In his absence the People refuse to pay the Taxes and the Lords combine together and all things tend to an open Rebellion His Son Ed. II. calls a Parlament at London and promises a Confirmation of the Charter and that no Taxes should hereafter be raised either on Clergy or Laiety without their consent Which being sent over Edw. I. confirmed it with his own Seal which was all done within the compass of this year But he again ratified it in the Parlament 27 Ed. I. So that nothing was done in that Parlament at S. Edmondsbury but granting a 12 th of the Laiety to the King And when the great Laws were passed the King and Clergy were reconciled and they sate in Parlament And the Archbishop of Canterbury fell into the King's displeasure afterwards for being so active a promoter of them The summe then of this mighty argument is that the Lords and Commons once granted their own Subsidies without the concurrence of the Clergy therefore the Clergy are no essential part of the parlament 3. The Reason assigned in Keilway's Reports why the King may hold a Parlament without the Bishops is very insufficient viz. because they have no place in Parlament by reason of their Spiritualty but by reason of their Temporal possessions The insufficiency of which Reason will appear by two things 1. That it is not true as appears by this that the Clergy are one of the Estates of the Kingdom and all the Estates of the Kingdom must be represented in Parlament 2. Were it true it is no good Reason For why may they be excluded because they sit on the account of their Baronies Where lies the force of this Reason Is it because there will be Number enough without them That was the Rump's Argument against the Secluded Members And I hope the Authour of the Letter will not justify their Cause Or is it because they hold their Baronies by Tenure So did all the ancient Barons of England and why may the King hold his Parlament with the other Barons without the Bishops and not as well with the Bishops without the other Barons Which I do not see how it can be answer'd upon those grounds Suppose the Question had been thus put Since all the ancient Lords of Parlament were Barons by Tenure and Parlaments were held for many Ages without any Barons by Patent or by Writ why may not the King hold his Parlament after the ancient way onely with Barons by Tenure I do not see but as good a Reason may be given for this as that in Keilway's Reports All that I plead for is that our good ancient and legal Constitution of Parlament may not be changed for the sake of any single Precedents and rare Cases and obscure Reports built upon weak and insufficient Reasons For as the Authour of the Letter very well saith Consuetudo Parlamenti est Lex Parlamenti The constant Practice of Parlaments and not one single Instance is the Law of Parlaments And suppose that Precedent of 25 Ed. I. as full as could be wished in this case yet I return the answer of the Authour of the Letter in a like case This is but one single Precedent of a Parlament without Bishops against multitudes wherein they were present it was once so and never but once And can that be thought sufficient to alter and change the constant course and practice of Parlaments which hath been otherwise Nothing now remains but a severe reflexion on the Popish Bishops for opposing the Statute of Provisors and the several good Acts for the Reformation But what this makes against the Votes of Protestant Bishops is hard to understand If he thinks those could not make a good Third Estate in Parlament who took Oaths to the Pope contrary to their Allegeance and the interest of the Nation so do we If he have a great zeal for the Reformation so have all true Members of the Church of England who we doubt not will heartily maintain the Cause of our Church against the Vsurpations of Rome though the heat of others should abate For did not our Protestant Bishops seal the Reformation with their Bloud and defend it by their admirable Writings What Champions hath the Protestant Religion ever had to be compared in all respects with our Cranmer â—idley Iewel Bilson Morton Hall Davenant and many other Bishops of the Church of England And notwithstanding the hard fortune Archbishop Laud had in other respects not to be well understood in the Age he lived in yet his enemies cannot deny his Book to be written with as much strength and judgment against the Church of Rome as any other whatsoever I shall conclude with saying that the Clergy of the Church of England have done incomparably more Service against Popery from the Reformatition to this day then all the other Parties among us put together And that the Papists at this time wish for nothing more then to see men under a pretence of Zeal against Popery to destroy our Church and while they cry up Magna Charta to invade the legal Rights thereof and thereby break the first Chapter of it and from disputing the Bishops presence in Cases Capital to proceed to others and so by degrees to alter the ancient Constitution of our Parlaments which will unavoidably bring Anarchy and Confusion upon us from which as well as Popery Good Lord deliver us THE END Letter p. 1. Lett. p. 93. Lett. p. 3. 118. Lett. p. 66. P. 21. Lett. p. 2 3. Lett. p. 5. Lett. p. 86. Hincmar Epist de Ordine lalatii Concil Franc. c. 3. 9. Marculph Form l. 1. c. 25. Not. in Marc. p. 287. Concil Tolet 4. c. 75. 5. c. 7. 6. c. 17. 8. in Praef. 12. c. 1. 17. c. 1. 17. c. 1. Cont l. Tolet 13. c. 2. Rer. Aleman To. 2. Cod. Leg. Antiq. B. 362. Arumae de Comitiis â— 35. c. 4. â— 98. Goldast Bohem l. 5. c. 1. Bonfin dec 2. l. 1. Decret Ladiss p. 12. Starovolse â—olon p. 2â—5 Herburt Stat. Regni Pol. p. 263. Adam Brem de situ Dan. n. 85. Loccen Antiq Sâ—eco Goth. c. 8. Ius Aulicum Nâ—rveg c. 3. c. 36. Lett. p. 3 4. Stat. Merton c. 9. 20 H. 3. Dissert ad Flet. c. 9. § 2. Soz. hist. l. 1. c. 9. Capitul Carol Ludov l. 6. c. 281. ed. Lindenb c. 366. ed. Baluz Cod. Just. de Epise Audient l. 1. tit 4. c. 8. Cod. Theodos l. 16. tit 11. c. 1. Greg. NysS vit Greg. Basil. in ep Socr. l. 7. c. 37. Ambros. de Offic. l. 2. c. 24. Aug. ep 147. in Ps. 118. conc 24. Jac. Goth. in cod Theod. ad Extrav de Episc. judicio Concil Sardic c. 7. Balsam in Can. 4. Concil Chalced. Auth. Collat 1. tit 6. Novell 6. c. 2. Justin. Cod. l. 1. tit 3. c. 41. Cod. Theod. l. 16. tit 2. n. 38. Lindwood l. 3. de Testam Lett. p. 4. Lett. p. 68. Lett. p. 69. Lett. p.
times These things I have laid together with all possible brevity and clearness that in one view we may see a consent of all these parts of the Christian World in calling Bishops to their publick Councils and most solemn Debates and how far they were from thinking such Imployments inconsistent with their Sacred Function and charging them that thereby they left the Word of God to serve Tables Neither can this be looked on as any part of the Degeneracy of the Church or the Policy of the Papacy since as the fore-cited Arumaeus saith they were admitted to this honour before the Papal Power was advanced and were so far from carrying on the Pope's designs that they were in most Countries the greatest Opposers of them And when the Popes began to set up their Monarchy their business was to draw them off from meeting in these Councils under several pretences of Cases of Bloud and other things the better to keep them in a sole Dependency on themselves As will appear by the following Discourse 2. The next thing suggested is that the Imperial Law doth forbid Clergy-men having any thing to doe with Secular matters And for this a Rescript of Honorius and Theodosius is mentioned and a Decree of Iustinian To which I answer 1. The Imperial Edicts are not the Law of England Our dispute is about a Right by our own Laws which a Rescript of Honorius and Theodosius can neither give nor take away What would become of the whole frame of our Government and of our just Rights and Properties if the producing of Imperial Edicts would be sufficient to overthrow them When the Bishops once pleaded hard in Parlament in behalf of an Imperial Constitution lately adopted into the Canon-Law the Answer given by all the Temporal Lords was Nolumus leges Angliae mutare quae huc usque usitatae sunt approbatae They did not mean they would make no alterations in Parlament for that very Parlament did so in several things but their meaning was as Mr. Selden observes that they owned neither Canon nor Imperial Laws here any farther then they were agreeable to the Laws of the Land 2. The Imperial Constitutions do give liberty to Church-men to have to doe in Secular Affairs The Emperour Constantine whose Constitutions deserve as great regard as those of Honorius and Theodosius to shew his respect to the Christian Religion permitted all men to bring their Causes before the Bishops without ever going to the other Tribunals as Sozomen a Lawyer of Constantinople relates And this is the true foundation of the Constitution De Episcopali Iudicio as Gothofred confesseth Which is at large inserted into the Capitulars with a more then usual introduction and made a Law to all the Subjects of the Empire Franks Saxons Lombards Britons c. and therefore is more considerable to these parts then a bare Rescript of Honorius and Theodosius And yet these very Emperours in a Constitution of theirs do so far ratifie the Judgment of Bishops upon Trial by consent before them that no Appeal doth lie from their Decree What Rescript then is this of theirs which so utterly forbids Clegy-men having any thing to doe with publick Functions or things appertaining to the Court I suppose that Constitution of Honorius is meant which confines the Bishops Power to what concerns Religion and leaves other Causes to the ordinary Judges and the Course of Law But two things are well observed by Iac. Gothofred concerning this Rescript of Honorius 1. that it is meant of absolute and peremptory Judgment without Appeal 2. that whatever is meant by it not many years after this Constitution was repealed by Honorius himself and the Bishops sentence made as absolute as before So that Honorius is clearly against him if a man's second judgment and thoughts be better 3. The practice of the best men in those Ages shews that they thought no Law in force to forbid Church-men to meddle in Secular Affairs as might be at large proved from the practice of Gregory Thaumaturgus and S. Basil in the East of Silvanus Bishop of Troas of S. Ambrose S. Augustine and others of the greatest and most devout Church-men of those times And S. Augustine was so far from thinking it unlawfull that in his opinion S. Paul commanded the Bishops to doe it Constituit enim talibus Causis Ecclesiasticos Apostolus Cognitores And the learned Gothofred of Geneva saith Mos hic frequens legitimus eundi ad Iudices Episcopos It was then a common and legal practice to go to Bishops as to their Iudges Which would never have been if there had been a Law in force to forbid Bishops meddling in Secular Affairs 4. The Emperours still reserved to themselves the power of dispensing with their own Rescripts and the Canons of the Church Therefore the Council of Sardica when it prohibits Bishops going to Court excepts the Princes calling them thither Upon which Balsamon hath this Note that although the Canons prohibit yet if the Emperour commands the Bishops are bound to obey and to doe what he commands them without any fault either in the Emperour or them And in other places he asserts the Emperour's power of dispensing with the strictest Canons against Church-mens meddling in Secular Affairs Thence he saith the Metropolitan of Side was chief Minister of State under Michael Ducas and the Bishop of Neocaesarea made the Laws of the Admiralty for Greece And the Glosse upon Iustinian's Novells observes that Bishops may meddle with the Affairs of the Commonwealth when their Prince calls them to it And this is the present Case for the Bishops are summon'd by the King 's Writ to serve him in the publick Council of the Nation and therefore no Imperial Rescript if it were of force in England could have any in this Case which was allowed by the Imperial Laws themselves 5. There is a great Mistake about Iustinian's Decree For the Bishops are not so much as mention'd in it but the Defensores Ecclesiarum who were Lawyers or Advocates of the Church as appears by a Constitution of Honorius where Gothofred proves they were not so much as in Orders It is true Iustinian doth appropriate the Probat of Wills to the Master of his Revenue but the Law and Custom of England as Lindwood observes hath alter'd that Constitution and which must we regard more Iustinian or our own Laws I find one thing more suggested by way of Prejudice to the Cause in hand viz. the Common Law of England which hath provided a Writ upon a Clergy-man's being chosen an Officer in a Mannor saying it was contra Legem Consuetudinem Regni non consonum The Argument had been altogether as good if it had been taken from a Minister of a Parish not being capable of the Office of Constable and it had as effectually proved that Clergy-men ought not to meddle in Secular
death and broke the Oath he had taken to observe them because by them among other things the Bishops were excluded from Iudicature in Cases of Bloud or for the quite contrary reason among others because this Service of the King in his Courts impos'd on them by virtue of their Baronies was look'd upon by him as a violation of the Privileges of the Church and a badge of Ecclesiastical Slavery which by all means he desir'd to cast off And if the latter be the true Reason I leave it to the impartial Reader and even to the Authour of the Letter himself upon second thoughts whether he have not widely mistaken both the Occasion and Meaning of this Law 2. Let us consider the plain Sense of the words according to the true reading of them The Authour of the Letter hath made use of the most imperfect Copy viz. that in Matt. Paris I cannot tell for what reason unless it be that in the last Clause in Iudicio is there left out which is put in in the Copy extant in Gervase and in the Vatican Copy and in several MSS. in all which it runs thus Et sicut Barones caeteri debent interesse judiciis Curiae Regis cum Baronibus usque perveniatur in judicio ad diminutionem membrorum vel ad mortem Now here are two things to be distinguished 1. Something expresly required of the Bishops as to their presence in the King's Courts viz. that they must attend as other Barons and sit together with them and therefore it is expressed twice Et sicut caeteri Barones in the beginning of that Clause and cum Baronibus again after and debent interesse in the middle And can any one soberly think that the meaning of all this is they must not be present in cases of Bloud No the Constitution saith they ought to be present as other Barons and sit with other Barons in the Trials of the King's Courts And yet the Authour of the Letter doth to speak mildly very unfairly represent this Constitution as if it did forbid the Prelats to be at all present in the Iudgments of the King's Courts in Cases of Bloud and that in express words For speaking of the Constitutions of Clarendon he hath this passage And one of these Constitutions was that the Prelats of the Church should not interesse Iudiciis Curie Regis be present at the Iudgments given in the Kings Courts Whereas this Constitution as he himself cites it afterwards runs thus debent interesse Iudiciis Curie Regis quousque c. they ought to be present in the Iudgments of the King's Courts till it come to loss of Members or Life So that this Law expresly says that they ought to be present in the Iudgments of the King's Courts till it come c. And when it comes to loss of Members or Life it doth not say as the Authour of the Letter affirms that they should not be present then nor do the words of the Constitution imply any such thing but only require as I shall evidently make appear their presence so far and when it should come to Sentence leaves them at liberty to withdraw in obedience to the Canons of the Church which they pretended themselves bound in Conscience to observe And this is the true Reason why among the 16 Constitutions of Clarendon whereof 10 were condemned 6 tolerated but none approv'd by Pope Alex. III. this 11. was one of the 6 which escaped with an Hoc toleravit this the Pope was content to tolerate because in the last Clause of it there was regard had to the Canons of the Church Of this misrepresentation of the Constitution under debate though it might have deserved a more severe animadversion I shall say no more because I have no design to provoke the Authour or any body else but onely to convince them 2. Something allowed to the Bishops as peculiar to themselves viz. That when the Court hath proceeded so far in judicio in a particular Trial for before it is Iudiciis in general that Sentence was to be given either as to dismembring or loss of life then they are at liberty but till then they are required As suppose Charles V. had required the Protestant Princes to attend him to Masse as other Princes did onely when the Mass-Bell tinckled they might withdraw would not any reasonable man understand by this that they were obliged to their Attendance till then So it is here the King commands their Attendance till it comes to such a point therefore before it comes thither their presence is plainly required by this Constitution And so in stead of there being a Statute-Law to exclude the Bishops at such Trials there is one to require their presence in judicio in the proceedings of such a Trial till it comes to Sentence All that can be said in this case is that the last Clause is not to be understood of the Sentence but of the Kind or quality of the Cause i. e. they are to be present in the King's Courts till they come to a Cause wherein a man's Life or Members are concerned But that this cannot be the meaning will appear 1. There is a great deal of difference between quousque perveniatur ad judicium mutilationis membrorum vel mortis that might have been understood of a Cause of Bloud and quousque perveniatur in judicio ad mutilationem membrorum vel ad mortem for this supposeth a Trial already begun and the Bishops present so far in it but when it comes to the point of mutilation or death then they have leave to withdraw So that this last Clause must either be understood of Execution which no one can think proper for the King's Courts or for the Sentence given by the Court which is most agreeable 2. The Sense is best understood by the Practice of that Age. For if the meaning of the Constitution had been they must not be present in any Cause of Bloud and the Bishops had all sworn to observe it can we imagine we should find them practising the contrary so soon after And for this I appeal to Petrus Blesensis whose words are so material to this purpose that I shall set them down Principes Sacerdotum Seniores Populi licèt non dictent judicia sanguinis eadem tamen tractant disputando disceptando de illis séque ideo immunes à culpa reputant quòd mortis aut truncationis membrorum judÃcium decernentes à pronuntiatione duntaxat executione poenalis sententiae se absentent Whereby it is evident that the Bishops were present at all Debates and gave Votes in Causes of Bloud but they absented themselves from the Sentence and the Execution of it It is true Pet. Blesensis finds fault with them for this But what is that to the Law or to the practice of that Age I do not question but Pet. Blesensis condemned the observation of the other Constitutions of Clarendon as well as this and in
them in Capital Causes seems to be of equal force against this Precedent viz. That this Parlament of the 21 R. II. and all that was done in it was repeal'd in the 1 H. IV. And if that be so and those Acts of State which then passed had not again been repealed 1 Ed. IV. then the Repealing of that of 1. Ed. III. signifies nothing and consequently the Affirmance of the first Iudgment against the two Spencers is good notwithstanding that Repeal And therefore that we may examine this matter to the bottom I shall set down the very words of the Authour of the Letter concerning it Speaking of the Declaration made by the Lawyers in the 10 Ed. IV. concerning the Bishops making a Procurator in Capital Causes he hath these words It is true here is mention made of their making a Proctor which was Error temporis the Errour of those times grounded upon what was so lately done as they looked upon it though irregularly done in the last Parlament of R. II. whom they consider'd as their lawfull King and in truth he was so the three Henry's that came between being but Vsurpers And again speaking of the same business of a Proctor in the 21 R. II. he hath this remarkable passage I have already shewed that this whole Parlament was repeal'd for the extravagant things that were done in it of which this was one And therefore nothing that was then done can signifie any thing to a leading case any ways to be followed and this as little as any except it could be made appear which I am confident it cannot that some Iudgment had been reversed upon that account because the Prelats were not present and had not given their assent to it Now if I can make out these two things 1. That the Parlament of R. II. was not legally repeal'd 2. That the Iudgment against the two Spencers was revers'd and that the Repeal of that Reversal in 1 Ed. III. was revok'd in 21 R. II. upon this very account because the Prelats were not present and had not given their assent to it I hope the Authour of the Letter will be satisfy'd that both this Precedent and the Case of a Proctor are very significant in this Cause and that there is a great difference between being confident and certain of any thing 1. That the Parlament of 21 R. II. was not legally repeal'd And for this I take the Authour 's own acknowledgment that R. II. was in truth lawfull King and that H. IV. was but an Vsurper Nay I add farther that R. II. was alive and in prison when H. IV. repeal'd the Parlament of 21 R. II. For so it is said in the very Act of Repeal that R. II. late King of England was pursued taken put in ward and yet remaineth in ward And now I leave it to the Authour of the Letter whether a Parlament call'd by a lawfull King and the Acts of it ought to be deem'd legally repeal'd by a Parlament that was call'd by an Usurper and held whilst the lawfull King was alive and detain'd in prison 2. That the Iudgment against the two Spencers was revers'd and the Repeal of the Reversal of it in 1 Ed. III. revok'd in 21 R. II. and that upon this very account because the Prelats were not present and had not given their assent to it which the Authour of the Letter is confident cannot be made appear That this Iudgment was reversed for this Reason I have already shewn viz. in the Parlament at York 15 Ed. II. And I shall now shew that the Repeal of that Reversal in 1 Edw. III. was revok'd in 21 R. II. and that upon the account mentioned For in this Parlament Tho. le Despenser Earl of Gloucester exhibited two Bills in which he prayeth that the Revocation of the Exile of the two Spencers in 15 Ed. II. might be brought before the King and confirmed and that the Repeal of the same made in the 1 Ed. III. might be revoked Of which Act of Repeal these Errours are assigned among others because the Prelats who are Peers of the Realm did not assent to the Iudgment and because it was made onely by the Earls and Barons Peers of the Realm c. and because it was made against the form of the Great Charter of England in which it is contain'd that no man shall be exil'd or otherwise destroyed but by the lawfull Iudgment of his Peers or by the Law of the Land So that it seems it was look'd upon as a breach of the Great Charter for the Temporal Lords to condemn a Peer without the Assent of the Bishops and that such a Iudgment was not esteem'd a lawfull Iudgment by his Peers And those Errours of the first Iudgment assign'd in the Revocation of it in 15 Ed. II. are allowed in this Parlament of 21 R. II. and that Revocation confirm'd and the Repeal of it in 1 Ed. III. revok'd upon the same account I shall onely observe that in this Parlament as before in 15 Ed. II. the Bishops are declared to be Peers Peers of the Realm Rot. 55. Peers in Parlament Rot. 56. 61 but most fully and distinctly in the Roll last cited Peers of the Realm in Parlament Of which farther use may be made in the last Chapter concerning the Peerage of the Bishops And now to sum up the force of this Precedent for the Iurisdiction of the Bishops in Cases of Treason Here is a Reversal of a Iudgment because made without the Assent of the Prelats by the Parlament at York in 15 Ed. II. And whereas it is said this Reversal was repeal'd and the first Iudgment affirm'd in 1 Ed. III. I have shew'd that this was no legal Repeal because Ed. II. was alive and lawfull King or else Ed. III. could never have been so in the time of that first Parlament of Ed. III. and consequently Ed. III. at that time was an Usurper and the Proceedings of that Parlament null and void So that the Reversal in 15 Ed. II. stands good notwithstanding the Repeal in 1 Ed. III. Besides that this Repeal whatever it was is solemnly revok'd in 21 R. II. And H. IV. who revers'd all the Proceedings of the Parlament of 21 R. II. during the life of R. II. is acknowledg'd by the Authour of the Letter to have been an Vsurper and R. II. to have been a lawfull King And now I think that this Precedent hath all the advantage that can be and that the Iurisdiction of the Bishops in Cases of Treason could not have been asserted in a higher manner then to have a Iudgment in Case of Treason solemnly revers'd in two Parlaments for this very cause because the Bishops who are Peers assented not to it And this Precedent own'd by the House of Commons in their Petition to have a Common Proctor appointed by the Clergy in this very Parlament of 21 R. II. as is acknowledg'd by the Authour of the Letter
Nobles Vt Episcopi Abbates Comites potentiores quique si causam inter se habuerint ac se pacificare noluerint ad nostram jubeantur venire praesentiam neque illorum contentio aliubi judicetur But in this Court they challenged that as their privilege to be tried by their Peers who were called Pares Curiae So the Emperour Sigismund in his Protestation before the States of the Empire Cùm secundùm juris communis dispositionem nec non usum morem stylum consuetudinem sacri Romani Imperii feudalis contentio per Dominum feudi ac Pares Curiae terminanda sit c. And again nisi Parium nostrae Curiae arbitrio So likewise in France as Tilius saith Haec judiciorum ratio ut de causis feudalibus judicent Feudales Pares in Gallia est perantiqua So in Fulbertus one Count sends word to another that their Cause should not be determin'd nisi in Conventu Parium suorum And many other examples might be produced but these are sufficient to make us understand the true Original of this Right of Peerage which was from the Feodal Laws and all those who held of the same Lord and by the same Tenure were said to be Pares Peers And therefore since the Bishops in England were Barons by Tenure ever since William I. by consequence they were Peers to other Barons and had the same original Right of Trial by other Barons as their Peers holding by the same Tenure and sitting in the same Court. And thus I hope I have given what that Authour so impatiently desired viz. a rational account of the Trial by Peers and have thereby shewed that this is so far from being any disadvantage to the Bishops Cause that it adds very much to the Iustice of it And that this is so far from being a violation of Magna Charta that it is within the intention and meaning of it I thus prove In the 14. ch of Magna Charta we read Comites Barones non amercientur nisi per Pares suos but by the Common Law the Amerciament of a Bishop is the same with that of a Lay-Baron and therefore in the sense of the Law they are looked on as Peers And all the Parlamentary Barons whether Bishops or Abbots were amerced as Barons Thence 15 Edw. 2. a Writ was directed to the Justices of the Common Pleas that they should not amerce the Abbot of Crowland tanquam Baro because he did not hold per Baroniam aut partem Baroniae And it is confessed by the most learned Lawyers that the Lords Spiritual do enjoy the same legal Privileges in other respects which the Temporal Barons do as in real Actions to have a Knight returned in their Iury as to a day of Grace hunting in the King's Forests Scandalum Magnatum c. Now since the Law of England allows onely a double Parity viz. as to Lords of Parlament and Commons whether Knights Esquires Gentlemen or Yeomen without any consideration of the great inequality of circumstances among them Yeomen having as little sense of Gentility as Commons can have of the privileges of Nobles it is apparent that this Trial by Peers was not founded upon equality of circumstances and that in all reason those who do enjoy the legal Privileges of Peers are to be looked on as such by Magna Charta But the great Objection is that the Lawyers are of another opinion as to this Trial by Peers and not onely the common sort who take all upon Trust which they find in the modern Law-Books but those who have searched most into Antiquity such as Mr. Selden and Sir Edw. Coke To this therefore I answer 1. The Authour of the Peerage c. proves the Bishops are not Peers because not to be tried by Peers This consequence Mr. Selden utterly denies for he saith it is true and plain that the Bishops have been Peers For which he quotes the Bishop of Winchester's Case who was question'd in the King's Bench for leaving the Parlament at Salisbury in the beginning of Ed. III. and he pleaded to the declaration quod ipse est unus e Paribus Regni that he was one of the Peers of the Realm which he saith was allowed in Court And from other Book-cases and Parlament-Rolls he there evidently proves that the Bishops were Peers which he not onely asserts in that confused Rhapsodie which went abroad under his name but in his elaborate Work of the last Edition of his Titles of Honour in which he corrected and left out the false or doubtfull passages of his first Edition And among the rest that passage wherein this Authour triumphs A Bishop shall not be tried by Peers in Capital Crimes The same thing I confess is said in the Privileges of the Baronage which he there calls a point of Common Law as it is distinguished from Acts of Parlament i. e. the custom and practice hath been so And the onely evasion he hath for Magna Charta is this that it is now to be interpreted according to the current practice and not by the literal interpretation of the Words Which is an admirable answer if one well considers it and justifies all violations of Magna Charta if once they obtain and grow into Custom For then no matter for the express words of Magna Charta if the contrary practice hath been received and allowed in legal proceedings This is to doe by Magna Charta as the Papists doe by the Scriptures viz. make it a meer Nose of Wax and say it is to be interpreted according to the Practice of the Church 2. Some things are affirmed about this matter with as great assurance as this is which have not been the constant practice Coke is positive that Bishops are not to be tried by their Peers but so he is in the same page that a Nobleman cannot wave his Trial by his Peers and put himself upon the Trial of the Countrey Whereas it is said in the Record 4 Ed. III. that Thomas Lord Berkely ponit se super Patriam put himself upon his Countrey and was tried by a Jury of 12 Knights And 28 H. VI. the Duke of Suffolk declined the Trial of his Peers and submitted to the King's mercy By which it appears that this was a Privilege which was not to be denied them if they challenged it but at least before 15 Ed. III. they might wave it if they pleased and after that too if they were tried out of Parlament For this Trial by Peers was intended for a security against arbitrary Power in taking away mens Lives and therefore it was allowed at the King's Suit but not at the Suit of the Party But if Bishops were tried out of Parlament and did voluntarily decline the challenge of this Privilege this is no argument at all against their Right of Peerage and so I find some say it was in the Case of Fisher Bishop of
it would not amount to so much as a blind Manuscript If it be said that Brompton onely mentions Earls and Barons and Bishops were not then made Barons I answer that Baronies were brought into England by the Conquerour and therefore Brompton must speak improperly and consequently taking it onely for a Title of Honour he means no more then those who were the Great men of that time and so may take in the Bishops too of which more afterwards But there is one thing more in the Laws of H. I. which were onely a restoring K. Edward's Laws that implies that Bishops had then a Power of Judging in Cases Capital which is c. 58. Qui occiderit Episcopum sit in arbitrio Principis Episcoporum He that killed a Bishop was to be left to the Will of the King and the Bishops Which shews that they were to hear and examine the whole Evidence and to give Judgment according to it After the Saxon times the first Precedent produced is of the 33 Edw. I. concerning Nicolas Segrave who was summon'd to appear in Parlament and after his Offences were open'd the King advises onely with the Temporal Lords who declared such a man deserved to lose his Life But is he sure the Bishops were not present No he saith that doth not appear by the Record but it appears clearly they were not to meddle with it How so The King declares that he would have the Advice Comitum Baronum Magnatum aliorum de Consilio suo But is he sure they are not comprehended under Magnates and that there were no Clergy-men at that time of the King's Counsel What thinks he is William de Hamilton Dean of York who was made Lord Chancellour Ian. 16. 33 Edw. I. and this Parlament was held the next Sunday after S. Matthias which was the latter end of February And in the 35. year Ralph de Baldock Bishop of London was made Lord Chancellour and scarce any other but Church-men had that Office all his days The Bishop of Bath and Wells was Chancellour near twenty years of his Reign after him the Bishop of Ely after him the Dean of Chichester and then comes the Dean of York And among the Lords Treasurers of his time were the Archdeacon of Dorset the Abbot of Westminster two Bishops of Bath and Wells whereof one was Treasurer at this time These two I hope we may suppose to be of the King's Counsel in this business who we are certain were both Church-men And if they adjudged Nic. de Segrave worthy of death who so likely to deliver that Judgment as the Chancellour But suppose these were not there whom doth he mean by the Magnates then distinct from Earls and Barons who were of the House of Peers Mr. Selden will inform him if he needs it that there were no Dukes till the II. of Edw. III. nor the Title of Marquess till R. II. nor of Vicount till H. VI. And yet here were Magnates in Parlament who were neither Earls nor Barons and therefore we must in all reason understand the great Church-men who were not so nice of meddling with Criminal Causes in Parlament of the highest nature in the time of Edw. I. As appears by the great Cause so much agitated in Parlament 20 Edw. I. concerning the Earls of Hereford and Gloucester where this latter is charged with raising Arms without Commission and committing Murthers and horrible Devastations in the Lands belonging to the other and the King in Parlament appoints the Bishop of Ely with others to be a Committee for examination of this matter And when they had both submitted to the King's Pleasure we have these remarkable words in the Placita Parlamentaria Per Consilium Archiepiscoporum Episcoporum Comitum Baronum ceterorumque de Consilio suo existentium facere volens in premissis ut voluntas sua justa sit rationabilis prout decet eorumque assensum in premissis petiit Consilium Propter quod habito tractatu diligenti coram ipso Domino Rege Consilio suo super predictis tam ipsi Domino Regi quam ceteris Prelatis Magnatibus singulis de Consilio suo videtur quoad Comit. Gloucestr and then follows the Sentence which I confess did not extend to Life but to a Forfeiture of his Estate to the King However we see hereby that the Bishops were present at all the praeliminary Debates and the King asked their Advice so that they had their Votes in the Sentence whether it should extend to Life or not In the Reign of Edw. II. we meet with a remarkable Precedent in behalf of the Bishops Right which is of a Iudgment reversed made by the Lords without the Prelats viz. the Iudgment against the two Spencers 15 E. II. which Iudgment is said to be passed at Oxford that year but in the Parlament at York the same year it was nulled and made void before the King Lords and Commons and one of the Reasons given for it is because the Lords Spiritual who were Peers assented not to it This Precedent had been cited and allowed by Mr. Pryn in his Plea for the Lords and therefore it is to be wonder'd the Authour of the Letter takes no notice of it But the later Authour of the Discourse about the Bishops Peerage and Iurisdiction owns the truth of the thing saying that the two Iudgments aganst the two Spencers were reversed 15 Edw. II. for this Cause through the great favour and interest they then had at Court But then he thinks he hath taken off the force of this Precedent by saying that 1 Edw. III. c. 1. this Iudgment is declared good and therefore the said Reversal null and void and the two Spencers upon this affirmance of the Iudgment were executed This last Assertion every one knows to be a grievous mistake that hath but looked into our History for the Spencers were executed before Edw. III. came to the Crown the elder in October 19 Edw. II. the other the latter end of November 20 Edw. II. And whereas he insists upon the Affirmance of the Iudgment 1 Edw. III. he had done well to have look'd a little farther and then he would have found that Act also repealed 21 R. II. So that if the Act of 1 Ed. III. which affirms the first Judgment may seem to take off the force of this Precedent the repealing of that Act in the 21 R. II. restores it again and leaves it in its full force Especially if it be considered that the Act of 1 Ed. III. was not barely repealed but declar'd in Parlament to be unlawfull because Ed. II. was living and true King and imprison'd by his Subjects at the time of that very Parlament of 1 Ed. III. Thus far this Precedent is good But I will conceal nothing that may with any colour be objected against it And I cannot deny but what the Authour of the Letter objects against the Bishops constituting a Proctor to represent