Barons here we sit as Peers Which last is also verified in terminis by the words of a Statute or Act of Parliament wherein the Bishops are acknowledged to be Peers of the Land But to proceed more particularly to our proofs de facto after the alteration of their Tenures by the Norman Conqueror we find a Parliament assembled in the fifth year of that King wherein are present Episcopi Abbates Comites Primates totius Angliae †the * Math. Paris in Willi elmo 1. Bishops Abbots Earls and the rest of the Baronage of England And 3ly In the ninth year of William Rufus an old Author telleth us de Regni statu acturus Episcopos Abbates quoscunque Regni Proceres in unum praecepti sui sanctione egit that being to consult of the Affairs of the Kingdom he called together by his Writ the Bishops Abbots and all the Peers of the Realm (†) Edmor hist Mov l. 2. And 2ly During the Reign of King Henry the first for we will take but one example out of each Kings Reign though each Kings Reign would yeild us more a Parliament was called at London wherein were many things dispatched aa well of Ecclesiastical as Secular nature the Bishops and Abbots being present with the other Lords Coacto apud Londinium Magno Episcoporum Procerum Abbatumque concilio multa Ecclesiasticarum Secularium rerum ordinata negotia decisa Litigia saith the Monk of Malmsbury (†) Malmbs Hist Reg. Ang. l. 5. and of this Parliament it is I take it that Edmor speaketh Hist. Novel l. 4. p. 91. Proceed we 4ly to King Henry the second for King Stephens Reign was so full of Wars and Tumults that there is very little to be found of Parliaments and there we find the Bishops with the other Peers convened in Parliament for the determination of the points in controversy between Alphonso King of Castile and Sancho King of Navarre referred by com-promise to the King of England and here determined by King Henry amongst other things Habito cum Episcopis Comitibus Baronibus cum deliberatione Consilio as in Roger Hoveden (†) Hoveden Annal. pac Rose in H. 2. 5ly Next time comes Richard the first his Son during whose Imprisonment by the D. of Austria his Brother John then Earl of Moriton endeavoured by force and cunning in Normandy to set the Crown on his own head which caused Hubert the Archbishop of Canterbury to call a Parliament Convocatis coram eo Episcopis Comitibus Baronibus Regni (†) Id. in Ioh. wherein the Bishops Earls and Barons did with one consent agree to seize on his Estate and suppress his power the better to preserve the Kingdom in Wealth Peace and Safety 6ly After succeeded John and he calls a Parliament wherein were certain Laws made for the defence of this Kingdom Communi assensu Archiepiscoporum Episcoporum Comitum Baronum omnium fidelium suorum Angliae by the Common Counsel and Assent of the Archbishops Bishops Earls Barons and the rest of his Lieges Remember what was said before touching the Writ of Summons in the said Kings time from this time till the last Parliament of King Charles there is no Kings Reign of which we have not many though not all the Acts of Parliament still it Print amongst us Nor is there any Act of Parliament in the Printed Books to the Enacting of which the Bishops Approbation and Consent is not plainly specified either in the general Proem set before the Acts or in the Body of the Acts themselves as by the Books themselves doth at large appear 7ly And to this kind of proof may be further added the Form and manner of the Writ by which the Prelates in all times have been called to Parliament being the very Law Verbatim with that which is directed to the Temporal Barons save that the Spiritual Lords are commanded to attend the Service in fide dilectione the Temporal in fide Homagio and of late times in fide Ligeantia quibus nobis tenemini A Form or Copy of which Summons as ancient as King John's time is still reserved upon Record directed Nominatim to the Archbishop of Canterbury (†) Titles of Hon. part 2. cap. 1. and then a Scriptum est similiter to the residue of the Bishops Abbots Earls and Barons Then add the Privilege of Parliament for themselves and their Servants during the time of the Sessions the Liberty to kill and take one or two of the Kings Deer as they pass by any of his Forests in coming to Parliament upon his Commandment (*) Charta de forest cap. their enjoying of the same Immunities which are and have been heretofore enjoyed by the Temporal Barons (†) Camden in Briiania and tell me if the Bishops did not sit in Parliament by as good a Title as the Temporal Lords and therefore Essential Fundamental parts of the Court of Parliament By this Discourse it may appear that the Bishops Sit and Vote in Parliament by a double capacity as Bishops first in reference to their several Sees and secondly as Peers in regard of their Baronies In both respects accounted one of the Three Estates and the first also of the Three as from the Premises may be gathered without any great trouble But in so nice a point as this we shall not only build upon general Inferences but particular Evidences And first it is affirmed by Titus Livius in his Relation of the Life and Reign of King Henry the 5th That when his Funerals were ended the three Estates of the Realm of England did assemble together and declare his Son King Henry the 6th being an Infant of 8 Months old to be their Sovereign Lord †as his Heir and Successor And three Estates there * Tit. Liv. M. S. in Bib. Bodl. could not be to perform that Service unless the Bishops were acknowledged to be one of the number 2ly In the Parliament Rolls of King Richard the third there is mention of a Bill or Parchment presented to that Prince being then Duke of Glocester on the behalf and in the Name of the Three Estates of the Realm of England that is to wit the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and of the Commons by name which forasmuch as neither the said Three Estates nor the persons which delivered it on their behalf were then assembled in form of Parliament was afterwards in the first Parliament of that King by the same Three Estates Assembled in this present Parliament I speak the very words of the Act it self and by Authority of the same Enrolled Recorded and Approved (*) An. Speed in K. R. 3 and at the request and by the assent of the Three Estates of this Realm that is to say the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons of this Land Assembled in this present Parliament and by Authority of the same it be pronounced decreed and declared that our said Sovereign Lord the King was
of the Land Why Because it was entred in the Roll or journal-Journal-Book that such a thing was agreed upon by the King and Two Houses Which saith he was all the Formality of passing Laws in Parliament in p. 23. those times But what was it that the Bishops petitioned might be entred upon the Parliament-Roll Was it the Decree of the Sacred Canons which debarr'd their presence in the House at such Debates That indeed had been somewhat to the purpose but here was no such matter desired it was their Protestation and if every thing that is entred upon the Parliament-Roll by the Agreement of the King and the Two Houses becomes an Act of Parliament forthwith then let this Protestation for the present pass for an Act of Parliament and we shall see anon what it will amount to In the Interim let us return to the Constitutions of Clarendon where there seems to be most colour for such a Confirmation There we may observe Two things in that 11th Constitution a Duty enjoyned the Prelates attendance at the Kings Courts and then a Liberty or Priviledge indulged That they may withdraw and forbear that attendance when it comes to sentence for loss of Life or Member That this is a Priviledge or a Liberty cannot be denyed Mat. Paris reckons it inter Libertates amongst the Ancient Liberties * Let. p. 71. and this Gentleman could not chuse but observe it though it was not for his purpose to distinguish this Priviledge from the Injunction One would think saith he they the Bishops might look upon it as a Right and Priviledge to be exempt from being obliged to attend in such Cases Cases of Blood If a Priviledge then I may use or I may forbear it To say I may do such a thing therefore I shall do it is irrational ill Logick and worse Polity Priviledges say the Lawyers are Franchises and Liberties or Immunities granted to a Person an Office or a Corporation Such as have them may either enjoy or refuse them It is the Priviledge of Attorneys and Clerks in they Kings Bench they cannot be prest for Soldiers they cannot be compell'd to bear Offices in their Parishes yet Volunteers they may be in both Cases No man should be compell'd to use his Priviledge for then his Franchise would be no Liberty but the more inthrall him We may observe accordingly that the Prelates very well understood this their Liberty for sometimes they would use their Priviledge absent themselves when Cases Capital were upon Trial and withdraw when Matters of Blood were in agitation and this is obvious to every eye in the perusal of the Gentlemans Letters But many times which is very considerable in the Case when they did withdraw they either made a Proxy to represent them or entered their Protestation to preserve their Rights 'T is true the Gentleman does except against their way of Proxy's as Unparliamentary and three or four Exceptions he hath which are sufficient to elude any Testimony For either it is Error Temporis an Errour of those times or spoken obiter upon the By and of no importance or it is unparliamentary and extravagant or else Repealed Such a provision of Evasions as may serve to help a man out of the Noose of any Argument that can be produced in Matters of this Nature For the Protestation he would elude the force of that by saying Their Salvo that which they would ensure to themselves p. 21. is their Right of sitting to consult treat of and determine in that and all other Parliaments when Capital Cases are not in question but there was no need of a Protestation to this effect This was their Duty to which the Clarendon Constitution and a Solemn Oath obliged them When men protest a Right 't is not to be understood of that Right which no man doubts of and therefore is not liable to question but of that Right which they give some colour to be question'd because they decline and forbear the use and practice of it This was a Right to debate vote and sit as Judges in Cases Capital if possibly the Decree of that Canon should come to be null as now it is or altered I must not forget to tell you of two Rules observable about such Priviledges as are granted to Subjects by the King as this of the Clarendon Constitution was to the Prelates The first is That they are not to be understood to debar the Kings Commands nor ought to be a Supersedeas to his Sovereign Authority for this were a derogation to his Royal Office a diminution to his Crown and Dignity not to be granted by him upon any pretence whatsoever By the Constitutions of Clarendon the King did exempt the Bishops from attending his Court of Parliament at such Trials in Capital Cases in general but he did not absolve them from their Duty and Obedience to his own special commands upon any just occasion Hereupon in the 11th Hen. 2. Archbishop Becket in a Solemn Council at Northampton being accused of Treason and other Misdemeanors where Bishops were his Judges as well as Temporal Lords when those Lords and Bishops could not agree about pronouncing the Judgment they putting it off from one to the other at last the King commanded the Bishop of Winchester to do it This hapned soon after the Ratification of the Clarendon Constitutions which all the Lords and Bishops had taken their corporal Oath to observe for ever And it is not to be imagined they could forget what had been so lately done amongst them wherefore we must conclude that they did not take themselves to be obliged either by that Oath or Constitution to absent themselves alwayes from such Trials for though the Constitution saith Debent interesse judiciis curiae Regis sicut caeteri Barones That they ought as well as other Barons to attend all the Judgments of the Kings Court quousque perveniatur ad diminutionem membrorum vel ad mortem till the Matter comes to Sentence for the loss of Life or Member Yet whatsoever William Lord Archbishop of Canterbury and the rest of the Bishops had said in their Protestation 11 R. 2. The Constitution of Clarendon doth not say Debent se absentare that the Bishops ought to withdraw and absent themselves from such Sentence This Gentleman endeavours to invalidate this so pregnant p. 60 61. an Evidence because it is taken out of a Manuscript made by the Monk Stephanides and none of the Ancient Historians of those times say any thing of Becket's being accused for Treason But I must tell you 't is not the Print that adds Truth or Authority to any Writing and I shall trust Mr. Selden's Judgment rather than this Gentlemans Conjectures Besides A Negative Argument from Authority is of no force for why do we read variety of Historians upon the same Subject but because we suppose what one fails in for want of Memory or Information another may supply by a better Diligence and Enquiry
not see if he hath any eyes that by this reason if the proof be good many good Acts of Parliament may be made though the Commons either out of absence or opposition should not consent unto the same of whose consent unto that Statute whosoever it was there is as little to be found in that Record as the concurrence of the Bishops But for answer unto so much of this Record so often spoke of and applauded as concerns the Bishops we say that this if it be truly senced as I think it is not was the particular Act of an Angry and Offended King against his Clergy not to be drawn into example as a proof or Argument against a most clear known and undoubted Right The Cause stood thus A Constitution had been made by Boniface the 8th Ne aliqua collecta ex ecclesiasticis proventibus Regi aut cuivis alii Principi concedatur (†) Math. West in E. 1. that Clergy-men should not pay any Tax or Tallage unto Kings or Princes out of their Spiritual Preferments without the leave of the Pope Under pretence whereof the Clergy at this Parliament at St. Edmonsbury refused to be contributary to the Kings occasions when the Lay-Members of the House had been forwards in it The King being herewith much offended gives them a further Day to consider of it Adjourning the Parliament to London there to begin on the morrow after St. Hilaries Day and in the mean time commanded all their Barns to be fast sealed up The day being come and the Clergy still persisting in their former obstinacy Excluso è Parliamento Clero Consilium Rex cum solis Baronibus populo habuit totumque statim Clerum protectione sua privavit (*) Antiqu. Brit. in R. Winchelsey The King saith the Historian excluding the Clergy out of the Parliament advised with his Barons and his People only what was best to be done by whose Advice he put the Clergy out of his protection and thereby forced them to conform to his Will and Pleasure This is the Summa totalis of the Business and comes unto no more but this that a particular course was advised in Parliament on a particular Displeasure taken by the King against the Body of his Clergy then convened together for their particular refusal to contribute to his Wants and Wars the better to reduce them to their natural Duty Which makes not any thing at all against the Right of Bishops in the House of Peers or for excluding them that House or for the validity of such Acts as are made in Parliament during the time of such exclusion especially considering that the King shortly after called his States together and did excuse himself for many extravagant Acts which he had committed (†) Wolsingh in E. 1. An. 1297. against the Liberties of the Subject whereof this was one laying the blame thereof on his great occasions and the necessity which the Wars which he had abroad did impose upon him And so much as in Answer unto that Record supposing that the words thereof be rightly senced as I think they are not and that by Clerus there we are to understand Archbishops and Bishops as I think we be not there being no Record I dare boldly say it either of History or Law in which the word Clerus serves to signifie the Archbishops and Bishops exclusive of the other Clergy or any Writing whatsoever wherein it doth either notsignifie the whole Clergy generally or the inferiour Clergy only exclusive of the Archbishops Bishops and other Prelates Therefore in answer unto that so much applauded Cavil of Excluso Clero from what Record soever it either hath been hitherto or shall hereafter be produced I shall propose it to the consideration of the sober Reader whether by Clerus in that place or in any other of that kind and time we must not understand the Inferior Clergy as they stand distinguished in the Laws from my Lords the Bishops For howsoever it be true that Clerus in the Ecclesiastical Notion of the Word doth signifie the whole Clergy generally Archbishops Bishops Priests and Deacons yet in the Legal notion of it it stands distinguished from the Prelates and signifieth only the inferiour Clergy Thus do we find the Ecclesiasticks of this Realm divided into Prelates men of Religion and other Clerks 3 E. 1. c. 1. the Seculars either into Prelates and Clerks 9 E. 2. c. 3. 1 R. 2. c 3. or Prelates and Clerks Beneficed 18 E. 3. c. 2. or generally into the Prelates and the Clergy 9 E. 2. c. 15. 14 E. c. 1. 3. 18 E. 3. 2 7. 25 E. 3. 2 4. 8 Hen. 6. c. 1. And in all Acts and Grants of Subsidies made by the Clergy to the Kings or Queens of England since the 32 d. of H. 8 when the Clergy-Subsidies first began to be confirmed by Act of Parliament So also in the Latin Idiom which comes nearest home Nos Praelati Clerus in the submission of the Clergy to King H. 8. (†) Regist Watham and in the Sentence of Divorce against Anne of Cleve (*) Regist Cranmer and in the Instrument of the Grant of the Clergy-Subsidies presented to the Kings of England ever since the 27th of Queen Eliz. and in the form of the Certificates per (†) Stat. 8 Eliz. c. 17. ever since Praelatos Clerum returned by every Bishop to the Lord High Treasurer and finally Nos Episcopi Clerus Cantuariensis Provinciae in hac Synodo more nostro solito dum Regni Parliamentum celebratur Congregati (*) Stat. 1. Phil. Mary c. 8. In the Petition to K. Philip and Mary about the Confirmation of the Abbey-Lands to the Patentees so that though many Statutes have been made in these latter times Excluso Clero the Clergy that is to say the inferior Clergy who anciently had their place in Parliaments being quite shut out and utterly excluded from those publick Councils yet this proves nothing to the Point that any Act of Parliament hath been counted good to which the Bishops were not called or at the making of which Act they either were shut out by Force or excluded by Cunning. But then besides the so much celebrated Argument of excluso Clero the Author of the Pamphlet before remembred hath told us somewhat on the credit of Kilbancies book In which the Justices are made to say 7 Hen. 8. That our Sovereign Lord the King may well hold his Parliament by him and his Temporal Lords and by the Commons also without the Spiritual Lords for that the Spiritual Lords have not any place in the Parliament Chamber by reason of their Spiritualities but by reason of their Temporal Possessions But first this is but the Opinion of a private man of no Authority or Esteem for ought we can can find in the Realm of England and therefore not concluding in so great a business And 2dly admitting him to be a man
of more note and credit than perhaps he was yet he must needs fall short in all respects both for Abilities and Reputation of Chief Justice Coke whose Judgment to the contrary we have seen before But 3ly it runs cross to the ancient practice of the Saxon Times in which the Bishops sate in Parliament as Spiritual Persons without relation to their Temporal Possessions or their Barons Fees as afterwards in the Reign of the Norman Kings And finally admitting that Kilbancies Plea were of weight enough to keep the Bishops down from rising to their place in Parliament it must be strong enough to exclude all the Temporal Lords The Temporal Lords being called to Parliament on no other ground than for the Temporal possessions which they hold by Barony Adeo argumenta ab absurdo petita ineptos habent exitus said Lactantius truly It is the Fate said he of ill chosen Premises that they produce ridiculous and absurd Conclusions There remains one Objection more and indeed the greatest not extant in the Pamphlet before remembred though possibly promoted and occasioned by it that is to say that the Bishops are excluded from their Place and Vote by Act of Prrliament deliberately made and passed by the Kings consent For answer whereunto it will be necessary first to state this Question viz Whether that any two of the the three Estates concurring or agreeing together may conclude any thing which tends to the Subversion of the third Bodinus that renwoned Statesman hath resolved it negatively and determined thus Nihil a duobus ordinibus discerni posse quo uni ex tribus incommodum inferatur c. (†) Bodin de Rep. l. 3. c. 7. That nothing can be done by two of the three Estates to the disprofit of the third in case the point proposed be such as concerns them severally and he resolved thus in favour of the Commons of the Realm of France who were upon the point of being excluded from the Parliament or Convention of the three Estates if he had not notably bestirred himself in their behalf he being then a Delegate or Commissioner for one of the Provinces and by his diligence and care preserved their Interests and to preseve their Interest he insisted cheifly on the antient custom of the Realm of France as also on the Realm of Spain and England and the Roman Empire in each of which it was received for a ruled Case Nihil a duobus ordinibus statui posse quo uni ex tribus prejudicium crearetur That nothing could be done by any of the two Estates unto the prejudice of the third And if it were a ruled Case then in the English Parliaments there is no reason why it should be otherwise in the present times the Equity and Justice of it being still the same and the same reasons for it now as forcible as they could be then Had it been otherwise resolved of in the former ages wherein the Clergy were so prevalent in all publick Counsels how easy a matter had it been for them either by joyning with all the Nobility to exclude the Commons or by joyning with the Commonalty to exclude the Nobles Or having too much Conscience to venture in so great a change and alteration so incompatible Inconsistent with the Constitution of a Parliament how easily might they have suppressed the Potency and impair the Priviledges of either of the other two by by working on the humors or affections of the one to keep down the other Nor doth it help the matter in the least degree to say that the Exclusion of the Bishops from the House of Peers was not done meerly by the procurement of some of the other two Estates but by the Assent of the King of whom the Laws say He can do no wrong and by an Act of Parliament whereof our Lawyers say que nul doit imaginer chose dishonourable that no man is to think (†) Plowden in Commen dishonourable For we know well in what condition the King was when he passed that Act to what extremities he was reduced on what terms he stood how he was forced to withdraw from his City of London to part with his dear Wife and Children and in a word so over-powred by the prevailing Party in the two Houses of Parliament that it was not safe for him as his Case then was to deny them any thing And for the Act of Parliament thus insisted on besides that the Bill had been rejected when it was first brought unto the Lords and that the greater part of the Lords were frighted out of the House when contrary unto the course of Parliament it was brought again it is a point resolved both in Law and Reason that the Parliament can do nothing to the destruction of it self and that such Acts as are under a constraint are not good and valid whereof we have a fair example in the book of Statutes (†) 15 Ed. 3. For whereas the King had granted certain Articles pretended to be granted in the Form of a Statute expresly contrary to the Laws of the Realm and his own Prerogative and Rights Royal mark it for this is just the case which he had yeilded to eschew the dangers which by denying of the same were like to follow in the same Parliament it was repealed in these following words It seemed good to the said Earles Barons and other wise men that since the Statute did not proceed of our Free Will the same be void and ought not to have the name nor strength of a Statute and therefore by their Counsel and Assent we have decreed the said Statute to be void c. Or if it should not be repealed in a Formal Manner yet is this Act however gotten void in effect already by a former Statute in which it was enacted in full Parliament and at the self same place where this Act was gained That the Great Charter by which and many other Titles the Bishops held their place in Parliament should be kept in all points and if any Statute be made to the contrary it shall be held for none (*) 42 Ed. 3. c. 6. 1. More Arguments than these against the Bishops Place and Vote in Parliament I have no where found And these being answered and refelled I hope the point in question hath been fairly proved viz. That the Bishops make a Fundamental and Essential part of our English Parliaments AN ANSWER TO THE GENTLEMAN'S Letter to his Friend SHEWING THAT BISHOPS MAY BE JUDGES IN Causes Capital PSAL. 82. 1. Deus stat in Congregatione Dei in medio Deorum judicat LONDON Printed by Tho. Braddyll for Robert Clavell at the Peacock in S. Pauls Church-Yard 1680. AN ANSWER TO THE GENTLEMAN's Letter to his Firend SHEWING THAT BISHOPS MAY BE JUDGES IN CAUSES CAPITAL SIR I Thank you for the Gentleman's Letter you sent me touching the Right of Bishops sitting as Judges in Cases Capital This Order of Men is not Sacred enough it seems
Lawyers understand to be the Sentence of Guilty or Not Guilty Now I would fain be resolved whether these proceedings be not in agitatione causae sanguims whether accoording p. 1. to this practice a Case of Blood be not all the while in agitation And then reflecting upon the Gentlemans Rule in Logick Causa causae est causa causati and upon the Story of Chaucer's Frier let the Reader please to peruse p. 64 65 66 of the Letter and then judge whether the practice be not as I said Irrational And then Secondly This practice of those Popish times was uncharitable for if the Bishops were debarr'd sitting as Judges in such Cases Capital out of a suspition of their Integrity it was uncharitable to the Bishops if out of a jealousie they might be too soft and yielding in their clemency it were uncharitable to the Delinquent if out of fear they might be too severe in point of Justice it is uncharitable to the Commonwealth for Discretion ought to take her Rules from Charity when Pity and when Severity are to be used for the advantage of the Publick Sometimes Justice may be provoked into Severity and when Impeachments are preferr'd with rigour 't is possible the Prudence and Piety of such grave and holy persons intervening a rash and unadvisable Sentence may be stopt and prevent a Deluge of Mischiefs which might otherwise ensue †See the Case p. 26 27 28. of the Letter Had the Bishops been present at Haxeye's Trial they might as well have prevented his Condemnation as obtained his Pardon The Canon-Law then gave the first rise and beginning to this Usage as this Gentleman seems to acknowledge p. 68. But the Ground of that Canon was Superstition and it did confront the Kings Supremacy and was irrational and uncharitable in the practice of it Let us therefore examine what Force it had and by what Authority That this was in use while the Pope had a concurrent Jurisdiction here cannot be denied but whether ever it received a Civil Sanction and an express Ratification and had the stamp of Parliament-Authority set upon it is the matter now in question And this I do stedfastly deny and the Gentleman as earnestly affirm and contend for To prove this he does alledge a double confirmation and to give it the more Credit he carries it up as high as the dayes of Edward the Confessor But I desire the Reader to observe that in the management of his Evidence he turns an Indulgence into a Prohibition a Priviledge into a compleat Act of Parliament and a Protestation into a Statute He does alledge the year-Year-Book of 10 E. 4. Term. Pasch n. 35. Let. p. 78. Where we have set down the manner of their Trials in Parliament When a Lord is indicted c. he shall plead Not Guilty and this shall be tried by his Peers and then the Lords Spiritual who may not consent to the Death of any man shall make their Proctor c. This saith he I alledge to shew that even by the Law of the Land the Bishops cannot be Judges in a Case Capital Here the Gentleman says Their making a Proctor was Error Temporis the Error of those Times Why Because that practise was not for his purpose But if by the Law of the Land he means the Statute-Law as he seems to do I must have a Writ of Error to reverse his Judgment For the Pope having then a concurrent Jurisdiction here in England the Canon-Law was in force amongst them and in declaring that the Lords Spiritual might not consent to the Death of any man they have respect to the Prohibition of the Canon-Law but this is not any the least confirmation of it But this Gentleman will needs have it confirmed by a Civil Sanction and so become the Law of the Kingdom The first Confirmation he saith was about the time of 10 H. p. 69 c. 2. amongst the sixteen Constitutions of Clarendon which besides the Authority of Parliament to make the Observation of them the more inviolable were established by the Solemnity p. 72. of an Oath which is the greatest Obligation that Mankind is capable of making even God a Party to it to see it obeyed and punish the Transgressors Here is a fair Plea for a solemn Confirmation if the Gentleman were not partial or mistaken in the Business But the Case was this upon the account of their Immunities the Prelates especially grew very remiss and careless of their Duties as was noted formerly Hereupon in that Great Council which was then their Parliament amongst the rest the King made this the 11th of those Constitutions The Archbishops Bishops universae personae Regni p. 71. not all the Dignified Clergy of the Land as this Gentleman renders it but all persons whatsoever who have a Tenure in capite shall hold their possessions from the King as a Barony and shall answer for their Estates unto the Kings Justices and Ministers and shall observe and obey all the Kings Laws and together with other Barons they are to be present in all Judgments in the Kings Courts This is the Duty they are obliged and solemnly sworn to and then follows an Indulgence or Priviledge till the Sentence comes to the loss of Life or Member and here they are left to their Liberty to observe the Decree of the Holy Canon Hereupon we may p. 73. build our Faith that there was really such an Usage as this Gentleman infers in ancient times and that a liberty was left to continue it according to the Canon and in veneration of it but that 't was ratified and confirmed we have not one Syllable to prove it The Second Confirmation this Gentleman finds was in 11 R. p. 18 c. 71 c. 2. upon the Protestation of the Archbishop for himself and the other Bishops And here after some fluctuation and unsteadiness p. 75. to make it a Law he tells us The subject matter enacted did consist of two Particulars the one That the Prelates had a Right to sit and vote in all other Businesses the other That they had no Right nor was it lawful for them to be present in Parliament when such Businesses were in question But the Tenour of their Protestation is That they intend to be present to consult to treat of and to determine in omnibus in all things saving their Rights their State and Dignity But because some things were to be transacted in that Parliament at which by the Decrees of the Sacred Canons it was not lawful for them to be personally present therefore they protested that while such things were in agitation they would absent themselves Which Protestation being read in Full Parliament at the instance and prayer of the Archbishop and other Prelates was entred upon the Parliament-Roll by the Kings Command with the Assent of the Lords Temporal and Commons This the Gentleman will needs contend to be a Law of Parliament or a Law