Writs shall henceforth issue to any Bishop of the Kingdome 5. ANS to the third REASON This Argument was in a manner deserted by Master Perpoint and confest to be but an Argumentum ad hominem EXAMEN It is very true that Noble Gentleman after he had faithfully and like himselfe discharged the trust committed to him by the House of Commons in writing hee added a few words in the close of that Conference with the Lords to this effect that how ever hee was commanded to urge this Reason taken from Councels and Canons yet the House did only borrow these Arrowes out of the Bishops own Quivers to use them as weapons against themselvs not with any purpose to bind the House of Commons or other the subjects by them This was not in any sort a desertion of the Argument but a seasonable explanation of the House of Commons in what sense they used it And were it but Argumentum ad hominem yet was it ad illos homines whome it chiefly and most neerly concerned to wit the Bishops themselvs and had force enough in my apprehension to silence them if they should offer to open their mouthes in defence of holding their places and votes in Parliament any longer For if they would but consider what so many famous Bishops and Councels have said and decreed against Clergie mens interposing in and mingling themselves with Civill and Secular affaires which yet be not of that import and consequence as these in question bee common ingenuity would make them to lay their hands upon their mouthes and leave the discussion and determination hereof to others who are not interessed in it and therfore more likely to bee lesse partiall in resolving of it IV. REASON of the House of Commons BEcause the twentie foure Bishops have a dependency upon the Archbishops and because of their Canonicall obedience to them 1. ANSVVER They have no dependency upon the Archbishops but in points of Appeale and Visitation only And owe them no obedience To this Reason a two fold Answe is framed but in these two points None at all in Parliament where they are pares their Equals And as Bracton tels us Par in Parem non habet imperium What hath Canonicall obedience to doe with a vote in Parliament declared in this Bill to be no Ecclesiasticall but a secular affaire EXAMEN The Reason consists of two branches dependency and obedience both which render Bishops unmeet to vote in Parliament For where these two relations meet make but the Archbishops of a side and it will be easie to draw the rest the same way The Answer endeavours to take off both at one pull because there is neither dependance upon nor obedience due to the Archbishops but in two points Appeales and Visitations which no way concern Parliaments or the dispose of their votes therein where they bee all Equals and where the Vote is only a Secular Act. To examine the truth of the Answere so farre as it denyes all dependency or obedience but in Appeales and Visitations were not altogether impertinent if it were a time of leasure because it is with so much confidence denyed Bee there no reserved Cases pertaining to the Metropolitane no Prerogative wills no Inhibitions that may runne and command in the Diocesans Territories and Jurisdiction save onely in Cases of Appeales and during the time of Metropoliticall Visitations Doth not the Archbishop command the severall Bishops upon divers occasions to publish divers things whether decreed in Synodes or received from supreme Authority Hath the Metropolitan no power to correct and censure the delinquencies of the Bishops of his Province and to command them by vertue of their Canonicall Obedience to be more vigilant and diligent when hee findes them slacke in their Office to enjoyne them silence and obedience if they contest and ruffle with his Grace c. to give other senses and interpretations of Rubricks and other matters contained in the Liturgie than the Bishop doth so hee expound nothing contrary to the Booke and is not the Bishop to bee concluded by it It were easie to adde many moe particulars which cannot bee reduced to Appeales or Visitations Therefore here the Answerer came short in his reckoning But hee that desires to looke abroad

excesses and intolerable exorbitancies of the present tyranny of many Bishops who dishonestly cal it by the honest name of Iurisdiction so long as the Bishops be suffered to vote in Parliament For the Bishops bee themselves the greatest Offenders therin either acting in it or else as Galba wittingly permitting those to usurpe whom they ought to bridle or willingly ignorant of what they ought to know Therefore it was desired that their Votes in Parliament might be taken away to make passage for another Bill that might regulate their Iurisdiction as in the former Reason was plainely intimated But the Answerer was willing to slide over that which was the life of the present Reason viz. the engagement of Bishops to maintaine their jurisdiction id est as now it standeth and Lap-wing like to carry his Readers from the nest to gaize upon the destruction of Episcopacy it selfe which on my conscience was not then intended by the House of Commons had that first Bill been quietly yeelded by the Bishops in the House of Peeres Nor did the House of Commons I presume by the instance of Scotland and of those in England and Ireland intend in this Reason a purpose of Abolition of the Calling but onely made use of it as an Argument a majore ad minus to this effect That if the Iurisdiction of Bishops as now they terme it be found so greivous that in Scotland they would endure Episcopacy it selfe no longer and many in England and Ireland have petitioned for the abolishing of it in these other Kingdomes it cannot be thought unreasonable and immodest for the House of Commons to passe a Bill for a lesser matter to witt for taking away the Votes of Bishops in Parliament without which there is little or no hope that the Bishops will ever suffer an other Bill to bee enacted for the thorough Reformation and regulating of their Iurisdiction so as to give ease of the many Greivances that still ly upon the subjects of both Kingdomes of England and Ireland and to satisfie the Petitioners with Reason worthy of such a Parliament at such a time of generall discontent cheifly caused by the usurpations of sundry Bishops and of their domineering party What is in the Answer with shew of modesty said that peradventure ten times as many desire the continuance of Episcopacy as there be Petitioners against it It might peradventure be so before the Bishops procured that first bill grounded upon these Reasons to be rejected above and before the world was made acquainted with that Abstract of the Answers given to them But I dare say that now without all peradventure if we may judge of mens desires by their expressions there is scarce one of ten who before were for Episcopacy reformed but are now against it the reason is because they see there is no hope that ever the Bishops will cheerfully yeeld to a perfect Reformation of themselves and their Order and that if hereafter the Prelates should happen against their will to bee over ruled in it such a forced Reformation will never doe good nor secure the Kingdome against the Evills too long sustained under them if the Calling it selfe be continued And verily no one thing hath more alienated exasperated the hearts of all sorts than the apprehended insufficiencies of these printed Answers to the Reasons of the House of Commons So that if Episcopacy happen to miscarry I am perswaded the Bishops will find Cause to ascribe the opening of so speedy a way to their destruction not to any thing so much as to the unhappy Answers given to these Reasons of the House of Commons if those Answers offered to the House of Lords were no other or better than they are presented to publike view in that more unhappy Abstract most unhappily printed 2. ANSVVER to the eighth REASON There wil be found Peeres enough in the Vpper House to reforme any thing amisse in the Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction although the 26. Prelates should bee so wicked as to oppose it As there were found Peeres enough in that Noble House to curb the Court of Rome and the Revenues of the Cardinals under Edw. 3. To meet with the Provisors under Rich. 2. To put all the Clergie into a Premunire under Hen. 8. And to reforme the Religion 1 Eliz. notwithstanding the opposition of all the Bishops EXAMEN Mark here his Plea in Barre against the Bill There were Peeres enough to curb the Court of Rome in Edw. 3. and Rich. 2. when none were more glad of the curbing of that Court than our Bishops themselves Ergo there will ever be found Peeres enough to reforme the Bishops jurisdiction I will not say of this putting our Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction and the Court of Rome so neere together Pares cum parihas facillime congregantur But it will perhaps make sport to some to finde them in this Abstract so close one by another yet can it not secure wise men that because the Peeres curbed the Pope Ergo there will ever be enough to curb our Bishops unlesse the Bishops will yeeld themselves to hold of the Pope or to be of the same stamp and resolve to rise and fall with him As for those Cole-worts in Edw. 3. and Rich. 2. now a second time heated I referre the Reader who desires a fresh taste of them to the Examination of the former Answer In the case of Premunire in Hen. 8. who knowes not that if any such had passed in Parliament the Clergie were not so much overborn by the Nobility as overawed by that stern and stout King with whom the proudest Prelate durst not to contest But when wil it be proved that this passed in Parliament Surely Holinshed others tell me that the Bishops were called into the Kings Bench about it but before their day of appearance there was a Convocation wherein it was concluded that the Clergie of the Province of Canterbury should offer 100000. pound for composition which was accepted and a pardon promised to passe in Parliament to free them of the Premunire So in 7. Hen. 8. the Convocation incurred a Premunire for citing one Standish to appeare before the Convocation when they had not jurisdiction which yet was compounded and no Act of Parliament passed on it Nor needed there an Act for it for the Bishops themselves confessed the thing and so it could not come to a contest in the Parliament This is all that I know of this matter And if the case be thus this instance is not to the purpose But the last is of all other the most impertinent and scandalous Impertinent because all the world knowes that the Reformation of Religion was the designe of the Queene whom the Prelates might not crosse such as did thwart were duely rewarded for their paines as hath beene formerly touched Therefore untill it can bee found that the Bishops were over Voted in a Cause wherein the PRINCE went with them or expected their assistance to Vote for him the force of