his King and the Church the famous Archbishop Laud whose Judgment would weigh more with me than some other mens Reasons He quotes a saying of his out of his Book against Fisher but never directs us where to find it and that is a great book to search all over for one single passage but however the saying is so innocent that we may admit it to be his without farther Enquiry viz. That the Supreme Magistrate in the Estate Civil may not abrogate the Laws made in Parliament tho he may dispense with the Sanction or Penalty of the Law quoad hic nunc as the Lawyers speak Now unless quoad hic nunc signifies a general and unlimited Dispensation for all persons at all times I suppose it does not reach the plenitude of the Dispensing Power Quoad hic nunc I doubt may be expounded as a limitation of the Dispensing Power which will beget a dispute how far this Power of Dispensing may extend for which reason I wish he had concealed the Judgment of this great Archbishop tho the comfort is he was but a Divine and therefore his Judgment not Authentick in such matters any farther than this Author has made it so by appealing to it especially since he does not give his own Opinion in the case but refers to the received opinion of Lawyers at that time which whether it then was for an absolute Dispensing Power must be first known before we can know what the Archbishops Opinion was But he makes a much greater flourish with Archbishop Vsher who wrote an Excellent Book concerning the Power communicated by God to the Prince and the Obedience required of the Subject out of which he has transcribed four or five Pages how much to his purpose shall be presently examined But I must first mind him what another of his Witnesses The Right Reverend Dr. Sanderson Bishop of Lincoln has observed in his Preface to that Book Sect. 9 12 13. In the 9 Section he takes notice of several Objections which either were or might be made against this Book The Second is That it is not yor Divines at all to meddle in these matters whereof they are not competent Judges nor do they come within the compass of their Sphere They ought to be left to the cognizance and determination of States-men and Lawyers who best understand the constitution of the several Governments and the force and effect of the Laws of their own several respective Countries and are therefore presumed to be best able to judg the one by constitution in whom the Soveraignty resideth and the other by the Laws how that Soveraignty is bounded and limited in the exercise thereof In answer to this he says Sect. 12. True it is that for the more ease of the Governors and better satisfaction of the people in securing their Properties preserving Peace amongst them and doing them Justice the absolute and unlimited Soveraignty which Princes have by the Ordinance of God hath at all times and in all Nations been diversly limited and bounded in the ordinary exercise thereof by such Laws and Customs as the Supreme Governors themselves have consented to and allowed As with us in England there are sundry cases wherein a Subject in maintenance of his Right and Property may wage Law with the King bring his Action and have Judgment against him in open Court and the Judges in such cases are bound by their Oaths and Duties to right the Party according to Law against the King as well as against the meanest of his Subjects So that it seems this Bishop thought that the exercise of the Soveraignty might be limited by Laws and by such Laws as would hold good against the King himself in his own Courts and therefore that all Laws were not dispensable at the Kings pleasure and this Preface was wrote long after his Cases of Conscience of which more presently And he adds That the debating and determining of every doubt or controversie belongeth to the Learned Lawyers and Reverend Judges who are presumed to be best skilled in the Laws and Customs of the Land as their proper study wherein they are daily conversant and not to Divines who as Divines are not competent Judges in these matters nor do they come within the compass of their sphere By which one would guess that this Reverend Bishop did not apprehend that he himself had been guilty of determining so nice a Point of Law as the Dispensing Power tho this Author has discovered for him that he has Well but how does he bring off the Arch-bishop after all this for medling with such nice points As to that he tells us Sect. 13. That there is no need of bringing him off That in relation to the present Treatise all that he had said about Divines determining Law Cases as far as they related to Conscience might well enough have been spared wherein the Reverend Author without medling with these Punctilio's of the Law undertaketh no more but to declare and assert the Power of Soveraign Princes as the Godly Fathers and Councils of the ancient Catholick Church from the evidence of Holy Scripture and the most judicious Heathen Writers by discourse of Reason from the light of Nature have constantly taught and acknowledged the same as to the unprejudiced Reader by the perusal of the Book it self will easily appear From whence one would guess that Bishop Saunderson did not apprehend that Archbishop Vsher had determined any one point of Law about the absolute or limited exercise of the Soveraign Power according to the Constitution of these Realms and therein he had our Author differ who has found the Dispensing Power plainly determined by the Archbishop But whoever consults the Book it self and it will reward any man's pains who will do it will find that the Bishop was in the right and those Reasons which the Bishop urges will convince him That he was so For he will find that the Archbishop does not meddle with the particular Laws and Constitutions of these Kingdoms but only urges the Authority of Fathers and Councils and the Holy Scriptures and the consent of Heathen Writers which can no more determine what the particular Laws and Constitutions of these Kingdoms are than the Laws of England can the Customs of the Roman Empire The Archbishop only considered what Rights belong to the Soveraign Power wherever it is by the consent of Scriptures Fathers Councils and Heathen Writers who followed the light and conduct of natural Reason and took it for granted as the Bishop observes he well might That the Kings of England are Soveraign Princes and therefore have all the Rights of Soveraignty belonging to their Crowns But how the exercise of this Soveraign Power is limited by the particular Laws and Customs of Nations and by the consent and grants of Soveraign Princes themselves which Bishop Sanderson asserts has at all times and in all Nations been diversly limited and bounded this the Archbishop says nothing of
AN ANSWER to a late PAMPHLET INTITULED The Iudgment and Doctrine of the Clergy OF THE CHURCH of ENGLAND Concerning one Special Branch of the KING's PREROGATIVE VIZ. In dispensing with the Penal-Laws SHEWING That this is not asserted by The Most Reverend Fathers in God the Lords Arch-Bishops Bancroft Laud and Vsher The Right Reverend Father in God the Lord Bishop Sanderson The Reverend Doctors Dr. Heylin Dr. Barrow Dr. Sherlock Master of the Temple Dr. Hicks Dr. Nalson Dr. Puller So far as appears from their words cited in THIS PAMPHLET In a LETTER to a Friend LONDON Printed for Ric. Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Church-yard MDCLXXXVII Imprimatur May 13. 1687. GVIL. NEEDHAM An Answer to a late Pamphlet c. SIR I Have received the Book you sent me Intituled The Judgment and Doctrine of the Clergy of the Church of England concerning one special branch of the King's Prerogative viz. Dispensing with the Penal Laws Had I not now learnt to wonder at nothing it would a little have surprized me but now I shall only tell you that I have read it and do not like it And reserving one little reason for by and by viz. That it is not true I shall at present give you some other reasons of my dislike to prevent mistakes And first negatively Not because it is for the King 's dispensing Power For I never envy my King any Prerogative that belongs to his Crown And tho it may be this Branch of the Prerogative was not so well understood in former days yet it is certainly now the right of the Crown as much as the Opinion of the Judges can make it so and I never dispute against such an Authority And I think it is a disparagement to the judgment of the Reverend Judges to call in Clergy-men to help them out when he himself tells us p. 34. Vnto the Judges the people are bound lastly and finally to submit themselves for matter of Law Why then does he make any further dispute about the matter As if he distrusted the Judgment of the Judges or thought that people would rather believe Divines than Judges in matter of Law which would be a great scandal to that Reverend and Learned Bench. And therefore I confess I am very much offended with that priority he gives to the Judgment of Churchmen in this point before the Judgment of the Judges He says We could not resolve our selves in this great point of the Supreme Power inherent in and inseparably annexed to the Crown to dispense with Penal Laws but by these two ways 1. To see how far the Judgment of our Church-men appearing in their Doctrines which are for our edification doth warrant this Prerogative to be in the King 2. To see how far the Judges Resolutions in declaring their sence of the Law of the Land in this doubtful question do agree in such their Judgments and Doctrines Fie for shame First make the Clergy Judges of Law and Preach edifyingly about the Prerogative and then set them before the Judges themselves as a Rule and Pattern for them to follow and then as it naturally follows judg over the Judges judgment by its agreement with the judgment of Divines about Law and Prerogative If the Writer of this Letter was a Divine it argues a good Opinion of his own Profession but if he were a Lawyer or but a Justice of Peace I know what he deserves Secondly This brings me to the positive Reasons of my dislike of this way and they are comprehended in two 1. That I do not think fit to lay such stress upon the Judgment of Church-men in matters of Law and such sure this unlimited dispensing Power is a meer point of Law and that such an abstruse point too as not all Lawyers nay not all Judges have formerly been agreed about Now what does a Churchman's Judgment signify in matters of Law No man's Opinion is of any value but in such things wherein he is skilled now a Churchman does not signifie one who is skilled in Law but in Divinity And tho a Church-man should be a good Lawyer if he gives his Opinion in any point of Law his Opinion is not valuable as the Opinion of a Church-man but of a Lawyer for suppose a Church-man were skilled in Physick too would you value his Judgment in Physick ever the more because he is a Church-man Or think your self more safe in his hands than in a professed Physicians There are Interlopers indeed in all Professions but that any man's Judgment should be valued because being of one Profession himself he gives judgment in another is a Mystery to me And therefore this Writer should first have proved all those great Divines Arch-bishops Bishops Deans Doctors with whose names he hath so pompously filled his Title Page and to whose judgment he appeals about the King's Prerogative to haxe been great Lawyers as well as great Divines or else the Cause is Coram non judice and yet he makes no offer at this unless by the Title he gives Dr. Sherlock of Master of the Temple he would intimate his great skill in Law too but this will not do for his Book of Non-resistance was written before he liv'd within the infection of the Law-air So that it seems a very great injury to the Cause to appeal to such Judges as have no skill in the matter For what credit can the Opinion of Divines do it when it is not a point of Divinity but of Law that is in question For it is generally seen that those are very apt to mistake who guess at things out of their Ken and people are apt to suspect that such contemplative men who keep their Studies and seldom look abroad into the World may form fine Romantick Idea's of Government which will not suit the publick Constitutions of Kingdoms and Nations Secondly I think it is a very dangerous thing to put the Question upon such an issue as this The design of it I suppose is to recommend it to the Layety of the Church of England by such venerable Names but he should have considered that the Layety of the Church of England are not so Priest-ridden as they are at Rome and Geneva they have not an implicite Faith in their spiritual Guides and their Guides do not desire they should and therefore it is not their Names but their Arguments must prevail but if people are taught to rely on the opinion of their Ministers in such Prerogative Disputes the Popish Priests and Phanatick Ministers are great Politicians too but if they may be Judges Sovereign Princes will get nothing by it The Church of England indeed has always been addicted to the Service of the Crown but there are other Maxims of Government among other men Bellarmin and Suarez and Mr. Baxter's Common-wealth and the Dissenters Sayings not to take notice now of Julian the Apostate are not very favourable to the Prerogatives of Princes and I fear people are more
inclinable to follow such Guides as these and therefore I should have thought it more advisable to have taught people more to rely on the Opinions of Judges than of Divines in matters of Prerogative and Law because I fear that the honest Prerogative Divines will be greatly out-numbred by the Popish and Phanatick Common-wealths-men and whether this will prove for the service of the King should have been considered 2. My second Reason why I dislike this way is That I fear instead of doing service it will do great disservice to the King by weakning the Authority of those many excellent discourses which have been written about Non-resistance and which did great service not only to former Kings but even to our present Soveraign in the late evil and critical times It will not easily be forgot how many hard Censures those honest Divines underwent who durst both from the Pulpit and the Press oppose that factious humour which was then so rampant and presaged those wicked Conspiracies which were afterwards by the Divine Providence so happily discovered and disappointed The Doctrine of Non-resistance would very hardly go down and the great objection against it was That it made the Prince absolute and set him above all Laws which were Laws no longer than he pleased to have them so and thus our Lives and Properties and Liberties and Religion were at the Will of the Prince and if this were really the natural consequence of the Doctrine of Non-resistance I suspect it would to this day put a great many English Subjects out of conceit with it and yet this is in great measure the design of this Letter to apply those Sayings or Arguments which were urged for the Doctrine of Non-resistance to prove a Dispensing Power inherent and inseparable from the Crown Now far be it from me to dispute this Point Whether there be such an inherent Right in the Crown or no especially as far as the Judges have determined that there is but this I say That it is not a necessary Consequence of the Doctrine of Non-resistance that because we must not resist our Prince whatever he does therefore he may de jure dispense with what Laws he pleases and I think it is for the Interest of the Crown that these two should be kept distinct that the Prerogatives of the Crown should be asserted and maintained upon their own bottom and that the Doctrine of Non-resistance which must defend all other Prerogatives and is a better and cheaper security than Forts and Castles may not be entangled with other Disputes which will weaken its Authority though it be Divine when it is clogged as some men will think with such uneasie and fatal consequences This I confess gives me a just indignation against those half-witted Scriblers who to serve as they think a present turn have endeavoured to lessen the Reputation and to weaken the Arguments of those Divines who have appeared so zealous for the Doctrine of Non-resistance and Passive Obedience by affixing a great many consequences to them which are neither consequences nor theirs and by wresting their words to other purposes than they intended and for this reason I judg it a very good piece of Service to the Crown to undertake the Vindication of the men and of their Doctrines For Divines to determine points of Law especially such as require deep skill and insight into the nature of the Constitution as I observed before is out of their Sphere but obedience to Soveraign Princes both Active and Passive is not merely a point of Law but a Gospel command and this they not only may but ought to explain and press upon the Consciences of their hearers This the Church of England her self has done in the Homily of Obedience and this the Ministers of the Church have taken all occasions to do and with that success that there are not more Loyal Subjects in the World than the true Sons of the Church of England but farther than this they have not gone or if a few dablers in Politicks have let them answer for themselves The Scripture teaches Obedience but the Prerogatives of Princes and the Liberties of Subjects are the matter of human Laws and Constitutions which properly belong to another Gown And thus I come to consider what Testimonies this Writer has produced to prove That it is the Doctrine and Judgment of the Reverend Clergy of the Church of England that the Power of Dispensing with any Laws is an inherent and inseparable Right of the Crown where I will not meddle with the main point Whether the King have any such right for I will not dispute that but whether these Divines whose Authority is alledged in the cause ever taught any such Doctrine He begins with the Reverend Dr. Hicks Dean of Worcester and endeavours to render one of the best Books that ever was wrote for Passive Obedience wholly useless or odious to those men who are not fond of the dispensing Power But what does the Dean teach That the English Realm is a perfect Soveraignty or Empire and that the King of England by the Imperial Laws of it is a Compleat Imperial Independent Soveraign that it is a contradiction to call this an Imperial Crown unless he have all those Rights which are involved in the very Notion of his Imperial Soveraignty Well! to make short work with it does the Dean say That this Dispensing Power is one of those Rights which are involved in the notion of Imperial Soveraignty No he says no such thing but this Writer says so for him that this Power of dispensing with Penal Laws must be or nothing one of those Prerogatives which he proves from Sir Robert Pointz his Vindication of Monarchy and what then suppose it be does the Dean say so for that is the only point in question What his Judgment is No but he says That the Imperial Crown has all the Rights which are involved in the Notion of Imperial Soveraignty and our Author can prove that the dispensing Power is such a Right and therefore the Dean must grant that this dispensing Power is a Right inherent in the Crown Very well A Popish Priest will allow that an Imperial Crown has all the Rights that are involved in the Notion of Imperial Soveraignty now say I a Supremacy in all Causes over all Persons as well Ecclesiastical as Civil is an inherent Authority of the Imperial Crown therefore Popish Priests renounce the Supremacy of the Bishop of Râ—me and own the Supremacy of the Kings of England If he think this is not a good proof let him consider this matter over again which will be worth the while if it be only to teach him to Reason a little When there is any Dispute about the rights of Soveraignty it is a ridiculous inference to say That he who owns all the Rights of Soveraignty owns whatever any man says is a Right of Soveraignty for still he owns no more than what he himself believes to be so
being in apparent danger to provide for the Safety of the Kingdom and People committed to him by God even against the Words of the Law It is lawful for the Prince in the Preservation of his own and his Subjects Safety to lay aside for a while all strict observance of the Laws and to make use a little of an arbitrary Right lest by too unseasonable and superstitious Reverence of the Laws he may suffer both his own Person and his People that are subject to him and even the Laws themselves to fall into the Power of his Enemies Ergo the Power of dispensing with Penal Laws is an inherent and inseparable Right of the Crown Quod erat demonstrandum An excellent Logician to make an accidental Case the measure and Standard of a constant and unalterable Right To prove that to be a Right when there is no necessity which nothing but Necessity can justify nay to make Necessity which has no Law the Rule and Pattern of Legal Administrations to prove a dispensing Power in ordinary cases from a Right or Necessity to act without or against Law in extraordinary cases For the Bishop does not here say that in such absolute Necessity the King may dispense with Penal Laws but that he may act against the Words of the Law that he may lay aside for a while while that Necessity lasts all strict observance of the Laws and make use of an arbitrary Right So that if he can draw any Inference from this to ordinary cases where there is no such absolute danger it must be to prove a lawless and arbitrary Power which is a great deal more than a Power of dispensing with Penal Laws In the very next Section â—e says almost as much of the People That it is lawful for Subjects in defence of their Prince and of themselves when there is such a pressing necessity that a pious and prudent Man could not doubt but if the Lawgiver himself were present he would grant a relaxation of the Law to have greater regard to the common Good which is the supream Law and the end of all Laws than to any particular Laws which were made not to prejudice but to serve the common Good Now should any man hence draw a general Maxim that all Men must have greater regard to the publick Good than to the observance of the Laws of their Country it would be as bad Logick as it is Divinity and Law The last Bishop he calls in to bear his Testimony is the present Right Reverend Bishop of Chester but tho I have ventured to defend our dead Bishops who cannot speak for themselves but in their Writings I dare not make so bold with the living That great Man understands his own Sense best and if he be misrepresented wants neither Learning nor Interest to right himself And thus we proceed to the Reverend Doctors of our Church who I believe will be found to speak the same things with the most Reverend and Right Reverend Bishops The first is Dr. Heylin whose words are said to be these He viz. the King hath Authority by his Prerogative Royal to dispense with the rigor of the Laws and sometimes to pass by a Statute with a Non-obstante But where he says these words he does not tell us and therefore I know not where to find them and therefore know not upon what occasion they were said nor to what they are applied But as you have already heard no Man doubts but in some cases the King may dispense with the rigor of the Laws and before the Judges had declared their Opinions in the Point I know some good Lawyers who did not think that some few Instances of a Non-Obstante was a sufficient proof of a general dispensing Power and why might not Divines be of that mind too And then the Doctor 's saying that the King might sometimes pass by a Statute with a Non-obstante does not prove that he was for the dispensing Power in the modern Latitude of it for though it was as good Law before as it is now yet it might not be so well understood The next in order is the Learned and Judicious Dr. Isaac Barrow too learned and too judicious to be commended by so injudicious a Writer as will appear from what he transcribes out of his Treatise concerning the Pope's Supremacy I was mightily surprized to think what should come into the Doctor 's Head to state so nice a Point of Law as the dispensing Power in a Treatise of the Pope's Supremacy which seem'd as foreign to the business as could well be imagined and I was as much afraid that I should not have the Satisfaction of seeing what it was for he was resolved if Men would be so curious to examine they should take pains for it for he directs to no place where to find what he cites but sends his Readers to seek for three short Sentences in a Book of 428 Pages but by good luck I have found them and am very much edified by them The first is this Treatise of the Supremacy P. 311. Quarto It is indeed a proper endowment of an absolute Soveraignty immediately and immutably constituted by God with no Terms or Rules limiting it that it's Will declared in way of Precept Proclamations concerning the Sanction of Laws the abrogation of them the dispensation with them should be observed Where the Doctor was shewing how the Popes of Rome arrogate to themselves the most absolute and unlimited Soveraignty in the Church as it follows This Priviledg therefore in a high strain the Pope challengeth to himself asserting to his Decrees and Sentences the force and obligation of Laws c. The Mystery of this Quotation is this that he would have his unwary Readers to believe that this endowment or priviledg or Prerogative of Soveraign Power that it's Will declared in way of Precept Proclamations concerning the Sanction of Laws the abrogation of them the dispensation with them should be observed is immediately and immutably constituted by God with no terms or rules to limit it and thus indeed it is home to his purpose but shoots vastly beyond the Mark For this does not only prove that the King may dispense with Laws by his Proclamation but that he may make and abrogate Laws too by his Proclamation But the Doctor 's plain Sense is this That such an absolute Soveraignty as is immediately and immutably constituted by God with no terms or rules to limit the exercise of it and such a Soveraignty the Popes have challenged has this Endowment or Prerogative that its Will declared in way of Precept Proclamations concerning the Sanction of Laws the abrogation of them the dispensation with them should be observed And who ever denied this But I find no one asserting That the Kings of England were such absolute and unlimited Soveraigns by God's immediate and immutable Constitution That their Proclamations were as good Law as any Acts of Parliament That they could make and
the severities of the penal Laws whereby he may mâ—…st his clemency and goodness as well as his greatness and justice of graciously pardoning the â—maller Breaches of his Laws and the more capital offences which he might most justly punish For whoever denied this The King without doubt may not only pardon some smaller Fault but the greatest of Crimes but how this is to his purpose I still want to be inform'd And so I do as to what he quotes out of Doctor Puller's Book concerning The Moderation of the Church of England Iâ— that Equity which consists in remitting of the rigâ—… of the Laws when they press too hard upon particular Persons or in supplying the defects of the said Laws where they provide not sufficiently for particular â—ases which is all Doctor Puller contends for be all that this Writer wou'd have what need he to have writ a book about it and confirm'd it with so many great Authorities when I don't know that in this he has an Adversary in the World if he have it is fit such a man if ever he stood in need of Clemency and Mercy shou'd never have it Who thinks the Court of Chancery an illegal Court and yet that is properly a Court of Equity It is one thing to moderate the rigour of Laws in favourable cases another to dispense universally with such Laws as if Doctor Puller's Book prove any thing are very moderate already and yet this may be the Prince's Prerogative resulting not from Moderation and Equity but a Plenitude of Power As for his Anonymous Author with whom he concludes I neither know him nor his Book and suppose the cause will not depend upon a single Authority Thus we have heard what the Reverend Prelates and Doctors of the Church of England have said of this matter in the next place he tells us what were the Reasons that induc'd the Reverend Judges in Westminster-Hall so openly and solemnly after mature deliberation to declare their Resolutions in this Point for the thing But I had much rather he had told us what their Resolution was how far they extended this dispensing Power whether to all Cases or only to some or to all or to some as the King at any time judges necessary for I have heard very different Accounts of the matter but cou'd never see any authentick Record of it To have inform'd us in this matter had been a real Kindness because 't is the Rule of our Actions of our Words and of our Writing too for when I once know what the Judges declare to be Law I will enquire no further their Opinions solemnly declar'd must silence all Disputes because they carry Power and Authority with them unless any superiour Authority think fit at any time to judge over their Opinions This makes it very necessary to know what the Judgment and Resolution of the Judges is especially in any great and concerning Points but as for their Reasons I am not so fond of knowing them because it is the Authority of the Men not of their Reasons which must determine such matters for Mankind reasoning so very differently as they do there never cou'd be any final Determination of such Cases if all men must be first satisfied in the validity of their Reasons And therefore I think this Writer has done no service to the Cause by making their Reasons the Subject of Dispute for tho' they may be very good Reasons yet it may be all men will not think so and then such men will be apt to be dissatisfied that a Judgment which as they think is not founded on sufficient Reasons shou'd have such great Authority For it is not enough to say as this Writer does That the Reasons they went upon were only such as were exactly correspondent with the avow'd Doctrines before recited and that by this Declaration of theirs the Law of the Kingdom of England concerning this Soveraign Power in the Crown is no more than what was before publickly asserted to be the Divinity of the Kindom For tho' the Divinity of the Kingdom is a great word and cannot be determin'd by a Jury of Divines who liv'd in different Ages and never spoke together about it nay indeed can never be determin'd by any single Divines tho' never so many and never so learned but only by the Authority of a Convocation or National Synod yet those who think the Reasons not good will like them never the better because some Divines have been of that mind when they can so out number as I said before the Church of England with Popish and Fanatick Divines who teach another Doctrine And besides this I doubt he puts it upon a very dangerous Issue For if after all his confidence and assurance other men shou'd not think that these Reasons do so exactly correspond with the avow'd Doctrines of the Bishops and Doctors of the Church of England that they have neither taught the same Doctrine nor us'd the same Reasons as possibly this Author by that time he has read thus far may see reason to suspect what then had he not better have let all this alone have not the Reverend Judges great reason to thank him for bringing their Judgment and Reasons to such a Test as they will not bear They need not the Authority of Divines to justifie their Determinations at Law and therefore it is at best over-officiousness and a lessening of their Authority to make such Appeals besides the folly and rashness of making such Appeals as will do no Service But suppose these were not the Judges Reasons how will he justifie himself for publishing these Reasons as theirs without their Authority which I dare boldly say he never had Nay I dare lay considerable odds that these were not their Reasons as he has worded and represented them and that for more Reasons than one Did all the Judges agree upon these Reasons and make a Record of them or has he seen them signed with all their Hands if not how does he know that these are their Reasons For a Bench of Judges may agree in their Conclusion when they differ in their Premises and Reasons And I will believe that they had other Reasons besides these here mentioned Possibly some such thing as this might be said in Court but I believe not as it is here reported and it is an Affront to Judges in such a weighty Point as this to declare their Reasons upon meer hear-say when it is so evident that of twenty men who hear the same thing searce two of them shall exactly agree in their Report so uncertain and variable a thing is Oral Tradition which how infallible soever it may be in Divinity is not so in Law But to let all this pass and to allow these Reasons to be very good for I will no more dispute any Reasons which are attributed to the Judges than I will dispute their Resolutions yet the question still remains Whether these Reasons are exactly the same with what