Countrey and true Religion which though they are the words of Paraeus only yet they contain the minde and meaning of all the rest of that faction as his son Philip doth demonstrate e In Append. ad Cap. 13. Epist ad Rom. Hence was it that John Knox delivered for sound Orthodox doctrine Procerum esse propria autoritâ—te Idololatrian tollere Principes intra legum rescripta per vim reducere f Camden Annal Eliz. An. 1559. that it belonged unto the Peers of each several Kingdom to reform matters of the Church by their own authoritie and to confine their Kings and Princes within the bounds prescribed by law even by force of Arms. Hence that Geselius one of the Lecturers of Roterdam preached unto his people that if the Magistrates and Clergie did neglect their duty in the reformation of Religion necesse est id facere plâ—beios that then it did belong to the Common people g Necessaria Respons who were bound to have a care thereof and proceed accordingly And as for points of practise should we look that way what a confusion should we finde in most parts of Europe occasioned by no other ground then the entertainment of these principles and the scattering of these positions amongst the people Witness the Civil wars of France g Jean de Serres inventaire de Fr. the revolt of Holland h History of the Netherlands the expulsion of the Earl of East-Friezland out the City of Embden i Thuan hâ—st l. 114. the insurrections of the Scots k Camden Annal An. 1559. the tumults of Bohemia l Laurca Austriaca the commotions of Brandenbourg m Continuati Thuan. hist l. 8. the translation of the Crown of Sweden from the King of Pole to Charles Duke of Finland n Thuan. hist l. 8. the change of Government in England all acted by the Presbyterian or Calvinian partie in those several States under pretence of Reformation and redress of grievances 11 And to say truth such is the Genius of the sect that though they may admit an equal as paritie is the thing most aimed at by them both in Church and State yet they will hardly be perswaded to submit themselves to a Superiour to no Superiours more unwillingly then to Kings and Princes whose persons they disgrace whose power they ruinate whose calling they indevour to decry and blemish by all means imaginable First for their calling they say it is no other then an humane Ordinance and that the King is but a creature of the peoples making whom having made they may as easily destroy and unmake make again Which as it is the darling doctrine of this present time so is it very eagerly pursued by Buchannan who affirms expressly Quicquid juris populus alicui dederit idem justis de causis posse reposcere o Buchann de â—ure Regni that whatsoever power the people give unto their King or Supreme Magistrate they may resume again upon just occasions Their power they make so small and inconsiderable that they afford them very little even in matters temporal and no authoritie at all in things spiritual CALVIN professeth for himself that he was very much agrieved to hear that King Henry the eight had took unto himself the title of Supreme Head of the Church of England accuseth them of inconsiderate zeal nay blasphemie who conferred it on him and though he be content at last to allow Kings a Ministerial power in matters which concern the Reformation of Gods Publick Worship yet he condemns them as before of great inconsiderateness Qui facerent eos nimis spirituales p Calvin in Amos cap. 7. who did ascribe unto them any great authoritie in spiritual matters The designation of all those who bear publick office in the Church the calling of Councels or Assemblies the Presidencie in those Councels ordaining publick Fasts and appointing Festivals which anciently belonged unto Christian Princes as the chief branches of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction which is vested in them are utterly denied to Kings and Princes in their Books of Discipline In so much that when the Citizens of Embden did expel their Earl they did it chiefly for this reason Quod se negotiis Ecclesiasticis Consistorialibus praeter jus aequitatem immisceret q Thuan. hist l. 114. that he had intermedled more then they thought fit in Ecclesiastical causes and intrenched too much upon their Consistorie As for their power in temporal or civil causes by that time Knoxes Peers and Buchannans Judges Paraeus his inferior Magistrates and CALVINS popular Officers have performed their parts in keeping them within the compass of the laws arraigning them for their offences if they should transgress opposing them by force of arms if any thing be done unto the prejudice of the Church or State and finally in regulating their authoritie after the manner of the Spartan Ephori and the Roman Tribunes all that is left will be by much too little for a Roy d' Ivitot or for a King of Clouts as we English phrase it Last of all for their persons which God held so sacred that he gave it for a law to his people Israel not to speak evill of their Princes saying Thou shalt not speak evil of the Ruler of thy people Let us but look upon these men and we shall finde the basest attributes too good for the greatest Kings Calvin calls Mary Queen of England by the name of Proserpine r Calvin in Amos cap. 7. and saith that she did superare omnes Diabolos that all the Devils of hell were not half so mischeivous Beza affords Queen Mary of Scotland no better titles then those of Medea and Athaliah s Beza in Epist ad Jo. of which the last was most infamous in divine the other no less scandalous in humane stories the one a Sorceress and a Witch the other a Tyrant and usurper The Author of the Altare Damascenum whosoever he was can finâ—e no better a tribute for King James of most blessed memorie then infensissimus Evangelii hostis t Didoclavius in Epistola ad Lâ—ctor the greatest and deadly enemie of the Gospel of Christ And Queen Elizabeth her self did not scape so clear but that the zealous Brethren were too bold sometimes with her name and honor though some of them paid dearly for it and were hanged for their labour How that seditious Hugonot the Author of the lewd and unworthy Dialogue entituled Eusebius Philadelphus hath dealt with three great Princes of the House of France and what reproachful names he gives them I had rather you should look for in the Author then expect from me being loath to wade too far in these dirtie pudoles save that I shall be bold to adde this general Character which Didoclavius gives to all Kings in general viz. Naturâ insitum est in â—mnibus Regibus Christi odium that all Kings naturally hate Christ which may
Parliament and the time of 40 daies expresly specified to intervene between the summons and the beginning of the Parliament Which Commons being such as antiently did hold in Capite and either having a Knights fee or the degree of Knighthood did first promiscuously attend in these publick meetings and after were reduced to four quatuor discretos milites de Comitatu tuo as c Id. ibid. the writ ran unto the Sheriff and at last to two as they continue to this day 5. We have it thus in the Magna Charta of King Henry the 3d. the birth-right of the English Subject according as it stands translated in the book of Statutes First we have granted to God and by this our present Charter have confirmed for us and our heirs for ever that the Church of England shall be free and shall enjoy all her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable d Magna Charta cap. 1. But it was a known Right and Liberty of the Church of England that all the Bishops and many of the greater Clergy and peradventure also the inferiour Clergy wherof more anon had their Votes in Parliament and therefore is to be preserved inviolable by the Kings of England their Heirs and Successors for ever Which Charter as it was confirmed by a solemn Curse denounced on all the Infringers of it by Boniface Arch-bishop of Canterbury e Matth. Patis in Henr. 3. and ratified in no fewer man 30 succeeding Parliaments so was it enacted in the reign of Edward the first that it should be sent under the great Seal of England to all the Cathedral Churches of the Kingdom to be read twice a year before the people f 25 Edw. 1. c. 2. that they should be read four times every year in a full County-Court g 28 Edw. 1. c. 1. and finally that all judgements given against it should be void h 25 Edw. 1. c. 3. 6. We have the Protestation of John Stratford Arch-bishop of Canterbury in the time of King Edward the 3d. who being in disfavour with the King and denyed entrance into the House of Peers challenged his place and suffrage there as the first Peer of the Realm and one that ought to have the first Voice in Parliament in right of his See But hear him speak his own words which are these that follow Amici for he spake to those who took witness of it Rexme ad hoc Parliamentum scripto suo vocavit ego tanquam major Par Regni post regem primam vocem habere debens in Parliamento jura Ecclesiae meae Cantuariensis vendico ideo ingressum in Parliamentum peto i Antiqu. Bâ—itan in Joh. Stratford which is full and plain 7. And lastly there is the Protestation on Record of all the Bishops in the reign of King Richard the 2d at what time William Courtney was Arch-bishop of Canterbury who being to withdraw themselves from the House of Peers at the pronouncing of the sentence of death on some guilty Lords first made their Procurators to supply their rooms then put up their Protestation to preserve their Rights the sum whereof for as much as doth concern this business in their own words thus De jure consuetudine regni Angliae ad Archiepiscopum Cantuariensem qui pro tempore fuerit nec non coeteros Suffraganeos confratres compatres Abbates Priores aliosque Praelatos quoscunque per Baroniam de domino Rege tenentes pertinet in Parliamentis Regis quibuscunque ut Pares regni praedicti personaliter interesse ibidemque de regni negotiis ac aliis tractari consuetis cum caeteris dicti regni Paribus aliis ibidem jus interessendi habentibns consulere tractare ordinare statuere diffinire ac câ—etera facere quae Parliamento ibidem imminent facienda This put together makes enough abundantly for the proofs de jure k In vita Gul. Courtney and makes the Bishops right to have Vote in Parliament to be undeniable Let us next see whether this right of theirs be not confirmed and countenanced by continual practice and that they have not lost it by discontinuance which is my second kind of proofs those I mean de facto And first beginning with the reign of the Norman Conquerour we find a Parliament assembled in the fifth year of that King wherein are present Episcopi Abbates Comites Primates totius Angliae l Matth. Paris in Willielmo 1. the Bishops Abbats Earls and the rest of the Baronage of England In the 9th year of William Rufus an old Author telleth us de regni statu acturus Episcopos Abbates quoscunque Regni proceres in unum praecepti sui sanctione egit that being to consult of the affairs of the Kingdom he called together by his writ the Bishops Abbots and all the Peers of the Realm m Eadmer hist Nov. l. 2. During the reign of Henry the 2d for we will take but one example out of each King reign though each Kings reign would yield us more a Parliament was called at London wherein were many things dispatched aswell of Ecclesiastical as secular nature the Bishops and Abbats being present with the other Lords Coacto apud Londoniam magno Episcoporum Procerum Abbatumque Conciliâ— multa ecclefiasticarum secularium rerum ordinata negotia decisa litigia saith the Monk of Malmesâ—ury n Malmesb. hist reg Angl. l. 5. And of this Parliament it is I take it that Eadmer speaketh Hist. Novell l. 4. p. 91. Proceed we to King Henry the 2d for King Stephens reign was so full of wars and tumults that there is very little to be found of Parliaments and there we find the Bishops with the other Peers convened in Parliament for the determination of the points in controversie between Alfonso King of Castile and Sancho King of Navarre referred by compremise to that King of England and here determined by King Henry amongst other things habito cum Episcopis Comitibus et Baronebus cum deliberatione consilio as in Roger Hoveden o Hoveden Annal. pars poster in Hen. 2. Next him comes Rich. the first his Son during whose imprisonment by the D. of Austria his Brother John then Earl of Moriton indeavoured by force and cunning in Normandy to set the Crown on his own head which caused Hubert the Arch-bishop of Canterbury to call a Parliament Convocatis coram eo Episcopis Comitibus et Baronibus regni p Id. in Joh. wherein the Bishops Earls and Barons did with one consent agree to seize on his estate and suppress his power the better to preserve the Kingdom in wealth peace and safety After succeeded John and he calls a Parliament wherein were certain Laws made for the defence of his Kingdom Communi assensu Archiepiscoporum Episcoporum Comitum Baronum omnium fidelium suoâ—um Angâ—iae by the common counsell and assent of the Arch-bishops Bishops Earls Barons and the rest of
persisting in their former obstinacy excluso e Parliamento Clero Consilium Rex cum solis Baronibus populo habuit totumque statim Clerum protectione sua privavit d Antiqu. Brit. in R. Winchelsey the King saith the Historian excluding the Clergy out of the Parliament advised with his Barons and his people only what was best to be done by whose advise he put the Clergy out of his protection and thereby forced them to conform to his will and pleasure This is the summa totalis of the business and comes unto no more but this that a particular course was advised in Parliament on a particular displeasure taken by the King against the body of his Clergy then convened together for their particular refusal to contribute to his wants wars the better to reduce them to their natural duty Which makes not any thing at all against the right of Bishops in the House of Peers or for excluding them that House or for the validity of such Acts as are made in Parliament during the time of such exclusion especially considering that the King shortly after called his States together and did excuse himself for many extravagant Acts which he had committed e Walsingâ— in Edw. 1. anno 1297. against the liberties of the Subject whereof this was one laying the blame thereof on his great occasions and the necessities which the wars which he had abroad did impose upon him And so much as in Answer unto that Record supposing that the words thereof be rightly senced as I think they are not and that by Clerus there we are to understand Arch-bishops and Bishops as I think we be not there being no Record I dare boldly say it either of History or Law in which the word Clerus serves to signifie the Arch-bishops and Bishops exclusive of the other Clergy or any writing whatsoever wherein it doth not either signifie the whole Clergy generally or the inferiour Clergy only exclusive of the Arch-bishops Bishops and other Prelates Therefore in answer unto that so much applauded Cavil of Excluso Clero from what Record soever it either hath been hitherto or shall hereafter be produced I shall propose it to the consideration of the sober Reader whether by Clerus in that place or in any other of that kind and time we must not understand the inâ—eriour Clergy as they stand distinguished in the Laws from my Lords the Bishops For howsoever it be true that Clerus in the ecclesiastical notion of the word doth signifie the whole Clergy generally Arch-bishops Bishops Priests and Deacons yet in the legal notion of it it stands distinguished from the Prelates and signifieth only the inferiour Clergy Thus do we find the Ecclesiasticks of this Realm divided into Prelates men of Religion and other Clerks 3. Edw. 1. c. 1. the Seculars either into Prelates and Clerks 9 Edw. 2. c. 3. 1 Rich. 2. c. 3. or Prelates and Clerks beneficed 18 Edw. 3. c. 2. or generally into the Prelates and the Clergy 9 Edw. 2. c. 15. 14 Edw. 3. c. 1 3. 18 Edw. 3. 2. 7. 25 Edw. 3. 2. 4. 8 Hen. 6. c. 1. and in all acts and grants of Subsidies made by the Clergy to the Kings or Queens of England since the 32 of Henry 8. when the Clergy subsidies first began to be confirmed by act of Parliament So also in the Latin ideom which comes neerest home Nos Praelati Clerus in the submission of the Clergy to King Henry 8. f Regist Waâ—ham and in the sentence of divorce against Anne of Cleve g Regist Cranmer and in the instrument of the grant of the Clergy subsidies presented to the Kings of England ever since the 27 of Queen Elizabeth and in the form of the Certificates per h Statut. 8 Eliz. c. 17. ever since Praelatâ—s Clerum returned by every Bishop to the Lord High Treasurer and finally Nos Episcopi Clerus Cantuariensis Provinciae in hac Synodo more nostro solito dum Regni Parliamentum celebratur congregati i Stat. 1 Phil. Mar. c. 8. in the petition to K. K. Phillip and Mary about the confirmation of the Abby lands to the Patentees So that though many Statutes have been made in these later times excluso Clero the Clergy that is to say the inferiour Clergy being quite shut out and utterly excluded from those publick Counsails yet this proves nothing to the point that auy act of Parliament hath been counted good to which the Bishops were not called or at the making of which Act they either were shut out by force or excluded by cunning As for Kilbancies book which that Author speaks of k Prerâ—g pract of Paâ—l p. 38. in which the Justices are made to say 7 H. 8. that our Soveraign Lord the King may well hold his Parliament by him and his Temporal Lords and by the Commons also without the Spiritual Lords for that the Spiritual Lords have not any place in the Parliament chamber by reason of their Spiritualties but by reason of their Temporal possessions besides that it is only the opinion of a privat man of no authority or credit in the Common wealth and contrary to the practice in the Saxon times in which the Bishops sate in Parliament as Spiritual persons not as Barons the reason for ought I can see will serve as well to pretermit all or any of the Temporal Lords as it can serve to pretermit or exclude the Bishops the Temporal Lords being called to Parliament on no other ground than for the Temporal possessions which they hold by Barony 9. If it be said that my second answer to the argument of Excluso Clero supposeth that the inferiour â—lergy had some place in Parliament which being not to be supposed makes the Answer void I shall crave leave to offer some few observations unto the consideration of the sober and impartial Reader by which I hope to make that supposition probable and perhaps demonstrative First then we have that famous Parliament call it Concilium magnum or Concilium commune or by what other name soever the old writers called it summoned by King Ethelbert anno 605. which my l Concil Hen. Spelm. Author calleth Commune concilium tam Cleri quam Populi where Clerus comprehendeth the body of the Clergy generally aswell the Presbyters as the Bishops as the word populus doth the lay-subject generally as well Lords as Commons or else the Lords and Commons one of the two must be needs left out And in this sense we are to understand these words in the latter times as where we read that Clerus m Matth. Paris in Hen. 1. Angliae populus Vniversus were summoned to appear at Westminster at the Coronation of King Henry the first where divers Laws were made and declared subscribed by the Arch-bishops Bishops and others of the principal persons that were there assembled that Clero populo
convocato n Rog. Hov. in Hen 2. the Clergy and people of the Realm were called to Clarendon anno 1163. by King Henry the second for the declaring and confirming of the Subjects liberties that in the year 1185 towards the later end of the said Kings reign Convocatus est Clerus populus cum tota Nobilitate ad fontem Clericorum o Matth. paris in Hen. 2. the Clergy Commons and Nobility were called unto the Parliament held at Clerkenwell and finally that a Parliament was called at London in which the Arch-bishop of Canterbury was present cum toto Clero tota secta Laicali p Quadrilog ap Selden Tit. of Hon. pt 2. c. 5. in the time of King John Hitherto then the Clergy of both ranks and orders as well as Populus or tota secta Laicalis the Subjects of the Laity or the Lords and Commons had their place in Parliament And in possession of this right the Clergy stood when the Magna Charta was set out by King Henry the 3d wherein the freedoms rights and privileges of the Church of England of which this evidently was one was confirmed unto her q Magna Charta cap. 1. of the irrefragable and inviolable authority whereof we have spoke before The Cavill of Excluso Clero which hath been used against the voting of the Bishops in the house of Peers comes in next for proof that the inferiour Clergy had their place or vote with the house of Commons if in those times the Lords and Commons made two houses which I am not sure of the Clergy could not be excluded in an angry fit or out of a particular design to deprive them of the benefit of the Kings protection if they had not formerly a place amongst them if we will not understand by Clerus the inferior Clergy which much about that time as before we shewed began to be the legâ—l English of the word we must needs understand the whole Clergy generally the Clergy of both ranks and orders But our main proofs are yet to come which are these that follow First it is evident that antiently the Clergy of each several Diocese were chargeable by Law for the expences of their Proctors in attending the service of the Parliament according as the Counties were by Common law since confirmed by Statute 23 H. 6. c. 11. to bear the charges of their Knights the Burroughs and Cities of their Representees which questionless the Laws had not taken care for but that the Clergy had their place in Parliament as the Commons had And this appears by a Record z Rotul Parent 26 Ed. 3. pt 1. M. 22. of 26 of King Edward the 3d. in which the Abbat of Leieester being then but never formerly commanded to attend in Parliament amongst others of the Regular Prelates petitioned to be discharcharged from that attendance in regard he held in Frank-Almoigne only by no other tenure Which he obtained upon this condition ut semper in Procuratores ad hujusmodi Parliamenta mittendot consentiat ut moris est eorundem expensis contribuat that is to say that he and his Successors did give their voyces in the choyse of such Procuratours as the Clergy were to send to Parliament and did contribute towards their charges as the custom was Next in the Modus tenendi Parliamentum which before we spake of there is amodus convocandi Clerum Angliae ad Parl. Regis r Modus tenendi Parl. Mâ— a form of calling the English Clergy that is the Prelates Clergy as John Selden e renders it to the Court of Parliament said to be used in the time of Edward the Son of Ethelred s V. Titles of hon pt 2. presented to the Conquerour and by him observed which shews the Clergy in those times had their place in Parliament Which being but a general inference shall be delivered more particularly from the Modus it self which informs us thus Rex est caput principum finis Parliamenti c. t Modus tenendi Parl. Ms. c. 12. The King is the head the beginning and end of the Parliament and so he hath not any equal in the first degree the second is of Arch-bishops Bishops and Priors and Abbats holding by Barony the third is of Procurators of the Clergy the fourth of Earls Barons and other Nobles the fifth is of Knights of the Shire the sixt of Citizens and Burgesses and so the whole Parliament is made up of these six degrees But the said Modus tells us more and goeth more particularly to work than so For in the ninth chapter speaking of the course which was observ'd in canvassing hard and difficult matters it telleth us that they used to choose 25 out of all degrees like a grand Committee to whose consideration they referred the point that is to say two Bishops and three Proctors for the Clergy two Earls three Barons five Knights five Citizens and as many Burgesses And in the 12th that on the fourth day of the Parliament the Lord high Steward the Lord Constable and the Lord Marshal were to call the house every degree or rank of men in its several Order and that if any of the Proctors of the Clergy did not make appearance the Bishop of the Diocese was to be fined 100 l. And in the 23d chapter it is said expresly that as the Knights Citizens Burgesses in things which do concern the Commons have more authority than all the Lords so the Proctors for the Clergy in things which do concern the Clergy have more authority than all the Bishops Which Modus if it be as antient as the Norman Conquerour as both Sir Edward Coke conceiveth u Preface to the 9th part of Reports and the title signieth it sheweth the Clergies claim to a place in Parliament to be more antient than the Commons can pretend unto but if no older than the reign of King Edward third as confidently is affirmed in the Titles of Honour x Titles of hon pt 2. c. 5. if sheweth that in the usage of those later times the Procurators of the Clergy had a right and place there as well as Citizens and Burgesses or the Knights of the Shires And this is further proved by the writs of Summons directed to the Arch-bishops and Bishops for their own comming to the Parliament in the end whereof there is a clause for warning the Dean and Chapter of their Cathedralls and the Arch-deacons with the whole Clergy to be present at it that is to say the Deans and Arch-deacons personally the Chapter and Clergy in their Proctours then and there to consent to such Acts and Ordinances as shall be made by the Common counsail of the Kingdom The whole clause word for word is this y Extant ibid. pt 2. c. 5. Praemunientes Priorem Capitulum or Decanum Capitulum as the case might vary Ecclesiae vestrae N. ac Archidiacanos totumque Clerum vestrae Dioceseos
Titles of hon part 2. cap. 5. to give the King their best advice in his great affairs So that the Prelates and Nobility conveened in Parliament made the Kings great Counsel and were called thither to that end What then belonged unto the Commons 1. No more than did belong to the Clergy also that is to say the giving of their consent to such Laws and Statutes as should there be made VVhich notwithstanding in tract of time gave them such a sway and stroak in the course of Parliaments that no law could be made nor no tax imposed without their liking and allowance And this is that which is expressed in the last clause of the said writ by which the Knights and Burgesses are to come prepared g Form a Brevis c. ad faciendum et consentiendum iis quae tune ibidem de consilio dicti Regni nostri super negotiis antedictis contigerint ordinari VVhich is the very same which you had before in the writ directed to the Bishops for summoning the Clergie of their several Diocesses and that here is a faciendum which the other had not A word which if you mark it well hath no operation in the Construction of the text except it be in paying subsidies or doing such things as are appointed to be done by that great Counsel of the Kingdom VVhich clause though it be cunningly left out that I may say no worse in the recital of the writ by the Author of the Book entituled the Prerogative and practice of Parliaments is most ingenuously acknowledged in the Declaration of the Lords and Commons assembled at Oxon h Declaration of the treaty P. 15. where it is said that the writs of summons the foundation of all power in Parliament are directed to the Lords in expresse termes to treat and advise with the King and the rest of the Peers of the Kingdom of England and to the Commons to do and consent to those things which by that Common councell of England should be ordained And thus it stands as with the Common people generally in most states of Christendom so with the Commons antiently in most states of Greece of which Plutarch telleth us i Plutarch in Lyeurgo that when the people were assembled in Counsell it was not lawful for any of them to put forth matters to the Counsel to be determined neither might any of them deliver his opinion what he thought of any thing but the people had only authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to give their assent unto such things as either the Senators or their Kings do propound unto them 10. But against this it is objected first that it is not to be found at what time the Clergie lost their place and vote in Parliament and therefore it may reasonably be presumed that they had never any there and 2ly that if they had been called ad consentiendum though no more than so we should have found more frequent mention of their consent unto the Acts Statutes in our printed Books For answer unto which it may first be said that to suppose the Clergie had no voice in Parliament because it is not to be found when they lost that Privilege is such a kind of Argument if it be an argument as is made by Bellarmine k Bellarm. de Eccl. lib. 4. cap. 5. to prove that many of the controverted Tenets of the Church of Rome are neither terroneous nor new because we cannot say expressely quo tempore quo autore when and by whose promoting they first crept in And though we cannot say expressely when the inferiour Clergy lost their place in Parliament in regard it might be lost by discontinuance or non-usage or that the clause was pretermitted for some space of time the better to disuse them from it or that they might neglect the service in regard of their attendance in the Convocation which gave them power and reputation both with the Common people yet I have reason to beleeve that this pretermission and disuse did chiefly happen under the government of the Kings of the house of Lancaster who being the true heirs and successours of Iohn of Gaunt cast many a longing eye on the Church revenues and hardly were perswaded to abstain from that height of sacrilege which Henry the 8 did aftercome to And this I am induced to beleeve the rather in regard that in the confirmation of the Churches rights so solemnly confirmed and ratified in all former Parliaments there was a clog put to or added in these times which shaked the Fabrick the confirmation being first of such rights and liberties as were not repealed 3. Hen. 5. cap. 1. 4 Hen. 5. cap. 1. and afterwards of such as by the Common law were not repealeable 2 Hen. 6. cap. 1. which might go very far indeed And secondly I find that in the 8 of Henry the 6. an Act of Parliament was passed that all the Clergy called to Convocation by the Kings writ and their servants and Family shall for ever hereafter fully use and enjoy such liberty and defence in comming tarrying and returning as the great men and Comminalty of the Realm of England called to the Kings Parliament do enjoy l 8 Hen. 6. cap. 1. c. Which being an unnecessary care or caution when the Clergie had their voice in Parliament and very necessary to be taken formerly if they had never had such voice makes me conceive that it was much about this time that they lost that privilege But this I leave as a conjecture and no more than so For answer to the second argument that if they had been called of old ad consentiendum we should have found more frequent mention of their consent unto the Acts and Statutes of the former times besides that it is a negative proof and so non concludent it strikes as much against the presence and consent of the Knights and Burgesses in the elder Parliaments as it can do against the Clergie For in the elder Parliaments under K. Henry 3. and K. Edward the first there is no mention of the Commons made at all either as present or consenting nor much almost in all the Parliaments till K. Henry 7. but that they did petition for redresse of greivances and that upon their special instance and request m In the Proem to the several Sessions several laws were made for the behoof and benefit of the Commonwealth which part the Clergie also acted in some former Parliaments as before was shewed So that this negative Argument must conclude against both or neither But secondly I answer that in these elder times in which the Proctors for the Clergy had their place in Parliament they are included generally in the name of the Commons And this I say on the authority of the old modus tenendi Parliamentum in which the Commons are divided in the Spiritualty and the Temporalty and where it is expressely said that the Proctors for
first by these who first ventured on the expression or were improvidently looked over I can hardly say Certain I am it gave too manifest an advantage to the Antimonarchical party in this Kingdome and hardned them in their proceeding against their King whom they were taught to look on and esteem no otherwise than as a Joynt-tenant of the Soveraignty with the Lords and Commons And if Kings have partners in the Soveraignty they are then no King such being the nature and law of Monarchy that si divisionem capiat interitum capiat necesse est m Lactant Institut Div. l. 1. c. if it be once divided and the authorities thereof imparted it is soon destroyed Such is the dangerous consequence of this new Expression that it seemeth utterly to deprive the Bishops and in them the Clergy of this Land of all future hopes of being restored again to their place in Parliament For being the Parliament can consist but of three Estates if the King fall so low as to pass for one either the Bishops or the Commons or the Temporal Lords must desert their claim the better to make way for this new pretension and in all probability the Commons being grown so potent and the Nobility so numerous and united in blood and mariages will not quit their interesse and therefore the poor Clergy must be no Estate because lesse able as the world now goeth with them to maintain their title I have often read that Constantine did use to call himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n Euseb de vita Constant the Bishop or Superintendent of his Bishops and I have oft heard our Lawyers say that the King is the general Ordinary of the Kingdome but never heard nor read till within these few yearrs that ever any King did possess himself of the Bishops place or vote in Parliament or sate there as the first of the three Estates as antiently the Bishops did to supply their absence By which device whether the Clergy or the King be the greater losers though it be partly seen already future times will shew 2. This rub removed we next proceed to the examination of that power which by our Author is conferred on the three Estates which we shall find on search and tryal to be very different according to the constitution of the Kingdome in which they are For where the Kings are absolute Monarchs as in England Scotland France and Spain l Bodin de Repub. l. 1. c. the three Estates have properly and legally little more authority than to advise their King as they see occasion to represent unto his view their common grievances and to propose such remedies for redresse therof as to them seem meetest to canvass and review such erroneous judgements as formerly have passed in inferiour Courts and finally to consult about and prepare such laws as are expedient for the publick In other Countries where the Kings are more conditional and hold their Crowns by compact and agreement betweeen them and their Subjects the reputation and authority of the three Estates is more high and eminent as in Polonia Danemark and some others of the Northern Kingdomes where the Estates lay claim to more than a directive power and think it not enough to advise their King unless they may dispose of the Kingdome also or at least make their King no better than a Royal Slave Thus and no otherwise it is with the German Emperors who are obnoxious to the Laws m Thuan. hist sui temp l. 2. and for their Government accomptable to the Estates of the Empire insomuch that if the Princes of the Empire be perswaded in their consciences that he is likely by his mal-administration to destroy the Empire and that he will not hearken to advice and counsel n Anonym Script ap Philip Paraeu in Append. â—d Rom. 13. ab Electorum Collegio Caesaria potestate privari potest he may be deprived by the Electors and a more fit and able man elected to supply the place And to this purpose in a Constitution made by the Emperor Jodocus about the year 1410. there is a clause that if he or any one of his Successors do any thing unto the contrary thereof the Electors and other States of the Empire sine rebellionis vel infidelitatis crimine libertatem habeant o Goldast Constit Imperial Tom. 3. p. 424. should be at liberty without incurring the crimes of Treason or Disloyalty not only to oppose but resist them in it The like to which occurs for the Realm of Hungary wherein K. Andrew gives authority to his Bishops Lords and other Nobles sine nota alicujus infidelitatis p Bonfinius de Edict publ p. 37. that without any imputation of disloyalty they may contradict oppose and resist their Kings if they do any thing in violation of some Laws and sanctions In Poland the King takes a solemn oath at his Coronation to confirm all the Privileges rights and liberties which have been granted to his Subjects of all ranks and orders by any of his Predecessors and then addes this clause quod si Sacramentum meum violavero incolae Regni nullam nobis obedientiam praestare tenebuntur which if he violates his Subjects shall no longer be obliged to yield him obedience q Bodin de Rep. lib. 1. cap. 8. Which oath as Bodine well observeth doth savour rather of the condition of the Prince of the Senate than of the Majesty of a King The like may be affirmed of Frederick the first King of Danemark who being called unto that Crown on the ejection of K. Christian the 2d An. 1523. was so conditioned with by the the Lords of the Kingdome that at his coronation or before he was fain to swear that he would put none of the Nobility to death or banishment but by the judgement of the Senate that the great men should have power of life or death over their Tenants and Vassals and that no Appeal should lye from them to the Kings tribunal nor the King be partaker of the confiscations nec item honores aut imperia privatis daturum c r Id. ibid. nor advance any private person to commands or honors but by authority of his great Counsel Which oath being also taken by Frederick the second made Bodinus say that the Kings of Danemark non tam reipsa quam appellare Reges sunt were only titular Kings but not Kings indeed Which character he also gives of the Kings of Bohemia Å¿ Id. ibid. p. 88. But in an absolute Monarchy the case is otherwise all the prerogatives and rights of Soveraignty being so vested in the Kings person ut nec singulis civibus nec universis fac est c. that it is neither lawful to particular men nor to the whole body of the Subjects generally to call the Prince in question for life fame or fortunes t Id. ibid. p. 210. and amongst these he reckoneth the kingdoms of France
made in Parliament the King passed a Law to this effect viz. r 4 Hâ—n 8. c. 8. That ull sutes condemnations executions charges and impositions put or hereafter to be put upon Richard Strode and every of his Complices that be of this Parliament or aâ—y other hereafter for any Bill speaking or reasoning of any thing concerning the Parliament to be communed and treated of shall be void and null but neither any reparation was allowed to Strode nor any punishment inflicted upon those that sued him for ought appears upon Record And for the Houses joyned together which is the last capacity they can claim it in they are so far from having the supreme authority that as it is observed by a learned Gentleman they cannot so unite or conjoyn as to be an entire Court either of Soveraign or Ministerial jurisdiction no otherwise co-operating than by concurrence of Votes in their several Houses for preparing matters in order to an Act of Parliament s Case of our Affairs p. 9. Which when they have done they are so far from having any legal authority in the State as that in Law there is no stile nor form of their joynt Acts nor doth the Law so much as take notice of them until they have the Royal Assent So that considering that the two Houses alone do no way make an entire Body or Court and that there is no known stile nor form of any Law or Edict by the Votes of the two Houses only nor any notice taken of them by the Law it is apparent that there is no Soveraignty in their two Votes alone How far the practise of the Lords Commons which remaind at Westminster after so many of both Houses had tepaired to the King c. may create Precedents unto posterity I am not able to determine but sure I am they have no Precedent to shew from the former Ages But let us go a little further and suppose for granted that the Houses either joynt or separate be capable of the Soveraignty were it given unto them I would fain know whether they claim it from the King or the people only Not from the King for he confers upon them no further power than to debate and treat of his great Affairs to have access unto his person freedome of Speech as long as they contein themselves within the bounds of Loyalty authority over their own Members which being custumarily desired t Hakewell of passing bils in Parliament and of course obtained as it relates into the Commons shews plainly that these vulgar privileges are nothing more the rights of Parliament than the favours of Princes but yet such favours as impart not the least power of Soveraignty Nor doth the calling of a Parliament ex opere operato as you know who phrase it either denude the King of the poorest robe of all his Royalty or confer the same upon the Houses or on either of them whether the King intend so by his call or otherwise For Bodin whom Mr. Prynne hath honored with the title of a grand Politician u Pryn of Parliam par 2. p. 45. doth affirm expresly Principis majestatem nec Comitorum convocatione nec Senatus populique praesentia minui x Bodin de Repub. that the majesty or Soveraignty of the King is not a jot diminished either by the calling of a Parliament or Conventus Ordinum or by the frequency and presence of his Lords and Commons Nay to say truth the Majesty of Soveraign Princes is never so transcendent and conspicuous as when they sit in Parliament with their States about them the King then standing in his highest Estate as was once said by Henry 8. who knew as well as any of the Kings of England how to keep up the majesty of the Crown Imperial Nor can they claim it from the people who have none to give for nemo dat quod non habet as the saying is The King as hath been proved before doth hold his Royal Crown immediately from God himself not from the contract of the people He writes not populi clementia but Dei gratia not by the favour of the people but by the grace of God The consent and approbation of the people used and not used before the day of coronation is reckoned only as a part of the solemn pomps which are then accustomably used The King is actually King to all intents and purposes in the Law whatever immediately on the death of his Predecessor Nor ever was it otherwise objected in the Realm of England till Clark and Watson pleaded it at their arraignment in the first year of King James y Speeds History in K. James Or grant we that the Majesty of this Kingdom was first originally in the people and by them devolved upon the King by their joynt consent yet having given away that power by their said consent and setled it upon the King by an Act of State confirmed by Oaths and all solemnities which that Act requires they cannot so retract that grant or make void that gift as to pass a new conveyance of it and settle it upon their Representees in the House of Commons Or if they could yet this would utterly exclude all the Lords from having the least share or portion in this new found Soveraignty in that they represent not the common people but sit there only in their own personal capacities and therefore must submit at last to these new made Soveraigns who carry both the Purse Sword at their own girdles So then the people cannot give the Soveraignty and if they have no power to give it the Lords and Commons have no claim thereunto de jure See we next therefore how much of this Soveraignty they or their Predecessors rather have enjoyed de facto in peaceable and regular times fit to be drawn into example in the Ages following The chief particulars in which the Soveraignty consists we have seen before and will now see whether that any of them been exercised and injoyed in peaceable and regular times by both or either of the two Houses of Parliament And first for calling and dissolving Parliaments making of Peers granting of liberty to Towns and Cities to make choyse of Burgesses which antiently had no such liberty treating with forein States denouncing war or making Leagues or Peace after war commenced granting safe conduct and protection indenizing of Aliens giving of honors unto eminent and deserving persons rewarding pardoning coyning printing making of corporations and dispensing with the Laws in force they are such points which never Parliament did pretend to till these later times wherein every thing almost is lawfull I am sure more lawâ—ull than to fear God and honor the King Nor do I find that Mr. Prynne hath laboured to entitle them to these particulars For levying of Arms and the command of the Militia besides that the Kings of England have ever been in possession of it and that possession never disturbed
trusted or at least supposed to be intrusted with sufficient power as well to regulate his authority as to controll his actions If Calvin be allowed to have common sense and to have wit and words enough to expresse his meaning as even his greatest Adversaries do confesse he had it must be granted that he did not take the King of what Realm soever to be any of the three Estates or if he did he would have thought of other means to restrain his insolencies than by leaving him in his own hands to his own correction Either then Calvin is mistaken in the three Estates if he be mistaken in designing the men he aims at may he not be mistaken in the power he gives them or else the King is noâ—e indeed can be none of the three Estates qui primarios conventus peragunt who usually convene in Parliament for those ends and purposes before remembred But not to trust to him alone though questionlesse he be ideoneus testis in the present case Let us behold the Assembly of the three Estates or Conventus Ordinum in France from whence it is conceived that all Assemblies of this kind had their first Original and we shall find a very full description of them in the Assemblie des Estats at Bloys under Henry 3. Anno 1577. of which thus Thuanus f Thuanus in histor sui temp l. 63. Rex insublimi loco sub uranisco sedebat c. The King saith he sate on an high erected Throne under the Canopy of State the Queen-mother and the Queen his wife and all the Cardinals Princes Peers upon either hand And then it followeth Transtris infra dispositis ad dextram suam sacri Ordinis Delegati ad laevam Nobilitas infra plebetus ordo sedebat that on some lower forms there sate the Delegates of the Clergy towards the right hand of the King the Nobility towards the left and the Commissioners for the Commons in the space below We may conjecture at the rest by the view of this Of those in Spain by those Conventions of the States which before we spoke of at Burgos Monson Toledo and in other places in which the King is alwaies mentioned as a different person who called them and dissolved them as he saw occasion For Scotland it is ordinary in the stile of Parliaments to say the King and the Estates do ordain and constitute g Statutes of Scotland for which I do refer you to the Book of Statutes which clearly makes the K. to be a different person from the Estates of that Kingdome And as for England besides what may be gathered from the former Chapter we read in the History of Titus Livius touching the Reign and Acts of K. Henry the 5th that when his Funerals were ended the three Estates of the Realm of England did assemble together and declared his Son K. Henry the 6. being an Infant of 8 months old to be their Soveraign Lord h Tit. Liv. M. S. in Bibl. Bodl. as his Heir and Successor And in the Parliament Rolls of K. Richard the 3d. there is mention of a Bill or Parchment presented to that Prince being then Duke of Glocester on the behalf and in the name of the three Estates of this Realm of England that is to wit of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and of the Commons by name which forasmuch as neither the said three Estates nor the persons which delivered it on their behalf were then assembled in form of Parliament was afterwards in the first Parliament of that King by the same three Estates assembled in this present Parliament I speak the very words of the Act it self and by authority of the same enrolled recorded and approved i Ap Speed in K. Rich. 3â— And at the request and by the assent of the three Estates of this Realm that is to say the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons of this Land assembled in this present Parliament and by authority of the same it be pronounced decreed and declared that our said Soveraign Lord the King was and is the very and undoubted heir of this Realm of England c. And so it is acknowledged in a k 1 Eliz. cap. 3. Statute of 1 Eliz. ca. 3. where the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons in that Parliament assembled being said expresly and in terminis to represent the three Estates of the Realm of England did recognize the Queens Majesty to be their true lawfull and undoubted Soveraign Liege Lady and Queen This makes it evident that the King was not accounted in the times before for one of the three Estates of Parliament nor can be so accounted in the present times For considering that the Lords and Commons do most confessedly make two of the three Estates and that the Clergy in an other Act of Parliament of the said Queens time are confessed to be one of the greatest States of the Realm l Statut. 8 Eliz. cap. 1. which Statute being still in force doth clearly make the Clergy to be the third either there must be more than three Estates in this Kingdome which is against the Doctrine of the present times or else the King is none of the Estates as indeed he is not which was the matter to be proved But I spend too much time in confuting that which hath so little ground to stand on more than the dangerous consequences which are covered under it For if the King be granted once to be no more than one of the three Estates how can it choose but follow from so sad a Principle that he is of no more power and consideration in the time of Parliament than the House of Peers which sometimes hath consisted of three Lords no more or than the House of Commons only which hath many times consisted of no more than 80 or an hundred Gentlemen but of far lesse consideration to all intents and purposes in the Law whatever than both the Houses joyned together What else can follow hereupon but that the King must be co-ordinate with his two Houses of Parliament and if co-ordinate then to be over-ruled by their Joynt concurrence bound to conform unto their Acts and confirm their Ordinances or upon case of inconformity and non-complyance to see them put in execution against his liking and consents to his foul reproach And what at last will be the issue of this dangerous consequence but that the Lords content themselves to come down to the Commons and the King be no otherwise esteemed of than the chief of the Lords the Princeps Senatus if you will or the Duke of Venice at the best no more which if Sir Edward Dering may be credited as I think he may in this particular seems to have been the main design of some of the most popular and powerfull Members then sitting with him for which I do refer the Reader to his book of Speeches Which dangerous consequents whether they were observed at
Spain England Scotland the Tartars Muscovites omnium paene Africae Asiae imperiorum and of almost all the Kingdomes of Africk and Asia But this we shall the better see by looking over the particulars as they lye before us 3. But first before we come unto those particulars we will look backwards on the condition and authority of the Jewish Sanhedrim which being instituted and ordained by the Lord himself may serve to be a leading case in the present business For being that the Iews were the Lords own people and their Kings honored with the title of the Lords Anointed it will be thought that if the Sanhedrim or the great Councel of the seventie had any authority and power over the Kings of Iudah of whose jus Regni such a large description is made by God himself in the first of Sam. cap. 8. the three Estates may reasonably expect the like in these parts of Christendom Now for the authority of the Sanhedrim it is said by Cardinal Baronius that they had power of judicature over the Law the Prophets and the Kings themselves u Baron Annal. Eccl. An. 31. §. 10. Erat horum summa autoritas ut qui de lege cognoscerent Prophetis simul de Regnibus judicarent Which false position he confirms by as false an instance affirming in the very next words horum judicio Herodem Regem postulatum esse that King Herod was convented and convicted by them for which he cites Iosephus with the like integrity I should have wondred very much what should occasion such a grosse mistake in the learned Cardinal had I not shewn before that as he makes the Sanhedrim to rule the King so he hath made the high Priest to rule the Sanhedrim which to what purpose it was done every man can tell who knoweth the Cardinal endeavoureth nothing more in his large Collections than to advance the dignity and supremacy of the Popes of Rome x Id. in Epist dedicator But for the power pretended to be in the Sanhedrim and their proceedings against Herod as their actual King Iosephus when he cite's is so far from saying it that he doth expresly say the contrary For as Josephus tells the story Hyrcanus was then King not Herod and Herod of so little hopes to enjoy the Kingdom that he could not possibly pretend any Title to it But having a command in Galilee procured by Antipater his Father of the good King Hyrcanus he had played the wanton Governor amongst them and put some of them to death against Law and Justice For which the Mothers of the slain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did often call upon the King and people in the open Temple 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 y Joseph Antâ—q Judic l. 14. cap. 17. c. that Herod might answer for the murther before the Sanhedrim Which being granted by the King he was accordingly convented by them and had been questionlesse condemned had not the King who loved him dearly given him notice of it on whose advertisement he went out of the Town and so escaped the danger This is the substance of that story and this gives no authority to the Court of Sanhedrim over the persons or the actions of the Kings of Iudah Others there are who make them equal to the Kings though not superiour Magnam fuisse Senatus autoritatem Regiae velut parem z Grotius in Matth. cap. 5. v. 22. saith the learned Grotius And for the proof thereof allege those words of Sedechias in the Book of Ieremie who when the Princes of his Realm required of him to put the Prophet to death returned this Answer a Jerem. 38. 5. Behold he is in your hâ—nd Rex enim contra vos nihil potest for the King is not he that can do any thing against you Which words are also cited by Mr. Prynne to prove that the King of England hath no Negative voyce b Prynne of Parl. pt 2. p. 73. but by neither rightly For Calvin who as one observeth composed his expositions on the book of God according to the doctrine of his Institutions c Hookers preface would not have lost so fair an evidence for the advancing of the power of his three Estates had he conceived he could have made it serviceable to his end and purpose But he upon the contrary finds fault with them who do so expound it or think the King did speak so honorably of his Princes ac si nihil iis sit nequandum d Calvin in Jerem. c. 38. v. 5. as if it were not to deny them any thing Not so saith he it rather is amerulenta Regis querimonia a sad and bitter complaint of the poor captivated King against his Counsellors by whom he was so over-ruled ut velit nolit cedere iis cognitur that he was forced to yield to them whether he would or not which he expresly calls inexcusabilem arrogantium an intollerable piece of sawciness in those Princes and an exclusion of the King from his legal rights 4 Let us next take a view of such Christian Kingdomes as are under the command of absolute Monarchs And first we will begin with the Realm of France the government whereof is meerly Regal if not despotical such as that of a Master over his Servants which Aristotle defineth to be a form of Government 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c Aristot Politic. l. 3. wherein the King may do whatsoever he list according to the counsel of his own mind For in his Arbitrary Edicts which he sendeth abroad he never mentioneth the consent of the People or the approbation of the Counsel or the advice of his Judges which might be thought to derogate too much from his absolute power but concludes all of them in this Regal form Car tel est nostre plaisir for such is our pleasure And though the Court of Parliament in Paris do use to take upon them to peruse his Edicts before they passe abroad for d View of France by Dallington Laws and sometime to demurr on his grants and patents and to petition him to reverse the same as they see occasion yet their perusal is a matter but of meer formality and their demurs more dilatory than effectual It is the Car tel est nostre plaisir that concludes the business and the Kings pleasure is the Law which that Court is ruled by As for the Assemblie des Estats or Conventus Ordinum it was reputed antiently the Supreme Court for government and justice of all the Kingdome and had the cognizance of the greatest and most weighty affairs of State But these meetings have been long since discontinued and almost forgotten there being no such Assembly from the time of K. Charles the eighth to the beginning of the reign of K. Charles the ninth e Thuanus hist sui temp which was 70 years and not many since And to say truth they could be but of little use as the world