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
in the same circumstances the Apostles were when the Christian Church was to be planted in the World and so few persons as the 12 Apostles made choice of for that Work Is there no difference to be made between a Church constituted and settled and incorporated into the Commonwealth and one not yet formed but labouring under great difficulties and making its way through constant persecutions May it not be as well argued that Bishops are not to stay in one Countrey nor to have any fixed habitation because the Apostles passed from place to place preaching the Word of God Doth not the Authour of the Letter himself confesse that the Clergy are one of the Three Estates of the Kingdom and by the Act 8 Eliz. 1. the Clergy are called one of the greatest States of this Realm And is there not then great Reason that those who are the chief part of it as he confesseth the Bishops to be should have a share in affairs that concern the whole Nation And would it not seem strange to the Christian World that we alone of all the Kingdoms of Europe should exclude the Bishops from having an equal Interest with the other Estates in Parlament For it were easy to prove from unquestionable Testimonies that as soon as the Christian Religion was well settled in any of these Northern Kingdoms the Bishops were admitted into all the publick Councils and have so continued to this day where the Convention of the Estates hath been kept up Bohemia onely excepted since the days of Sigismond I begin with France where Hincmarus saith there were two great Councils every year one of the States of the Kingdom for ordering the Affairs of the ensuing year and redressing of Grievances and in these the Bishops were always present and the other of the King's Council which managed the intervening Affairs and into this the chief of the Bishops were chosen It were endless to repeat the several Parlaments in France in the time of the Merovingian and Caroline Race wherein Laws were passed and the great Affairs of the Kingdom managed by the Bishops Noblemen and others Those who have looked into the ancient Annals and Capitulars of France cannot be ignorant of this There is one thing remarkable to our purpose in the famous Council of Frankford which opposed the Worship of Images so stoutly viz. that after the matters of Religion were agreed then according to the Custom of that Age the other Estates being present they proceeded to other matters and then Tassilo Duke of Bavaria was brought upon his Knees for Treason and the Cause of Peter Bishop of Verdun was heard who was likewise accused of Treason and there purged himself Concerning both which Cases there are 2 Canons still extant among the Canons of that Council and in another the Bishops are appointed by consent of the King to doe Justice in their several Dioceses And that they had not onely a share in the Legislative but in the Iudiciary part appears by one of the ancient Formulae in Marculphus where it is said that the King sate in Judgment unà cum Dominis Patribus nostris Episcopis vel cum plurimis Optimatibus nostris vel in the language of that Age is the same with This was the Palatine Court where Bignonius saith the greater Causes were heard the King himself being present or the Comes Palatii Episcopis Proceribus adsidentibus the Bishops and Lords sitting in Iudicature together with him And this was not onely the Original of the Parlament of Paris as a standing Court of Iudicature but the like in England was the true foundation of the Supreme Court of Iudicature in the House of Peers So that in the eldest and best times of France after Christianity had prevailed there neither consultation about publick Affairs nor administration of Justice were thought inconsistent with the Function of Bishops In Spain during the Gothick Power all the great Affairs of the Kingdom and even the Rights of their Princes were debated and transacted by the greatest of the Clergy and Nobility together as may be seen in the several Councils of Toledo in that time in the case of Suintilas Sisenandus and others And in one of them it is said that after they had dispatched matters of Religion they proceeded ad caeterarum Causarum negotia to the handling of other Causes In the 13. Council of Toledo the Case of Impeachments of Treason is brought in and Rules set down for due proceedings therein And yet from one of these Councils of Toledo it is that all the stir hath been made in the canon-Canon-Law about Bishops not being present in cases of bloud In Germany the first Laws that were ever published were those by Lotharius II. in Comitiis Regni saith Goldastus and there were present 33 Bishops 34 Dukes 72 Counts besides the People And by the Matriculation-Roll of the States of the Empire it appears what a great Interest the Clergy have preserved ther in from the first times of the prevalecy of Christianity there And Arumaeus a considerable Protestant Lawyer of the Empire saith the Bishops of Germany sit in a double capacity in the Diets both as Bishops and as Princes of the Empire And he commends the prudence of that Constitution with respect both to Iustice and the Honour and Safety of Religion For the Kingdom of Bohemia Goldastus a learned Protestant saith that there as in all other well-constituted Kingdoms among Christians there were 3 Estates of Prelats Nobles and Commons and this continued he saith from the time Christianity was received till the days of Sigismond No sooner was Christianity received in Hungary but their Princes Stephanus and Ladislaus called their great Councils of their Prelats and Nobles and the Laws made in the Concilium Zabolchianum were passed by the King with all his Bishops and Nobles and with the consent of the whole Clergy and People In Poland Starovolscius saith that their Ancestours after they received Christianity out of regard to Religion gave the Bishops the first place in the Senate and admitted the Clergy to the great Offices of the Kingdom And Sigismond in his Constitution saith the States of Poland consist of the Bishops Barons and Delegates called Nuntii terrestres In the Northern Kingdoms Adamus Bremensis saith that the Bishops after the People received Christianity were receiv'd into their publick Councils And Loccenius reckons up among the several Estates the Bishops Nobles Knights and Deputies of the Country and Cities And it appears by the Hirdstraa or the ancient Laws of Norway the Bishops as well as Nobility were present in the Convention of the States and all publick Councils The like might be proved here in the Saxon times from the Conversion of Ethelbert downward This is so very evident that he must blind his eyes that doth not see it if he doth but cast them on the History of those
Power about the Liberties of Church-men This was carried on from the time that William I. brought them into Subjection by their Baronies his Sons stood upon the Rights of the Crown whilst Anselm and his Brethren struggled all they could but to little purpose till after the death of H. I. Then Stephen to gratifie the great Prelates by whose favour he came to the Crown yielded all they desired but he soon repented and they were even with him for it Malmsbury takes particular notice that he yielded they should have their Possessions free and absolute and they promised onely a conditional Allegeance to him as long as he maintained the Liberties of the Church When K. Stephen broke the Canons as they said by imprisoning 2 Bishops the Bishop of Winchester and his Brethren summon'd him to answer it before them in Council and there declared that the King had nothing to doe with Church-men till the Cause was first heard and determined by themselves All his time they had no regard to his Authority when it contradicted their Wills and when the Peace was made between Him and H. II. Radulphus de Diceto takes notice that the Power of the Clergy increased by it In this state H. II. found things when Gul. Neuburgensis saith the great business of the Church-men was to preserve their Liberties Upon this the great Quarrel between Him and Becket began this made the King search what the Rights of the Crown were which his Ancestours challenged to these he was resolved to make Becket and his Brethren submit For this purpose the Parlament was called at Clarendon and after great debates the 16 Constitutions were produced which were those the King was resolved to maintain and he made the Bishops as well as others swear to observe them Now when the rest of them relate to some Exemptions and Privileges which the Church-men challenged to themselves about their Courts Excommunications Appeals and such like and which the King thought fit to restrain them in From whence in Becket's Epistles it is said those Constitutions were framed ad ancillandam Ecclesiam to bring the Church in subjection as Baronius shews out of the Vatican Copy And Fitz-Stephen saith All the Constitutions of Clarendon were for suppressing the Liberty of the Church and oppressing the Clergy I say considering this is there not then great Reason to understand this 11 th Constitution after the same manner viz. that notwithstanding K. Stephen's Grant H. II. would make them hold by Baronies and doe all the Service of Barons in the King's Courts as other Barons did and he would allow them no other Privilege but that of withdrawing when they came to Sentence in a Case of Bloud What is there in this sense but what is easy and natural and fully agreeable to the state of those Times whereas there is not the least foundation for the pretence of the Bishops affecting to be present in all Causes which the King must restrain by this Constitution This sense of it is not onely without ground but is absolutely repugnant to all the History of that Age. For if this Constitution was intended to restrain the Bishops from trying Causes of Bloud then the Bishops did desire to be present in those Causes and the King would not suffer them Whereas it is evident that the Bishops pretended scruple of Conscience from the Canons that they could not be present but in truth stood upon their Exemption from the Service of Barons which they call'd Ecclesiastical Slavery And therefore that could not be the sense of the Constitution to restrain them in that which they desired to be freed from and which by this Constitution of Clarendon was plainly forced upon them against their wills For Lanfranc had brought the Canon of the 11 th Council of Toledo into England That no Bishop or Clergy-man should condemn a man to death or give vote in the Sentence of Condemnation at which Council were present 2 Archbishops 12 Bishops and 21 Abbots And before H. II ' s time this Canon of Toledo was received into the Body of the Canon-Law made by Ivo Burchardus Regino and Gratian who lived in the time of K. Stephen and when they saw such a Canon so generally received is there not far greater Reason to think they desired to withdraw then that they should press to be present and the King restrain them But the Constitution is so framed on purpose to let them understand that the King expected in all Iudgments they should doe their Duty as other Barons but lest they should think he purposely designed to make them break the Canons he leaves them at liberty to withdraw when Sentence was to be given So that I can hardly doubt but the Authour of the Letter if he please calmly to reflect upon the whole matter will see reason to acknowledge his mistake and that this Constitution was so far from intending to restrain the Bishops from all Iudicature in Cases of Bloud that on the contrary it was purposely framed to oblige them to be present and to act in such Causes as the other Barons did at least till the Cause was ripe for Sentence which last Point the King was content to yield to them out of regard and reverence to the Canons of the Church For the words of the Law are not words of Prohibition and restraint from any thing but of Obligation to a Duty which was to be present and serve in the King's Courts of Iudicature in like manner as the other Barons did From all which it is evident I think beyond contradiction that the Occasion of this Law was not the Ambition of the Prelates as the Authour of the Letter suggests to thrust themselves into this kind of Iudicature but an Ambition of a worse kind though quite contrary viz. under a pretence of Ecclesiastical Liberty and Privilege to exempt themselves from the Service of the King and Kingdom to which by virtue of their Baronies they were bound sicut caeteri Barones as well as the other Barons And therefore it is so far from being true that the Bishops exercise of this Iurisdiction together with the Temporal Lords is a Relique of Popery and one of the Encroachments of the Clergy in those Times of Ignorance and Usurpation as some well-meaning Protestants are now made to believe that on the contrary the Exemption of the Clergy from this kind of Secular Iudicature was one of the highest Points of Popery and that which the Pope and his Adherents contested for with more zeal then for any Article of the Creed This was one of those Privileges which Thomas Becket said Christ purchased for his Church with his bloud and in the obstinate defence whereof against the King he himself at last lost his life And now to put the matter beyond all doubt I appeal to any man skill'd in the History of those Times whether Thomas Becket opposed the Constitutions of Clarendon to the
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 with going against the Law or Custom of Parlament therein But the Authour of the Letter saith Whatever was done this Parlament signifies nothing because the whole Parlament stands repealed by 1 H. IV. and all done in it delcared null and void Yet to our comfort the same Authour tells us the three Henry's were Usurpers and therefore I desire to be satisfied whether an Vsurper by a Parlament of his calling can null and repeal what was done by a King and his Parlament If he may then the King lost his Title to the Crown by the late Vsurpers if not then the Parlament 21 R. II. could not be repealed by that 1 H. IV. If the Authour of the Letter had considered this he is a Person of too great Judgment and Loyalty to have mention'd more then once the Repeal of that Parlament by the subsequent Parlament 1 H. IV. From all this we see that by the Judgment of the whole Parlament both 11 R. II. and 21 R II. the Bishops had a right to sit so far that Iudgments were reversed where they were not present and therefore all the pretence they could have for withdrawing must be from the Canon-Law which although not sufficient to bind them if the matter had been contested yet it served them for a very colourable pretence of absenting themselves in such dangerous times as those of 11 R. II. Here the Authour of the Peerage and Iurisdiction of the Lords Spiritual thinks he brings seasonable relief to the Cause when he undertakes to prove that the Bishops withdrawing was not meerly on the account of the canon-Canon-Law This I confess is home to the business If he can make it out 1. He saith there was an Act of Parlament before that did expresly prohibit them to excercise Iurisdiction in those Cases This we utterly deny And the Constitution of Clarendon to which he refers proves the contrary 2. The Bishops made bold with the Canons when they thought fit as 21 R. II. But how could they doe that unless they had a Parlamentary Right to be present He saith the Constituting a Proxy was as great a violation of the Canons as being personally present and what then therefore the Parlament would not have suffered them to doe that if there had been a Law to exclude them How doth this prove that the Bishops did not withdraw on the account of the Canons II R. II. because they made a Proxie 21 R. II But why did they not appear personally if they had no regard to the Canons when the receiving their Proxie shewed they had a legal Right to appear But he grievously mistakes the meaning of the Canon of Stephen Langton in Lyndwood when he interprets Literas pro poena sanquinis instigenda scribere vel dictare against making of Proxies which is onely meant of giving or writing the Sentence for Execution 3. He saith they were excluded by ancient Custom which by a very subtle way of reasoning he proves to have been part of the Fundamental Contract of the Nation as he speaks Seeing then saith he it is without doubt that there was such a Custom that the Prelats should not exercise Iurisdiction in Capital Cases not so altogether without doubt unless it were better proved then we have yet seen it and there is no Record that doth mention when it did begin nor any time when it could be said there never was such an Vsage yes before the Council of Toledo being published in Spain and receiv'd here it must of necessity be supposed that it is as ancient as the Government it self and part of the Fundamental Contract of the Nation Which looks so like a Iesuitical Argument that one would have thought he had been proving Transubstantiation by it For just thus the Argument runs at this day among that Party There was a time when it was reciev'd and no time can be instanced in wherein it was not therefore it was a part of the Fundamental Religion of Iesus Christ. the plain Answer in both cases is the same If we can produce unquestionable Authority to which a Doctrine or Practice is repugnant we are not obliged to assign any punctual time in which it must first come in But in this case we do assign the very time and occasion of the Bishops absenting themselves in Capital Iudgments and that was from the receiving the Canon of the Council of Toledo here For no such practice can ever be proved before And therefore this can never be proved to be any part of the ancient Common Law of England And that this came in by way of imitation of other Countries appears by the citing the Council of Toledo both by Lanfranc and Richard in the Council of Winchester 4. He saith the Practice is ancienter then any of the Canons of the Church But how doth that appear The eldest Canon he can find is that of Stephen Langton in Lyndwood which was made above 50 years after the Parlament at Clarendon But we have made it evident there was a Canon receiv'd here in Lanfranc's time long before the Constitution of Clarendon And so a full Answer is given to these Objections But we are told by the Authour of the Letter that the Bishops Protestation being receiv'd and enter'd in the Roll or Iournal-Book makes it to pass for a Law it being agreed to by the King and two Houses so as whatever was the Law before if it were onely the Canon-Law it is now come to be the Law and Rule of Parlament and the Law of the Land 2. This is therefore the second Point to be examined Whether the receiving this Protestation amounts to a Law of Exclusion which it can by no means do for these two Reasons 1. from the nature of Protestations in general 2. from the particular nature of this Protestation 1. From the nature of Protestations in general For a Protestation is onely a Declaration of their minds that make it and not of theirs who receive it or suffer it to be enter'd in the Acts or Records of the Court unless it be receiv'd in such a manner as implies their consent For the very next Parlament after this 13 R. II. the two Archbishops in the name of the whole Clergy enter a Protestation That they gave no assent to any Law or Statute made in restraint of the Pope's Authority and it is said in the Rolls of Parlament that at their requests these Protestations were enrolled Will any man hence inferre that these Protestations were made Acts of Parlament If the Cause would have born any better a Person of so much skill in proceedings of Parlament would never have used such an Argument as this Besides it is a Rule in Protestations Si Protestatio in Iudicio fiat semper per contrarium actum tollitur saith Hostiensis A Protestation although allowed in Court is taken off by a subsequent Act contrary to it Which shews that a Protestation can never have
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