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-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
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
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-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
the Examination of a Case Capital What the importance of this phrase of full Parlament is will best appear by the use of it in the Records of that time 4 Ed. III. n. 6. Et est assentu accorde per nostre Seigneur le Roi touz les Grantz en pleyn Parlement Where it was agreed that the procedings at that time by the Lords against those who were not Peers should not be drawn into consequence and that the Peers should be charged onely to try Peers Which hath all the formality of an Act of Parlament and therefore all the Estates were present n. 8. Accorde est per nostre Seigneur le Roi son Conseil en pleyn Parlement Which was an Act of Pardon concerning those who followed the Earl of Lancaster 5 Ed. III. n. 10. we have the particular mention of the Bishops as some of those who do make a full Parlament Accorde est per nostre Seigneur le Roi Prelatz Countes Barons autres Grantz du Roialm en pleyn Parlement and n. 17. En pleyn Parlement si prierent les Prelatz Countes Barons autres Grantz de mesme le Parlement a nostre Seigneur le Roi c. 6 Ed. III. n. 5. the Archbishop of Canterbury made his Oration en pleyn Parlement which is explained by en la presence nostre Seigneur le Roi de touz les Prelatz autres Grantz n. 9. Si est accorde assentu per touz en pleyn Parlement who those were we are told before in the same number viz. les Prelatz Countes Baronns touz les autres somons a mesme le Parlement Which is the clearest explication of full Parlament in the presence of all those who were summon'd to Parlament From whence it follows that where a full Parlament was mention'd at that time the Bishops were certainly present and consequently did assist at the Trial of Thomas Lord Berkely who appeared before the King in full Parlament as Nich. de Segrave did 33 Ed. I. and there the Bishops are expresly mention'd as present as appears by what hath been said before concerning his Case 5 H. IV. Henry Hotspur Son to the Earl of Northumberland was declared a Traitour by the King and Lords in full Parlament and the same day the Father was upon examination acquitted of Treason by the Peers It is not said that this was done in full Parlament as the other was but there are several circumstances which make it very probable the Bishops were then present 1. When the Earl of Northumberland took his Oath of Fidelity to the King he did it saith the Record upon the Cross of the Archbishop which was to be carried before him if he went out of the House 2. The Archbishop of Canterbury pray'd the King that forasmuch as himself and other Bishops were suspected to be in Piercie's Conspiracy that the Earl might upon his Oath declare the truth who thereupon did clear them all Which shews that the Archbishop was then present in the House And for the same reason that he was present we may justly suppose the other Bishops to have been so too 3. The Earl of Northumberland beseeched the Lords and Earls and Commoners that if he brake this Oath they would intercede no more with the King for him Now the better to understand this we are to consider that H. IV. takes notice in his declaration upon the Rebellion of Sir Henry Piercy that the Earl of Northumberland and his Son gave out that they could have no access to the King but by the Mediation of the Bishops and Earls and therefore did beseech them to intercede with the King for them It is not then probable that those should be now left out when the words are large enough to comprehend them and no one circumstance is brought to exclude them For that general one of their not being Peers will be fully refuted afterwards But that which puts this out of dispute is 4. that the Record saith n. 17. the Commons not onely gave the King thanks for the pardon of the Earl of Northumberland but the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in these remarkable words Et auâ—i mesmes les CoÌ„es remercierment les Seigneurs Espirituelx Temporelx de lour bon droiturell judgment quils avoient fait come Piers du Parlement And likewise the Commons gave thanks to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal for the good and right Iudgment which they had given in this case as Peers of Parlament Which is a clear Precedent of the Bishops judging in a Capital Case and that as Peers 2 H. VI. n. 9. Iohn Lord Talbott had accused Iames Boteler Earl of Ormond of sundry Treasons before the King and his great Council and after before Iohn Duke of Bedford Constable of England The King takes advice of his Parlament about it and then it is expresly said in the Record De avisamento assensit Dominorum Spiritualium Temporalium ac Communitatis Regni Anglie in eodem Parlamento existent ' facta fuit quedam abolitio delationis nuntiationis detectionis predict c. Here the King adviseth with the Lords Spiritual in an accusation of Treason and therefore they must be present in the debates concerning it I leave now any considerate person to judge impartially on which side the Right lies For on the one side 1. There is the Constitution of Clarendon interpreted by H. II. and the Bishops at Northampton 2. A Protestation of their Right enter'd and allowed by King Lords and Commons 11 R. II. 3. A Reversing of Iudgments owned by Parlament for want of their presence 21 R. II. 4. A Preserving of their Right by Proxie when they thought their Personal attendance contrary to the Canons 5. A Bar to a total discontinuance of their personal Right by an allowed Precedent 28 H. VI. 6. A Restoring them to their former Right by removing of the force of the Canon-Law upon the Reformation 7. No one Law or Precedent produced for excluding them even in those Times when they thought the Canons did forbid their presence 8. Several Precedents upon Record wherein they were present at Examinations and Debates about Cases Capital On the other side 1. The Precedents are General and Negative 2. Or relating to such Cases wherein they are allowed to be present 3. Or of Iudgments condemned as erroneous by Parlament 4. Or of voluntary Withdrawing with Protestation of their Right and making of Proxies 5. Or of not being present at the passing of Iudgment out of regard to the Canon-Law And now on which side the Right lies let the Authour of the Letter himself judge CHAP. IV. The Peerage of the Bishops cleared how far they make a third Estate in Parlament Objections against it answered THERE remain Two things to be considered which are put in by way of Postscript by the Authour of the Letter the one concerns the Peerage of the Bishops the other their Being a Third Estate in Parlament 1.
Concerning their Peerage To prove this two Statutes had been alledged 25 Ed. III. c. 6. and 4 H. V. c. 6. and the opinion of Iudges and Lawyers out of the Year-Books But although these had been very significant if they had been against them they have the hard fortune to signify nothing when they are for them A meer Protestation becomes good Law very substantial Law if it be supposed to make against the Bishops and yet in that very Protestation the Right of Peerage is expresly challenged as well as it is asserted and taken for granted in the Statutes mention'd Is that part of the Protestation invalid and must nothing pass for Law but what is against them Is it credible that a Right of Peerage should be owned and received in Acts of Parlament in Protestations in Year-Books time after time and no opposition made against it by the Temporal Lords all that time in case they believed the Bishops had challenged that which by no means did belong to them Did not the Temporal Lords understand their own Privileges or were they willing to suffer the Bishops to assume their Titles to themselves without the least check or contradiction and let their Protestations be enter'd in the Rolls of Parlament without any contrary Protestation I do not question but the Authour of the Letter did reade the Bishops Protestation at large in the Parlament-Rolls 11 R. II. And can any thing be plainer then that therein they challenge a Right of Peerage to themselves ut Pares Regni cum caeteris Regni Paribus c. And this Protestation he saith was enter'd by consent of the King Lords Temporal and Commons as is expressed in the Rolls Were the Temporal Lords awake or were they mean and low-spirited men No they were never higher then at this time when the King himself durst not withstand them What could it be then but meer conviction of their just Right of Peerage which made them suffer such a Protestation as that to pass after so solemn and unusual a manner and to be enrolled par Commandment du Roy assent des Seigneurs Temporels Communs as it is in the Rolls Was all this onely a Complement to the Potent Clergy at that time But who can imagine that King Lords and Commons should complement at that rate as to suffer the Bishops to challenge a Peerage to themselves in Parlament if they had not an undoubted Right to it This one argument is sufficient to convince any reasonable man Especially when we consider that in the same Parlament before the Protestation was brought in a motion was made n. 7. by all the Lords Spiritual and Temporal which they claimed come leur libertez franchise as their Liberty and Privilege that all weighty matters moved in this Parlament or to be moved in any to come touchant Pieres de la Terre concerning the Peers of the Realm should be determin'd adjudged and discussed by the course of Parlament and not by the Civil nor by the Common Law of the Land used in inferiour Courts of the Realm The which Claim Liberty and Franchise the King most willingly allowed and granted in full Parlament From whence it is evident that the King and Parlament did allow the Right of Peerage in the Lords Spiritual for it is said expresly in the Record that all the Spiritual as well as Temporal Lords joyned in this Claim which being allowed them in full Parlament is an evidence beyond contradiction of their Right of Peerage But against this no less is pretended then Magna Charta viz. that every man who is tried at the King's Suit must be tried by his Peers Now if a Bishop be tried for any Capital offence he is tried by the Commoners and that is the Common Law of England it hath ever been so never otherwise then must Commoners be his Peers and he and Commoners must be Pares To this Argument how strong soever it appears these two things may be justly answer'd 1. That the matter of Fact cannot be made out that a Bishop hath always been tried by Commoners 2. That if it could it doth not overthrow their Peerage in Parlament 1. That the matter of Fact cannot be made out viz. that if a Bishop be tried for a Capital Offence he is tried by the Commoners that it hath ever been so never otherwise For in 15 Ed. III. Iohn Stratford Archbishop of Canterbury was at the King's Suit accused of Capital Crimes viz. of no less then Treason and Conspiracy with the French King He put himself upon his Trial in Parlament A Parlament was called and he at first refused admission into the House which he challenged tanquam major Par Regni post Regem Uocem primam in Parlamento habere debens as the First Peer of the Realm after the King and having the first Uote in Parlament Upon which and the intercession of his Friends he is admitted into the House and there he put himself upon the Triall of his Peers At which time a great Debate arose in the House which continued a whole Week and it was resolved that the Peers should be tried onely by Peers in Parlament Whereupon the Archbishop had 12 Peers appointed to examine the Articles against him 4 Bishops viz. London Hereford Bath and Exceter 4 Earls Arundel Salisbury Huntingdon and Suffolk and 4 Barons Percy Wake Basset and Nevil Here we have all that can be desired in the case Here is a Bishop tried at the King's Suit and for a Capital Crime and yet not tried by Commoners but by his Peers and that after long debate in the House concerning it If it be said that he was tried by the Lords as Iudges in Parlament and not as his Peers it is answer'd 1. Then Bishops are Iudges in Parlament in Cases Capital for so this was and 4 Bishops appointed to examine it 2. The Debate in the House was about Trial of Peers by their Peers and upon that it was resolved that the Archbishop should be tried by the House For the King designed to have him tried in the Exchequer for the matters objected against him and the Steward of the King's House and Lord Chamberlain would not suffer him to enter into the House of Lords till he had put in his Answer in the Exchequer Upon which the great Debate arose and therefore the Resolution of the House is as full a Precedent in this Case as can be desired I do not deny that the Rolls of Parlament of that year seem to represent the 12 Peers as Birchington calls them not as appointed to examine the particular Case of Stratford but to draw up in form the desire of the Peers as to a Trial by their Peers in Parlament the which is extant in the Record 15 Ed. III. n. 7. However this Argument doth not lose its force as to the Peerage of the Bishops but it is rather confirmed by it For there they pray the King by the Assent of
it Since it is agreed on both sides that the Bishops do sit in the House as Temporal Barons and in that respect do make up the Majority of Votes in the House of Lords it could not but seem unreasonable that they who voted as Barons in the House should have a Negative voice in another capacity and by this means they lost their distinct Negative voice because by the King's Writs they were to sit and vote with the Temporal Lords Just as it is in the Diets of Germany Since the distribution of that Assembly of the Estates of the Empire into the several Chambers the Prelates vote according to their Ranks the Three Electors in the Electoral College the other Bishops that are Princes of the Empire in the Chamber of Princes and those who are not Princes with the Counts and Barons So that here the Votes of the Bishops are mingled with the rest without a distinct Negative voice and yet no one questions but the Bishops do represent a distinct Estate of the Empire 3. This is a disparagement to the House of Lords that another Estate must be joyned with them to make up their Negative No more then to the Princes of the Empire to have the Bishops joyned with them when the Imperial Cities vote by themselves But what disparagement is this for those to make up the Majority of the Votes of the Baronage who sit there as Barons by Tenure by a Right as ancient as Will. the Conquerour by the Authour 's own confession 4. If the Bishops make a Third Estate then a Parlament could not be held without them But a Parlament hath sate excluso Clero as that of Ed. I and that it may do so in point of Law appears by the Resolution of the Iudges in Keilway's Reports because the Bishops sit in Parlament by reason of their Baronies This is the great Objection to which I shall give a full Answer 1. It is dangerous arguing from extraordinary Cases to the excluding any one of the Estates of the Kingdom from being represented in Parlament because no one can tell where this way of arguing will stop If a Parlament may be good without one Estate why not without another And we have seen an House of Lords excluded as unnecessary upon such kind of arguments because they sit in their own Persons and represent none but themselves If we once depart from the ancient and legal Constitution of Parlaments there will be no end of Alterations Every new Modeller of Government hath something to offer that looks like Reason at least to those whose interest it is to carry it on And if no Precedents can be found then they appeal to a certain invisible thing called the Fundamental Contract of the Nation which being a thing no where to be found may signify what any one pleaseth Suppose one extraordinary case happens through the disorder of Times that the Clergy have been left out in a Parlament what doth this signify towards altering the legal Constitution and constant Course of Parlaments which from the beginning of Parlaments in this Nation have had the Estate of the Clergy represented in them as sufficiently appears by Mr. Petyt's learned Preface to his late Discourse of the ancient Right of the Commons The first after King Ethelbert's Conversion was Commune Concilium tam Cleri quà m Populi That under Ina was omnium Episcoporum Principum Procerum Comitum omnium Sapientum Seniorum Populorum totius Regni That under Edmund the Elder was Concilium magnum Episcoporum Abbatum Fidelium Procerum Populorum I might adde many more as that at Becanceld under King Withred A. D. 694. Episcopis c. Ducibus Satrapis in unum glomeratis At Clovesho under Kenulphus of Mercia at Calecyth at London at Kingston Nay not one can be found by me in the Saxon times wherein the Bishops are not expresly mention'd So that if there be such a thing to be found as the Fundamental Contract of the Nation about the Constitution of Parlaments I do not question but they have their share in it Insomuch that Sir H. Spelman makes it his description of the Wittena-Gemot that in it as Mr. Petyt observes Convenêre Regni Principes tam Episcopi quà m Magistratus liberique homines i.e. it was an Assembly of the Three Estates So that before there were any such things as Baronies they were an essential part of the English Parlament And must all this clear and undoubted evidence from the first mention of Parlaments be rejected because once upon a time a certain King called a certain Parlament wherein upon some Distast between the King and the Clergy the other Estates continued sitting without them 2. This single Instance about the Parlament under Ed. I. is much misunderstood as will appear by these considerations 1. That the Clergy excluded themselves and were not shut out by the Act of the King and the other Estates For upon the Bull of Pope Boniface VIII forbidding the Clergy giving any more Subsidies which was procured by Archbishop Winchelsee as our Historians relate a Parlament being called by Ed. I. at Saint Edmondsbury on purpose for Subsidies the Clergy refuse upon the Pope's prohibition till they had consulted the Court of Rome and go away every one to their own homes notwithstanding which the King proceeds with the other two Estates and gets Subsidies from the Laiety So that the exclusion of the Clergy came from their own voluntary Act when the King desired no such thing nor the other two Estates but were all extremely provoked at this withdrawing of the Clergy That this Parlament was called purposely for the Subsidy appears by the Writ still upon Record wherein the Archbishop is summon'd to appear ad ordinandum de quantitate modo subsidii memorati 2. Whereas it is insinuated that great matters were done and good Laws passed when the Clergy were excluded I find no such thing It is true the confirmation of Magna Charta by Ed. I. which was a great thing indeed is said in the Statute-Books to be done the same year viz. 25 Ed. I. But that it could not be done in that Parlament I thus prove That Parlament was called crast Animarum the King appoints another at London crast Hilarii where the difference still continuing he appoints a new Parlament on the day of S. Peter ad Vincula or Lammas-day wherein he was reconciled to the Archbishop and Clergy Then Fealty is sworn to his Son before his going into Flanders and the King excused himself as to the great Taxes and Subsidies on the account of his Wars While he was about Winchelsea a Remonstrance is sent to him of the Grievances of the Nation in the name of the Archbishops Bishops Earls Barons and the whole Commons of England wherein they complain of illegal Taxes and the breach of Magna Charta The King gives a dilatory answer and passes over into Flanders
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
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
Rochester in H. VIII ' s time which is the great Precedent in the Law-Books 3. The method of Proceeding as to the Trial of Bishops by Common Iuries while the Pope's Power continued in England is not so clear that any forcible Argument can be drawn from thence Because the Bishops then looked on themselves as having no Peers out of Parlament in point of Judgment but Bishops As in the famous Case of Adam Bishop of Hereford under Edw. II. who was rescued from the King's Bench by his Brethren the Bishops because they looked on his appearing there as a Violation of the Liberties of the Church I do not go about to defend these Proceedings but I am sure the Authour of the Peerage c. very much misrepresents this business for he makes it as if the Bishop were legally convicted in Court by a common Iury and that after conviction he was deliver'd to the Archbishop to the intent as he supposes that he should be degraded Whereas in truth the Bishops carried him out of the Court without his giving any Answer to the Endictment and when he was absent the King commanded the Iury to bring in their Verdict and without ever being heard to make any Defence for himself they found him guilty in all the Articles laid to his Charge That Authour very freely bestows the terms of Impudence on the Bishops of that time and Ignorance on those who go about to defend them but I desire to know whether of these two makes a man thus misrepresent a matter of fact For it was so far from being true that upon Conviction he was deliver'd to the Archbishop to be degraded that he never appeared in Court after but continued under the Archbishop's care till after a while he fully reconciled him to the King notwithstanding the Jury found him guilty of Treason I desire to be informed whether we are to understand Magna Charta by such a Trial as this Whether he were judged by his Peers I know not but I am sure he was not by the Law of the Land which I think is as good a part of Magna Charta as the other And this our Historians tell us is the First Instance of any Trial of this kind of any Bishop in England which hath too much of force and violence in it to be a good Interpreter of Magna Charta The Second Precedent is verbatim out of Mr. Selden concerning Iohn de Isle and the Bishop of Ely his Brother which concerns such matters wherein himself confesses the Privilegium Clericale was allowed and the Record saith the Archbishop entering his plea that he was to be deliver'd to him as a member of his Church he was accordingly deliver'd after the Jury had given in their Verdict Which shews indeed the good will that was then used to take away even the allowed Privileges of the Clergy by common Juries And this is another stout Interpreter of Magna Charta when Bracton Briton Fleta Stat. West 1. Articuli Cleri c. 15. are confessed even by Sir Edw. Coke to be so clear in the Clergie's behalf in these matters The Third Precedent which is likewise out of the same Authour is of Thomas Merks Bishop of Carlisle who for his fidelity to R. II. and the true Heirs of the Crown against the Usurpation of H. IV. was found guilty of Treason by a common Iury. But Mr. Selden is so ingenuous as to take notice that the Writ directed to the Justices had in it a Non obstante to a Statute lately made at Westminster Licèt in Stat. apud Westm. nuper edito inter caetera continetur quòd nullus Archiep. nec Episcopus coram Iusticiariis nostris occasione alicujus criminis impetatur absque speciali praecepto nostro quousque c. Which was read in Court but the Judges urging that the Liberties of the Church did not extend to high Treason then it is said he did ponere se super Patriam just as Thomas Lord Berkely did 4 Ed. III. This is the onely Precedent that proves that a Bishop before the time of H. VIII did put himself upon a common Iury and yet we find as good a Precedent of this sort concerning an allowed Peer of the Realm And whether this single Precedent be sufficient to interpret Magna Charta against the plain sense of the words and to make a constant practice I leave any rational man to judge But if this were yielded in Cases of high Treason wherein the Privilege of Clergy holds not especially since the Statutes 25 Ed. III. c. 4. and 4 H. IV. c. 2 3. Mr. Selden tells them that there is no consequence from hence because they are not to be tried by Peers therefore they are not Peers since the Common Law may limit this Privilege of Peers in one particular case which may hold in all others As it is no diminution to the Peerage of the Temporal Lords to be tried by a common Iury at the Suit of the Party I conclude the Answer to this Argument as Mr. Camden doth his Discourse about this subject who having proved that the Bishops do enjoy all other Privileges of Peers except this of being tried by them which he seems to attribute to a kind of Revenge upon them for pleading such exemptions by the Canon-Law after all he leaves it to the Lawyers to determine whether this be juris explorati The meaning of which I am sure is not as the Authour of the Letter expresseth it that it was always so and never otherwise But the great difficulty to some is that a Praedial or Feudal Barony doth not ennoble the Bloud and therefore can give no Right of Peerage Whereas it is well known that all the Baronies of England were such from the Conquerour's time till after the Barons Wars when for Reason of State it was thought necessary to make the Nobility more dependant on the Crown And all that were Barons were Pares i. e. Peers So du Fresn quotes an old Poem of the Common Laws of England Barons nous appellons les Piers del Realm In France from whence our Baronies first came Ecclesiastical Persons with praedial Baronies are thought as capable of Peerage as any For there at first all the Barones Regni who both in France and England were the same with the Barones Regis however some of late have distinguished them sate in the great Council and all publick Affairs passed through them and they were judged by their own Order and these were called Pares Regni among whom the Bishops were comprehended At last Lewis VII A. D. 1179. as most Authours agree chose Twelve out of the great number of the Peers of France of which half the number were Bishops who held feudal Baronies of the King and the Archbishop of Rheims is the First of the whole Number And because these enjoy'd greater Privileges then other Peers their number was increased by particular Favour but the ancient
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.