sincerity and to make a Precedent where he could not find one for his turn he foists a Battery into the Case hoping that then the forward Reader would supply the Rest and smell blood in the Case which must be interdicted to a Bishops Cognizance But observe what an aking-tooth he hath against the Bishops Right for he could not but have in his mind what almost immediately after he writes down in his Octavo viz. the Case of Sir John Lee 24 E. 3. and of several persons 50 E. 3. and 51 E. 3. censured in Parliament by Bishops for misdemeanors And he saith well they might which certainly together with the Case of Michael de la Pooll 10 R. 2. he troubled himself to transcribe to make a shew of Number and false musters a sleight that must not pass upon the people and a Stratagem that will never get him any advantage towards a Victory We omitted to consider the Case of Sir William de Thorpe 50 E. 3. as it lies in order in his Book because we thought it more expedite to examine those that spake to the same thing together but now we will examine it The Record of a Judgment of death against him for Buggery was brought into Parliament saith the Octavo in full Parliament saith Sir Robert Cotton and the King caused it to be read before the Grants in Parliament The Bishops saith the Octavo could not be there because this was no imployment for them and thus he proves his cause it was so because it was so And for want of proof concludes he hath a very good Cause But he knows if he would tell us the truth that a full Parliament doth include Bishops that the Bishops are truly Grants and so called that the Bishops could not vanish away at the putting of the question But we should have had a most famous Record of that story and wonderful Accident The Cause of William de Weston and John de Gomenits 1 R. 2. was for traiterously surrendring Towns and Castles in Flanders to the Kings Enemies And the question was whether they behaved themselves well in their defence and did therein like valiant and faithful Commanders Whether the Towns could be preserved against the strength of the Enemies that did attach them Indeed not a very proper question for a Bishop to determine The Examination of the Charge and defence was committed to several Lords Temporal named in the Record But it must be observed though these Lords managed the Cause found the Towns upon Examination not of necessity but willfully delivered and agreed what Judgment should be pronounced against them Yet observe their Answers were put in full Parliament When the Judgment was pronouncing there was likewise sitting a full Parliament which the Octavo doth wilfully omit And the Record further saith that they were brought before the Seigniors in Parliament Friday the 27. of November and again before the said Lords Saturday the 28. of Nov. That all this while in the Record there is no mention of the Names of any particular Lords so that we hear nothing yet in the Record but of a full Parliament Seigniors in Parliament which are the most comprehensive terms and can and do include Bishops and strongly intend them included He that saith all excepts none the Record saith that when the Judgment was to be pronounced Les Seigniors dudit Parliament cestascavoir and then names the Duke of Lancaster Earls of Cambridge March Arundel Warwick Stafford Suffolk Salisbury Northumberland Lord Nevil and Clifford and other Lords Barons and Bannerets being then in Parliament had met and advised upon the matters before These Lords agreed it seems the Judgment for the whole House and it was pronounced in full Parliament and that in the Names and Authority of the whole Parliament Pray let it be observed that when the Record speaks of Seigniors in the first part of it no Lords are named and so all intended when afterwards he mentions the Lords the Record saith avantdits or foresaid Lords and no Lords named yet so that all the Lords of Parliament are then likewise included But when he names the Lords that had advised there is no avantdits or aforesaid Though the Octavo puts the avantdits or the aforesaid to the named Lords to the purpose that it may seem that no Lords were present in this Cause before in Parliament but those named and mentioned amongst the which there were no Bishops against the Faith of the Record To the Record I appeal Rot. Parl. 1 R. 2. Mem. 5. The next is Sir Ralph Ferrers his Case 4 R. 2. He was brought into Parliament and there tryed for Treason in holding intelligence with the French The Entry is It seem'd to the Lords of the Parliament that the said Sir Ralph was innocent This testimony too is argumentative and concludes Bishops not there because not expresly mentioned as they were in Alice Perries Case 1 R. 2. I never could have a good opinion of a cause that hath nothing but argumentative proofs for this reason because there are more things possible than ever happen'd but a reasoning Witness is always accounted a willing Witness and therefore a Witness suspectae fidei but most certain a Witness with a reason His testimony is no better than his reason But I pray must the Entries of the Clerks be so nicely weighed Are they so oracularly penned that every iota of the Journal must comprehend a Mystery of State and carry in it the very constitution of the Government must that be such and no other than short or large Entries make it Must a Criticism upon the Clerks form of Entry alter and refix the Government must it change and be ambulatory at the haste or leasure the short or more large Entry of the Clerk Did ever any wise man before this Criticiser ever determine questions of the greatest moment upon such trifling considerations or suspend the most momentous concerns of a Nation the very Government it self upon such a very slender thread But to leave no scope for such Cavillations we will turn him to the Parl. Rolls of 14 E. 3. Were not the Grants the Bishops as well as the Temporal Lords Are not both Bishops and Peers called Seigniors Are not Seigniors and Grants of the same import And as certainly this argumentative testimony makes no credit to the Cause nor to the Author of the Octavo who produc'd it The next Case is of the Bishop of Norwich 7 R. 2. who is brought to Judgment in Parliament amongst other offences for betraying Graveling to the French which was Treason And this cause the Record saith was heard before the Lords Temporal And here I will agree that the Bishops were not present but I will not allow that they were excluded And if that addition of Temporal had been to the Seigniors in Sir Ralph Ferrers Case or to the Grants in Sir Wil. Thorps I would have allowed the Bishops in those Cases not present likewise But why I pray may
and by gave the first occasion to this Question which was the true causa suasoria of their denyal to the Bishops a Right of Succession and judgment in that noble question Whether a Treason of State can be pardoned And that put them upon the search of Precedents an Oracle that will alwayes give a Response agreeable to the Enquirrer and Consulter For I am sure there is nothing so absurd and irregular that rude Antiquity and the miscarriages in humane Affairs in length of time will not furnish a Precedent for And these Precedents such as they were reported which we are hereafter to consider by their diligent Members became a causa justifica and the matter in pretence to warrant their proceedings that a great reason of State did seem to them to require And now whether the Lords Spiritual can be Judges in Capital Causes in Parliament is become a Question Though the Bishops Right to judge in capital Causes in Parliament seem to be clear and materially demonstrated from what is visible and obvious to the most vulgar observation of the constitution of the Government every body knows how the Lords Spiritual and Lords Temporal are placed in the stile of Acts of Parliament and in the Heralds order in the House of Lords The Arch-Bishops give first their Votes even before Dukes The Suffragan Diocesans after the Viscounts and before the Barons And in the same order did the Bishops stand in the publick Census in the times of the Saxons as may be seen in Sir Henry Spelman his Glossary in the word Alderman The great Authority Power and Rule that was intended the Prelates should have in all the great concernments of the Kingdom that were to make the business of the House of Lords may be best understood from the high place that hath been alwayes alotted to their Order in that House for Publick and civil honours are alwayes appointed and adjusted to the dignity of the Ministers offices and Services that are to be performed to the Government Such a solecism was never enacted by an Order of State That those persons that were less in power and under abatement and restraint of Authority should be preferred to those in place that had plenary power in the same Courts It is well known too That the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury was originally honoured with the first Writ of Summons to Parliament Since the Conquest there never was an English Bishop that had not his several Writ of Summons to Parliament Though the number of Temporal Barons have been reduced and many of the Regular Barons dismist of that honour for that their office was nothing in the Church and nothing but the possessions of the Abbots preferred them to that State Nothing seems too big or too high for so great and publick a character of the Bishops or out of the intendment of their trust that can ever be the business of a Parliament The greater the matters are that are agitated there the more necessary is the assistance of the Bishops for he that in any affair is most trusted is to be most concerned and by how much the affairs are of greatest moment in the same proportion they are more strictly obliged and required to assist in the management thereof We all know what sort of criminal prosecutions those are that are made in Parliament and what great consideration they are of that they are alwayes the symptoms of a very sickly State and the results of very great disorders in the Common-Wealth In these Cases if in any the Lords Spiritual cannot be wanted The neglecting to interpose in any one single prosecution that is Parliamentary hath proved the occasion That their Right of Session is now brought into Question For to speak the truth it is not very consistent with the Reverence that is naturally due to the Prelates to think that a Trust and Authority of so high a nature should be committed to them and they should at any time find reasons to neglect it But for what omissions they have been guilty of though upon a general consideration without examining the particular Causes and Reasons men not friendly to their Order may thus censure them we shall make a fair Apology as we shall meet with them and as they fall in to be considered in this Discourse We are now to give you some account how this comes now to be a question for the very questioning thereof makes some prejudice against the Right and there is scarce any thing so certain and true in Nature but if once put under dispute that can recover again into a general certainty and assurance It hath scarce escaped any mans observation that hath been acquainted with the business of the Courts of Law That the greatness of the pretender and the value of the Interest and Right in pretence doth cause a point of Law to be contended which would never else have been stirred especially if the Right be invidiously possessed by another Besides these three considerations which are foreign to the true Right I protest there is nothing to my apprehension of any moment offered in Print to continue it a Question I find Two Books Printed upon this Question both of them tending to disgrace the Bishops Right of judging in capital Causes in Parliament One in Octavo called A Letter of a Gentleman to his Friend shewing the Bishops are not to be Judges in Parliament in Cases Capital He begins with a Preface containing some matters and reasons against Bishops intermedling at all in secular affairs and after that he tells us That the Law of Parliament is best declared by usage gives us several precedents wherein he supposes the Bishops absent and concludes they were so for want of Right and Authority to be there And to give some Authority to his Precedents of omission as he would have them He tells us of the Assize of Clarendon an Act of Parliament made 10 Hen. 2 that excluded the Bishops in such Causes and of a Protestation made by all the Bishops in the 11 R. 2. whereby they renounce all Judgement of Right in such Causes upon the obligation they were under to the Canon Law and to render it impossible they should have any such Right and to make them incompetent Judges he adventures to say and prove after his manner That the Bishops are not Peers and to prepare the way for their remove out of that House he adventures to broach an opinion That the Bishops are not one of the three States nor an essential part of the Government There is another Book in Folio called A discourse of the Peerage and Jurisdiction of the Lords Spiritual in Parliament This Author pursues the same design upon the same grounds with some peculiar reasonings of his own If therein I give him satisfaction in what he hath peculiar without mentioning distinctly of them I am sure he will thank me for it But we will consider the Octavo's Preface examine his Precedents and shew that they are
either not against us or for us And all along observe the candor and integrity of the Author We shall further shew how absurd his Reasonings are to make those Precedents to conclude any thing for his purpose We will also with the clearest demonstration prove That the Assize of Clarendon establisheth the Bishops Authority and right to judge in capital Causes in Parliament And likewise that the protestation made by the Bishops 11. R. 2. is a most solemn Recognition of their Right that the Bishops have sate in Judgment in the greatest capital Causes in Parliament that ever happened that this their Authority hath been exercised in their own Persons and by their Proxies and recognized by Parliaments and other great Courts of Judicature but never before this time brought into Question That no Canon could lessen the Right at most it is but a Councel for their guidance in the exercise of their Authority which they might observe as they please That the Popes Canon Law was never received into England that prohibits Bishops to judge in capital Causes That the Bishops have declined to assist in pronounceing the Sentence of death sometimes as undecent for their Order but notwithstanding and without being contrary to the example and practice of their Predecessors the Bishops may judge upon the Plea of the Earl of Danby's Pardon For that if they do judge the Pardon not good the Earl is not therefore to be condemned And for the better clearing the Bishops Right and for the establishing the Government we shall prove that the Spiritual Lords are Peers of the Realm and one of the three States and an essential part of the Government which no legal power can charge or alter Lastly we shall repel the calumnies of the Adversaries in this cause by which they indeavour to render the Prelates unworthy of their Right and to put them amongst the prodigi furiosi that are scarce allowed to be Proprietors of their own And conclude our Discourse with a just Apology for the Lords the Bishops CHAP. II. ANd First I begin with the Octavo which in the Introduction to his Precedents saith That he will not meddle with the General Question How far forth Clergy-men in Orders are forbidden having any thing to do with secular matters nor what in that particular the Imperial Law requires as that Rescript of the Emperor Honorous and Theodosius which Enacts that Clergy-men shall have no communion with publick Functions or things appertaining to the Court or the Decree of Justinian That Bishops should not take upon them so much as the Oversight of an Orphan nor the proving of Wills saying It was a filthy thing crept in amongst them which appertained to the Master of his Revenue Nor what our common Law of England seems to allow or disallow having provided a special Writ in the Register upon occasion of a Master of an Hospital being it seems a Clergy-man and chosen an Officer in a Mannor to which that Hospital did belong saying it was Contra Legem consuetudinem Regni non consonum It was contrary to the Law and Custom of the Kingdom and not agreeable to reason That he who had cure of Souls and should spend his time in Prayer and Church duties should be made to attend upon Secular imployments I meddle not neither saith he with what seems to be the Divine Law as having been the practice of the Apostles and by them declared to be grounded upon reason and to be what in reason ought to be which was this That they should not leave the word of God and serve Tables though that was a Church Office and yet they say it is not reason we should do that for their work was the Ministry of the Word and Prayer much less then were they to be employed in secular affairs This with great skill he prefixes to his precedents which make the Law of Parliament which is the Law of the Land he saith and after he had said all that he could to make the very pretence it self unlawful and to perswade the shutting of the Bishops out of the House for altogether he subjoyns his Precedents he thought certainly that when he had placed the Precedents in such a light they must look all of that colour and have that appearance which he indeavours too by other arts to give them But we shall spoil his design in a very few words which the observant Reader will apprehend how pertinent it is and satisfactory to what is objected in the recited Preface though we do not for brevity sake apply our answer to every particular of his Discourse We say therefore we can't think the Clergy fit for Proctors Publick Notaries and Scriveners or Ushers of Court or other subservient offices nor fit to make Constables Tythingmen and Scavengers nor to keep watch and ward and to be a Hayward or Bayliff of his Worships Mannors and Townships Or that they should be Merchants or Farmers or interpose in a-any Secular affairs for gain That it was declined by the Pastors and Teachers of the Church as an indignity for them to administer to Tables i. e. to the Provisions of Charity in their Church-feast and they ought to keep far off from a suspition of filthy Lucre nay not to preach principally for gain or make a gain of Godliness By the Imperial Law accordingly they were discharged from the trouble of being Tutors and Curators of Orphans nay where the Law had designed them that care by their relation to the Orphans out of respect to their dignity they were discharged by the Law that they might not incur unkindness to the neglect of their relations nor yet be incumbred with such private attendances to divert them from their great Cure Though the Presbytery might be admitted ad Tutelam Legitimam by their own consent and this was made Law by Justinian Cod. L. 1. By which Law it appears not a Judgment of Incompetency in Clergy-men to intermedle in Secular affairs but an honourable exemption of the Bishops from such private concernments was the reason of that Law It was further provided by a Law of Justinian Cod. L. 1. That Priests should not be made of Court-Officers but those that were so made might continue the reason of the Law is contained in it because that such a man was Enutritus in Executionibus vehementibus seu asperis his quae ex ea re accidunt peccatis Non utique aequum fuerit modo quidem illico esse Taxeatam Buleatam facere omnium acerbissima mox autem Sacerdotem ordinari humanitate innocentia exponentem dogmata In all this the honour of the Church was consulted But business of weight and trust was committed to them Valent. Valens appointed Bishops to set the price of goods sold with this reason Negotiatores ne modum mercandi videantur excedere Episcopi Christiani quibus verus cultus est adjuvare pauperes provideant Justin 79. Novel submits Monks to
Authority or weight enough to perswade the contrary or an alteration therein notwithstanding that complaint which he tells us was made in the 45 of E. 3. fol. by the two Houses Counts Barons and Commons to the King how the Government of the Kingdom had been a long time in the hands of the Clergy Per cet grant mischiefs dammages sont avenuz en temps passe pluis purroit eschire en temps avenir al disherison de la Coronne grant prejudice du Royalme Whereby great mischiefs and damages have happened in times past and more may fall out in time to come to the disherison of the Crown and great prejudice to the Realm And therefore they humbly pray the King that he would imploy Laymen This they had too much reason to desire then when the Pope had advanced his Authority over them and put them under Oaths of Canonical obedience which rendred them less fit to be intrusted in the Government of this Kingdom who were become Subjects of another Empire usurping continually upon us which will never be our Case again if the Bishops can help it CHAP. III. ANd now we proceed to the Precedents of which the Octavo Book principally consists which seem as that Author and the other in Folio would have it to be not only a discontinuance of the Right of the Bishops to judge in Capital Causes but an argumentative proof that they never had any because it can as they say be never proved to be otherwise Immemorial time I confess is a great evidence of the right whether In non user or user and a fair reason to allow or deny the pretence and therefore we will now consider the Precedents As for the argumentative and discoursive parts of those books they will fall in to be answered by way of Objection when we are discoursing and proving the affirmative part of the Question and will best be reproved by being placed near the light of our reasons for establishing the Right of the Prelates If we do not give some satisfaction to these Precedents whatever we shall say I know can signifie no more than an Argument to prove a thing not true which is possible de facto testified by unexceptionable witnesses for such the Precedents will be taken until exceptions are made to their Testimony The Precedents produced by the two Authors are mostly the same only the Octavo hath more than what the Folio Book hath recited The first case that the Octavo produceth against the Lords Spiritual their Right of being Judges in Parliament in Capital Causes is that of Roger Mortimer Earl of March Simon Beresford and others who were no Peers and yet tryed in Parliament and no Bishops present and we agree it probable for his reason because there is mention made of Counts Barons and Peers and Peers being named after Barons could not comprehend the Bishops And because we think it reasonable when the orders of that House are particularly enumerated that the order omitted should be intended absent but we will not allow but that Peers is and so is Grants comprehensive of Bishops Nor will we when the entry is General intend the Bishops absent except he cannot otherwise prove them absent which we mention in the entry once for all as just and common measures between us in this dispute It will appear true what we affirm of the words Peers and Grants by what follows And if we should not insist upon their being present when nothing appears to the contrary we should do wrong to the Cause But to come to the consideration of this Precedent Is this a just Precedent Is not Magna Charta hereby violated Are not the proceedings altogether illegal Here are Commoners tryed by Peers in Parliament It is well known that the high displeasure of the King was concerned and that he did interpose with a plenitude of Power in this particular case against the fundamental constitutions of the Government the greatest crime of this Earl was too much familiarity with the Kings Mother Indignation and Revenge and not Justice formed the Process It was proceeded to condemn him Judicio Zeli upon pretence of the Notoriety of the fact Sir Robert Cotton in his abridgment tells us Anno 4. Ed. 3. That the King charged the Peers who as Judges of the Land by the Kings assent adjudged that the said Roger as a Traytor should be drawn and hanged The Bishops were not present certainly they were none of the Judges that gave Judgment as the King pronounced without Cognisance of the Cause The King had more Honour for their Order than to call then to such Drudgery and service of the Crown The iniquity of the sentence appears by the reversal thereof in Parliament 25 Ed. 3. in which the Original Record is recited Sir Robert Cotton in his Abridgment tells us That this Earl being condemned of certain points whereof he deserved commendation and for other altogether untrue surmises there was a Bill brought into the Lords House for the reversal of the Judgment and it was reverst by Act of Parliament indeed it could not be otherways reverst for no Court can judicially reverse their own Judgment for Error in Law and Judgment in the Lords House being the dernier Resort cannot be repealed but undone it may be by themselves in their legislative Capacity Here saith the Octavo the Bishops were not present at the passing of that Bill but yet the Octavo Gentleman will not pretend that the Bishops are to be excluded in any Acts of Legislation Why therefore was he so willing to impose upon the people so falsely and unrighteously and to produce this as a Precedent against the Bishops Right of Session in matters of that Nature by himself recognized There is nothing can excuse him herein for he is certainly self-condemned of undue Art in thiâ— matter In 20 R. 2. the Case of Sir Thomas Haxey happen'd which the Octavo book page 20 produceth against us He was forsooth condemned in Parliament for that he had preferred a Bill in the House of Commons for regulating the outragious Expences of the Kings House particularly of Bishops and Ladies Haxey was for this tryed and condemned to death for it in Parliament And here appears to be no Bishops and there ought not to have been any for these reasons First that the Bishops were the parties wronged and therefore could not in any fitness give sentence But Secondly if that was not in the Case that that caus'd the process was Royall anger upon a great faction of State in which I believe the Bishops were not engaged made for deposing of Rich. the 2d that was understood by the King to be in acting and promoted by Sir Thomas Haxey by his Bill It was this made the sentence altogether abhorrent from legal justice in matter and form Here was a Tryall of a Commoner by Peers a matter made Treason that did participate nothing of the nature of Treason But the discreet Gentleman
will take notice of nothing that is faulty in this Case but that this proceeding tends to abridge freedom of speech in Parliament which he loved from his youth which we do not blame in him As he did also to talk against Bishops which he cannot depart from when he is old But in the first of Hen. 4. this Judgment of Attainder was repealed and annull'd as he himself tells us Fol. 25. And here the Lords Spiritual were Judges which must be remark't for the honour of their Order that though they were the pars laesa by that fault such as it was yet notwithstanding they concurred readily to the repealing the Judgment But by this it appears that the Bishops did agreeable to their rightful Authority sit in Judgment in Parliament in capital Causes and therefore in consequence because it is a Case of his own production he ought to allow that the Bishops might have had Session in the Repeal of the Attainder of Roger Earl of March if it had been or could have been repealed by Judgment or a judicial Act of the Lords House For will this renownedly wise-man for avoiding of this his own testimony which he hath justly produced though it proves to testify against himself say that the Bishops can be present at repealing of a Judgment of Condemnation but not present at confirming any Doth not it in this proceeding come before them in Judgment and consideration Whether the sentence shall be repealed or affirmed and is not this with a witness a question of blood The Judgment being upon an appeal or review must be final peremptory and decretory and is more a question of blood than the Cause can be reckoned and deem'd to be upon the first Instance Or doth he think fit that there should be two sorts of Judges appointed a hanging Judge and a saving Judge if he doth I am sure he will not be able to find an employment for a just Judge So that I think to all men that can consider we have sufficiently vacated that testimony that the Cases of the Earl March and Haxey's seem'd to give against us and they are fairly come over to our side And we have provided herein sufficiently for the recovering of all men into an indifferency against the Prejudices this Octavo by its great Esteem hath done to their Judgments The Third Precedent is 15 E. 3. That Parliament was declared to be called for the Redress of the breach of the Laws and of the Peace of the Kingdom and as the Octavo hath it Fol. 8. because the Prelates were of opinion that it belonged not properly to them to give Councel about keeping the peace nor punishing such evils they went away by themselves and returned no more saith he but that is out of the Record so ready this Authour in Octavo is to shut them out of the House but I pray would not the Temporal Lords if the King had consulted the Parliament in matters Ecclesiastical have in like manner departed but would such departure of the Temporal Lords exclude them from having any thing to do in the Affairs of the Church Why then are the Bishops treated in their Right so unequally And this must serve for an Answer to the Folio p. 17. where he is very large in reciting Records of process and Proclamation against the Earl of Northumberland agreed only by Lords If a Liturgy or book of Canons were to be established by Law the Bishops certainly would have the forming of them The Octavo saith that Commissions were then framed by the Counts Barons and other Grants and brought into Parliament but no Bishop was present so much as to hear the Commissions read because they were to enquire into all Crimes as well Capital as others And for affirming this for all that can appear to us he only consulted his Will and pleasure like an honest man to the cause he defends for he hath not told us from any Record what the Nature of these Commissions were But we observe that though this Parliament was called for matters of the peace yet the Bishops had their Summons and it was not a Parliament excluso Clero The Bishops it seems upon the opening of the Parliament and the causes of convening modestly it seem'd declared that they were not competent as not perhaps studied in Pleas of the Crown or perhaps had not been so observant in fact of the matters of grievance What harm in all this they that cannot propound may judge of Expedients propounded and so did they for it doth appear by the Record 6 E. 3. N. 3. that the Results of the Temporal Lords were approved in full Parliament by the King Bishops Lords and Commons which the Folio agrees But it seems modesty is a dangerous thing and not to be forward to judge and determine though the matter be not understood may be a good Cause to turn a Judge out of his Office and forfeit his Judicature Besides the principal business of this Parliament was Legislation in which the Prelates have an undisputed Right of Session and may they not advise upon what they make into a Law May not they consider of the matter that is to pass into a Law in all the steps it makes But it is admirable what the Folio Book saith viz. that by this Record it is evident that the Prelates have no judicial power over any personal Crimes which are not Parliamentary I suppose he means Crimes not debated in Parliament This doth very much fortify the foundations and grounds of his discourse What are the grounds of his discourse I shall never be able to find out except it be an over-weening Opinion of himself to meddle with these matters which seem too high for him and to which the reading of my Lords Cooks Institutes and the broken Commentaries of the Law will never render any man competent It s true the Bishops have never any power and Cognizance of any Causes except they are commissionated thereto out of Parliament But as true it is of the Temporal Lords and therefore whatsoever advantage this will do his Cause with all my heart let him take it The next Case produced as a Precedent for them is the Case of Sir William de La Zouch and Sir John Gray for a quarrel in the Kings presence they were both committed to the Tower and after brought into Parliament no Bishops there It is a Case that could not be judged there neither was it but one of them was discharged because no probable matter of offence against him and the other remanded to the Tower I suppose to be proceeded against as the Law required Is this cause I pray to his purpose have not the Prelates judgment in causes of Trespass that properly come before that House by his own Confession And yet the Octavo remarks here that no Bishops were present to judge so much as of a Battery though the Record warrants him to say only an Assault But out of his great
it not be with as much fairness concluded that the Bishops were present because the addition of Temporal is not made to Seigniors and Grants in the said Cases of Sir Ralph Ferrers and Sir Wil. Thorp as it can be that they were absent in the hearing of the said Cases because the word Prelate or Bishop is not in those Entries expressed If he will be just and change the Tables He must yield us the Argument for he knows that there is no establishment in the Modus tenendi Parliamentum directing the Forms of Entries or any solemnes formulae whose import and value is ascertained and made indisputable but are to be expounded by an easy interpretation such as we use when we make fair constructions in common speech But to give this another Answer The Arguer is herein guilty of that fallacy which they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or non causa pro causa And his Witness doth not speak ad idem The Bishop was an Ecclesiastical person and though the Bishops might try a Temporal Lord for the same offence yet they would not consent to try a Bishop and forgo that great priviledge of the Clergy with so much earnestness defended in that Age to be exempt from secular Judicatures They would not be present to try because of the person of the Defendant which cannot be drawn into Argument to prove that they had no cognizance of the Cause with any fairness But further the Octavo doth afterwards produce a Testimony that doth contradict this last Testimony in the point for which he produc'd it It is the Case of Thomas Arundel Arch-Bishop of Canterbury 21 R. 2. The Bishops pronounced Judgment against him in Treason by their Proxy They can it seems upon great Reasons wave that priviledge and submit a great Malefactor of their own Order to Justice as they did in the Case of Becket heretofore So that you see here they used a Jurisdiction in a Cause of Treason in the Case of Thomas Arundel which the Bishops could not have used without a Right And the Case of the Bishop of Norwich is only an omission consistent with a Right The Case of Sir William Rikehill is next in order who was sent by R. 2. to Calais to take the Confession of the Duke of Glocester who soon after was Murdered The Judge was arrested and brought into Parliament before the King Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons the whole matter was examined and the Judge was examined Here is likewise a clear Case for the Bishops an Instance wherein they did take cognizance of a Capital Cause in Parliament But the Octavo hath a Shift for us and says that there was no impeachment or charge against the Judge and so the Bishops might be present at his Examination Let the Reader here observe the sleights wriglings and prevarications of this Octavo Author Whatever the World thinks of this Author I am much dissatisfyed about him and cannot believe him a man indifferent and impartial in this Enquiry In his observations of the Parliament of the 15 E. 3. the Bishops he saith vanished like lightning they went away immediately at the opening That matters of the Peace in general were to be treated of wherein Blood and Member might not at all be concerned for all that appears They went away and as he would have it they returned no more and they must not hear so much as a Commission of the Peace read But here in this Case of Rikehill they may examine a Murder He will say I am sure that though the Bishops did examine it they could make no judgment of the matter But who will believe him In the Case of de la Zouch and Gray he observes that Bishops could not be present so much as at a Battery though there was no Battery in the Case and yet he allows them to judge of all misdemeanors in the same little Book I observe but these things of many more of like nature which the Reader may observe of himself in that little Octavo that the World may judge how unjustly he deals in this Cause with what iniquity and prevarication he manages a noble question of Right concerning the Government of the Kingdom With what petulancy spight and inveterate displeasure he useth the Bishops That he is grinning at them whetting his teeth and squinting upon them perpetually with an evil Eye He oppugns their Right with Cavillations upon the Clerks Entries with what is in the Record and what is not and what he is pleased to add of his own upon them and with Precedents that reprove one another Had it not been more fair for him to have stated the Right upon a probable result of all the Records considered together than to make their Right sometimes more sometimes less sometimes to affirm sometimes to deny their Right in the same little Octavo He cannot sure think that every Judgment that hath been given upon deliberation in the greatest Judicature can uncontroulably make the Law much less a Fact much less an Omission a Negative that can operate nothing If nothing be Law but what hath always and constantly been done in the same manner and form and all circumstances the same as this Author it seems would have it and nothing true Theology according to Vincentius Lirinensis his Rule but what hath been received ab omnibus ubique semper We can have no Law nor no Theology Vain and idle opinions must be discharged such as can have no consideration with wise men and the Law must be declared by the Nature of Government reason and the general order of things But we have made too long an Excursion We must return to a further consideration of Rikehil his Case And now I submit it to any impartial man whether the Judge could be arrested and brought under an Arrest into the Parliament and be examined and not accused The very next Case he recites is that of John Hall in which we find nothing but an Examination and confessal upon which he was condemned as a Traytor And so would it have fared with Sir William Rikehil without doubt if he had been guilty and had confessed Neither the Octavo nor Sir Robert Cotton mentions any formality more against the one than the other The House of Lords are not tyed to Formalities in their proceedings like other inferior Judicatures and the more inferior any Court is the more regular forms are exacted and that with great reason which we will not hear treat of Besides in the Case of the Earl of Northumberland recited in the Octavo Book Fol. 34. in 5 H. 4. a Judgment was given against him for an offence upon a petition which he exhibited for a pardon of the same offence But in the Case of the Earl of Northumberland I pray observe what the Octavo saith in reference to our question After he hath recited part of the Record in these words The petition being read and understood the Lords as Peers of Parliament
Jus Paritatis pray mark it what then did they in effect depart from nothing They provided only that they might do nothing indecent or rather against their good liking and at the same time consulted likewise the safety of their Estate and Order and preservation of all their Rights But had they no care of the Authority of the Parliament in their absence yes for they very well knew that it was a probable opinion that nothing acted in their absence and during a recess of their whole Order could be rate and valid and therefore they provide propter hujusmodi absentiam non intendimus nec volumus nec eorum aliquis intendit vel vult quod processus habiti habendi in praesenti Parliamento super materiis auditis quantum ad nos eorum quemlibet attinet futuris temporibus quomodolibet impugnentur infirmentur seu etiam revocentur Let the Impartial Reader Judge whether this be not a famous recognition of the Bishops Right of sitting what a solemn leave they had to be absent what provisions made that the proceedings in that Parliament should not be avoided and made null by their absence which implies a great probability that that time allowed to the opinion of their being necessary in all proceedings in Parliament Was there ever such a protestation entred on the behalf of the Absentees of Temporal Barons This leave given them to be absent is an allowance of Right to sit The proceedings they liked not and the Canon was pretended Admitting this protestation to be an Act of Parliament It is an Act of Parliament to give the Bishops leave to be absent pro hac vice and to make Laws good that should pass in their absence I appeal to the world whether there can be a more Solemn and Authentick Recognition of their Right than this protestation imports CHAP. VIII IT does appear by the whole tenor of this their protestation that the Canons of the Church which they pretend had not passed into Laws if they had what need of such a warm protestation only for the sake of decency and the honesty of their order to be rid of a troublesome business what means the saving of their right if by Law it had been discharged what means their further protestation that the validity of the proceedings in those Causes in which they withdrew should not be impeach't by their absence if their Right did not remain entire notwithstanding the Canon besides that they do not alledge the Law but the Canons of the Church for their excuse They well knew the nature of Canons the force and obligation of them and also that they were not under any obligation to the Canon Law that it was only a Law in the Popes Temporal principality and had no Controul upon the Laws of this Kingdom For the clearing this question it will not be unnecessary here to speak to the nature of Canons what they effect and how oblige Canons therefore are no more Laws than the authority of the Church is Empire no not in matters that are proper for their Canons But most certainly they can neither make nor annul a Civil Right nor do they pretend to alter or change Governments they exceed their proper bounds when they intermeddle in any matters of this nature But when they do extend themselves beyond their bounds and order and appoint in any matter of a Civil Government they intend only to counsel and direct the man how he shall behave himself in the use of his Right which every man may observe if he please Their Subjects are Populus voluntarius the Ecclesiastical Courts are Courts of audience in matters that belong to their cognisance and the Church's word is He that will hear let him hear The Canons of foreign Councils tho' General tho' we send thither our Delegates and Proxies authorized by publick Instruments and by consent of Parliament as has been sometimes done have not the consideration of Canons except received here and allowed by the same Authority that makes the Canons of our Church Canons here must have the Royal assent at least to make them Canons but with the Kings assent they are void if they alter or meddle with any Civil Right or Constitution If any man is proceeded against in the Ecclesiastical Courts for being contrary in any thing to such a Canon our Courts will grant him a prohibition if Excommunicate thereupon award Writs to assoil him to the Bishop and seise his Temporalties if he do not conform Nothing can alter Civil Rights or Civil Constitutions but Law and such never were any Canons or so reputed except the Decrees of Councils confirmed by the Imperial Rescripts of the Roman Emperors who by their Rescripts made Laws by the Authority of the Lex regia by which the people devolved their Right of Legislation to the Emperors but when such Canons were confirmed by the Emperor they remained but Canons still the Canons were to be exacted by the measures of the Church and by the Church-men the matters of such Canons did not employ the Forum no alteration was made in any Civil Right but the Church had Authority to require observance of them under the Censures of the Church About the 11th Century the Pope meditating the increase of his new Ecclesiastical Empire the Roman Empire being now extinct did design to give Laws to the World and to that purpose in imitation of the Imperial Roman Law Gratian was appointed to compile a body of Laws accomodated to that design out of the General Councils the sayings of the Fathers and some decrees of former Popes which made that part of the Canon Law which they call the Decreta to answer to the Digest which was made up of the Senatus consulta Responsa prudentum and the Edicta Praetorum to which another Book was added of Decretals and Clementines made up of the Popes Decretal Epistles which answered to the Codes and Novels which was made up of the Edicts Epistles and Decrees of the Emperors For by the Constitution of the Senate of Rome called Lex Regia by which they gave the power of making Laws to Augustus it was established that quicquid per Epistolam statuit cognoscens decrevit aut per edictum propalavit lex esto And now there was such a thing as a body of Canon Law The Pope had Power indeed to make these Decreta and Decretalia Laws in the Domains of the Church and the patrimony of St. Peter in which he was a Temporal Prince but it was further endeavoured by him to make them the Laws of the Christian World and thereby to advance his pretended Oecumencial Empire and he did so far prevail and advance in his design that it was thought that Rome had again recovered the Empire of the World and it was said with too much truth of her upon the growth of the Papal power Quicquid non possidet armis Religione tenet But tho' the Pontificial as well as the Justinian
his qui in sacris ordinibus constituti judicium sanguinis agitare unde saith the Canon Prolibemus ne aut per se membrorum truncationes faciant a very fitting Employment for a Bishop aut inferendas judicent and after all this we have still our old Answer upon which we will ever insist it is but a Canon and can make no Alteration in the Rights of Government For tho' Gervasius Dorob tells us In hoc Concilio ad emendationem Anglicanae Ecclesiae assensu Domini Regis primorum omnium Regni haec subscripta promulgata sunt Capitula yet the Canons of this Council are not Laws For that our Historian does not tell us of any Parliament then held or that they were confirmed in Parliament and the good liking of Great Men out of Parliament will not confirm nay not justifie the Canons if they cannot justifie themselves in Parliament Besides that these Canons were not made into Laws we will offer two Reasons 1st For that amongst these Canons there is one that disposeth of the Right of Patronage against the Law as it hath been before and since taken and that is this Nulli liceat Ecclesiam nomine dotalitii ad aliquem transferre vel pro presentatatione alicui personae pecuniam vel aliquod emolumentum pacto interveniente recipere quod si quis fecerit in jure convictus vel confessus fuerit ipsum tam Regia quam nostra freti autoritate patricinio ejusdem Ecclesiae in perpetuum privari statuimus which was never most certainly Law Secondly If this had been a Law the other Canon before-mentioned made by Stephen Arch-bishop of Canterbury was idle nay presumptuous for offering to derogate from a Canon made a Law about 47 years before But however Canons confirmed by Law remain but Canons still and the Breach of them not punished as the Breach of Laws nor no Innovation made thereby upon a civil Right of which before and after more As to the Second Canon we observe how dutiful this Canon in the Stile of it behaves it self towards the Civil Government in that Clerks should not exercise Jurisdiction where Judgment of Blood is to be given under the soft word Statuimus that they should not Literas pro poena sanguinis infligenda scribere that is sign an Order for the Execution of a Condemned Man or be present at the Sentence is under the districtiùs inhibemus but the doing of this is not declared to be a Sin he that is contravenient to the Canon is not thereby to become irregular to be punished by his Superior or to incurr Excommunication or any Censure the Clergy are not declared by this Canon to be incompetent Judges it only declares them unworthy of the Protection of the Church the meaning of it is Judge not least ye be judged If you judge the Laicks they will judge you This is the Scandal for which the Privilegium Clericale will be lost So that upon the whole matter this Canon is but Advice and Counsel and offers reasons to the Choice and Approbation rather than a Command under the Authority of the Church in a Council But let it be what it will if the Canon had been most peremptory in its Prohibition and had lighten'd and thunder'd in its Denunciatiations it would have been of no force to alter the Government or discharge a Judge from doing his Duty but this is farther to be duely observed that this Canon could not be broken if the Law had not been otherwise than these Canons direct and therefore these Canons produced by our Adversaries are the greatest Testimonies to the Right we defend and a practice agreeable thereto Doth not the Canon suppose that a Beneficed Clerk or one in Holy Orders was sometimes in Commission for judging in Capital Causes For certainly the Canon did not prohibit them to murder or enjoyn them not to write Letters to subborn men to kill What can be the meaning of the Canon but this supposing a Beneficed Clerk to be made a Judge of Life and Death to assist in a Commission of Oyer Terminer or Goal-delivery that he should be enjoyned not to pronounce the Sentence or to sign the Order or Calendar for Execution But if he were not a Judge how possibly could he sign an Order for Execution By the other words of the Canon Nec intersit ubi judicium sanguinis tractatur he can be forbidden onely to be present and assisting as a Judge or Officer at the pronouncing of Sentence for it can be no fault sure nor ever was intended by any Canon to be made one for any Clerk to hear a Court pronounce a Judgment of Death or Mutilation or to see a Malefactor executed What therefore can be more evident than that the Bishops did withdraw not for want of Right of Session but they pretended the Canon because they did not like the Causes But further that nothing more than what we have shewed was understood to be done in that Protestation by those times they must be allowed at least to know their own Opinions doth appear for that notwithstanding the Protestation of the Bishops aforementioned the great Council of the Kingdom did not think the Authority of a Parliament when the Bishops were absent unquestionable This Opinion we do not go about to maintain but this we conclude that there could never have been such an Opinion if the Bishops had been denied Right of Session in Capital Causes in that time CHAP. IX THE Commons of England in the 21 R. 2 pray that the Bishops might make their Proxy which they did thrice in that Parliament once by Procuratory Letters to Sir Thomas Percy as is before recited and afterwards William la Scroop Earl of Wilts was made their Procurator and a third time the Earls of Worcester and Wilts were made their Procurators in the matter between the two Dukes of Hereford and Norfolk That it may the better appear that the Bishops were virtually present by their Proxy it ought to appear that they were allowed to make Proxies and that the Lords Spiritual did so as well as the Temporal Lords The first mention of Proxies that occurs in the memory of our Parliaments is in the Parliament of Carlisle under E. 1. and that is of the Bishops Proxies The words are these Quia omnes Praelati tunc plenariè non venerunt receptis quibusdam procurationibus Praelator qui venire non poterant adjornantur And in a Parliament held at Westminster under Ed. 2. dors clauso Ed. 2. m. 11. the Bishops of Durham and Carlisle remaining upon the Defence of the Marches of Scotland are severally commanded to stay there and in the Writ this Clause was added to both of them Sed Procurat vestrum sufficienter instructum ad dictum diem locum mittatis ad consentiendum his quae tunc ibidem praedictos Praelatos Proceres contigerit ordinari Though generally Proxies were admitted to both Spiritual and Temporal Lords
Judgments good without an Original upon a Verdict If the Causes that are properly now of the cognisance of that Court of Common Pleas had been allotted to that Court Originally when the distribution of Administration of Justice was made in the Constitution of the Government that Court by its proper Authority and its own Process would have done Justice to all its Suitors without first expecting a Writ out of Chancery to bring the Cause before them or leaving any right without remedy to complain in Chancery of the defects of Justice in that Court But that Law of Magna Charta cap. 11. before-mentioned which erected the Court of Common Pleas fix'd the Judges and appropriated civil Causes to their Judicature no longer now ambulatory was the first step that was made to reduce the Court of Barons called Curia Domini Regis in which the Capitalis Justiciarius did preside Yet still this Court continued a Court of Pleas of the Crown and Appeals and for those that had the Priviledge of that Court as Officers Dependents Suitors as appears by Bracton l. 3. cap. 7. Rex habet unam propriam Curiam sicut Aulam Regiam Justitiarios Capitales qui proprias causas Regias terminant aliorum omnium per querelam i. e. Appeal vel per privilegium seu libertatem This Sir Edward Coke imagines is meant of the Kings Bench but that must be a mistake for sicut Aula Regia is not competent to that Court as now the Capitales Justitiarii were not the Chief Justices we now have For the Office of the Capitalis Justitiarius did yet continue But then that which follows in Bracton the description of the Justices of the Court he before spake of puts the matter out of doubt Item saith he Justitiariorum quidam sunt capitales generales perpetui majores à latere Regis residentes which terms are agreeable to none but the Barons But this sort of Judicature was not fit for continuance and the Barons were to be reduced they were dismist of this Jurisdiction about the time that change was made in reference to them in the Parliament for as long as they continued in their numbers and power so great as they were both Courts and Parliaments were troubled with tumultuous heaps of people brought thither by the Barons to countenance their pretences of which who will may see enough in Eadmerus And this reducement was I doubt not about the end of the Reign of H. 3. when the first Writs were issued to chuse Knights of the Shire Philip Basset was the last of these Capitales Justitiarii Sir Henry Spelmans Glossary p. 415. And then the Court of Kings Bench came to have such Judges as at this day ad obitum H. 3. 1272. Summorum Angliae Justitiariorum authoritas cessarit postea Capitales Justitiarii ad placita coram Rege tenenda appellati sunt saith an ancient Anonymous Author quoted by Sir Hen. Spelman Glossary 406. That ancient Style of Capitalis Justitiarius Angliae is now allowed to the Chief Justice of the Kings Bench though his legal Style is Capitalis Justitiarius ad placita coram Rege tenenda 2 E. 1. Radulphus Hengham was made the first Chief Justice of the Kings Bench as Sir Henry Spelmans Glossary 416. But the Chief Justices of the Common Pleas were first made about the time of King John's Magna Charta when that Court was fixed as is before remembered Sir Henry Spelman out of Florilegus tells us Martin Peteshus was Chief Justice of the Common Pleas 1 H. 3. Neither did E. 1. trust the Barons with the Government of his Revenue as it was before the Capitalis Justic and the power of the Barons was reduced but he made Adam de Stratton a Clerk Chief Baron but in what time of his Reign doth not appear But they continued after they were reduced from the business of the Kings Bench and from that of the Court of Common Pleas to have the Government of the Revenue and making a Court of Exchequer And they still continued the Exercise of their ancient ordinary Right and judged Common Pleas in the Exchequer until the 28 E. 1. And then in the Statute called Articuli super Cartas cap. 4. it was enacted That no Common Pleas shall be henceforth held in the Exchequer contrary to the form of the Great Charter Their exercising their power lastly in that Court may be the reason why the Judges of that Court are called Barons Sir Henry Spelman saith he hath an uninterrupted Succession of the Barons of the Exchequer from the sixth year of Edward the Second by which it appears that the present Constitution was established after the Kings Bench and Common Pleas were made such as they now are But there was one Power and Authority that was inseparable from the Baronage and that is the Tryal of Peers the ancient Curia Regis continues to this day to that purpose as it must no other provision being ever since made therein This is the ancient Court of Peers the Curia Regis when revived The Power and Authority of the ancient Capitalis Justitiarius is as often revived as that Court is erected for Tryal for Offices at Common Law can be no more nor less than the Law appointed That he is called High Steward is no Objection to us for so was the Capitalis Justitiarius called and Justitiarius and Seneschallus are used one for another in the Language of those times Sir Henry Spelmans Glossary 403. And this is the true reason I humbly conceive of that Tradition that the High Steward by the Kings constituting him such hath such mighty powers that are fit to be trusted with him no longer than while he is busie about that piece of Justice for which he is appointed and he is not to receive his Commission but just at his entry upon the business of the Court and not before The power of this Capitalis Justitiarius was the same with that of the Mair of the Palace in France from whence the Conquerour brought this Office which was the same or greater with the Authority of the Praefectus Praetorio amongst the Romans It is a thing to be wished that Gentlemen that apply themselves to the study of Antiquities that relate to our Laws and Government would design to adorn and cultivate the present Laws and to make out their reasonableness rather than to innovate upon us by bringing back what is obsolete rejected and antiquated and that they would contribute what they can to refine it from many absurd reasons that dishonour our Faculty which are the best our Books afford even for some of the Regulae juris I shall instance onely in one or two of them Why the Father cannot inherit the Lands of the Son it is told us for a reason in our Books that Terra est quid ponderosum and will not ascend in the right line whereas the true reason is this the Lord that first granted the Fee neglected the Father gave
Son hath the Question the Father is taken to be confessed in tormentis filii But for a further instance to make it appear how imcompetent the duty of a Magistrate is with the Nature of a Father I will observe that notwithstanding a Law was given to Adam and all his Sons to establish judicatures according to the Tradition of the Jews as may be seen in Mr. Selden his Book de jure Gentium secundum Hebraeos which Law by the way had been supervacaneous if the Power of a Prince did belong to Adam in the right of his paternity and a Government had been provided for them by their Birth Yet I say notwithstanding that There was such a Relaxation of Justice in the World before the Flood because it could be only administred by a Father or such who participated of the stock of love lodg'd in the common Father from whom his Children did derive their tenderness one to another as they themselves sprang from him That the World was grown so wicked with in 2 ages as men then liv'd from the creation that a Universal deluge was brought upon the World by the Just Judgment of God for the outragious insufferable Wickedness that had spread it self universally over mankind 8 Persons only excepted The overflowing deluge of Wickedness that caus'd the deluge of waters can't be imputed to a more probable cause than to the indulgence and impunity that the observed and understood nearness of Kindred that all men stood then in to one another must naturally occasion This is a sad consequence of that natural Love in Parents towards their Children which was intended for the propagation and advancement of mankind But since that now we are estranged one from another in remote and unknown degrees that prejudice is over Here is a gentleman to destroy the World another way and to undo us by unreasonable and unbounded power which is a like apt to make the World fit for another Universal destruction if it be not without more destroyed by it doth endeavor to turn the exercise of such power into a Right and to give it warranty from the Reason and way of our propagation and by this means to destroy us faster then we can be born and bred and impare the Generations of Mankind or render them extreamly miserable or wicked which is much worse extinguish the light of the world which is Love and Amity and destroy the encouragement and reason of almost all relative Morality What a Saturnine Father have we got to make a golden Age who ever would have thought that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the most moving kindest most tender pleasing and beneficent instinct in Nature planted by God the Father of us all for the propagating educating and improving humane Nature should ever be made use of to found a Right of Tyranny and Arbitrary domination the greatest destroyer and depraver of Mankind What Monster hath this last Age produced a Christian a Father seriously endeavoring to persuade all Mankind to offer up their Children to Moloch the Saturn of the Easterlings who was but the Devil of Tyranny as the name imports This 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the true origen and Fountain of Love and Amity and the sociable Virtues which render men humane from whence flows all the happiness of mankind will by this Doctrine be corrupted and rendred unsincere and self designing For when a Father performs an Act of Generation it seems now he designs to add a slave to his Retinue and when a Child is born there is another item added to the inventory of his Estate If this Fountain be corrupted there can be nothing sincerely kind after it in humane Nature The Leviathan is out-done by this Gentleman and hath not performed half so renownedly in the great Work of depraving Humane Nature as our Patriarchal Knight will do if his Admirers can bring him into vogue and esteem For the Author of the Leviathan allowed something good in Humane Nature several equal propensions which he terms her Counsels and sometimes adventures to call the Laws of Nature But he concludes they are not practicable and they are only fools who govern themselves by them But this Gentlemen will not allow Nature to be good in her first institution and designment tho in this I think they are near agreeable that Mr. Hobs made the Pourtraiture of Humane Nature in an agreeableness to his own evil Ingeny And this Knight did set himself when he made this his draught of a Father he could have no other Original but himself or the Idea of the moross and sower Dr. P.H. his admired friend but by his Character he had at least misfigured his understanding and made it his own Nature by liking it 2ly No more of authority belong'd to Adam over his Children then does to any of his Children over his for that this Authority proceeds from Nature and Nature is a like in all men the duty of their education and the Authority over them that is competent to that purpose is as much incumbent upon them as upon the Protoplast the duty is so personal consisting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it cannot be transferred or permitted absolutely to any other person by the Parents nor can any man challenge a right to it or discharge the Father from it or require the same affection submission and reverence that is due from a Child to his Father To expect relative duties without Relation is most unnatural it is as impossible as incongruous and we may as well love and hate rejoyce and grieve without the proper objects and incitements of those passions The fundamental Rule of all morality is that of Simplicius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is as certain as any proposition in Euclid as the Doctrin of proportionable triangles and received as such by all the Masters of Moral Philosophy there is no other foundation of our duty to God or Man or towards our selves this rule must declare it and what ever is measured and allowed by this Rule is commonly called which is comprehensive of all that is honest just and fit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the application of this rule is called by St. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which when a man observes he is perfectly moral a man may as well pay his debts by giving away his Money be grateful to his benefactor by being beneficent to Strangers as perform that duty he ows his Father to any but he that is so It is impossible to separate the shadow from the Substance as to make that subsist by it self which grows by resultance from the state and condition of the person Or that without that state of the person from which it doth arise it should ever accrew 3ly Admitting Adam had a Soveraign Authority over all his descendents which must grow if there was any such thing from some positive institution and not from his paternity yet the natural Authority and duty of Parents towards their Children