should have been Commended You see by this that many things are made Crimes and no Crimes which are not so in their own Nature but by Diversity of Law made upon Diversity of Opinion or of Interest by them which have Authority And yet those things whether good or evil will pass so with the Vulgar if they hear them often with odious terms recited for hainous Crimes in themselves as many of those Opinions which are in themselves Pious and Lawful were heretofore by the Popes Interest therein called Detestable Heresie Again some Controversies are of things done upon the Sea others of things done upon the Land There need by many Courts to the deciding of so many kinds of Controversies What order is there taken for their Distribution La. There be an extraordinary great number of Courts in England First there be the Kings Courts both for Law and Equity in matters Temporal which are the Chancery the Kings-Bench the Court of Common-Pleas and for the Kings Revenue the Court of the Exchequer and there be Subjects Courts by Priviledge as the Court in London and other priviledg'd places And there be other Courts of Subjects as the Courts of Landlords called the Court of Barons and the Courts of Sherifs Also the Spiritual Courts are the Kings Courts at this day though heretofore they were the Popes Courts And in the Kings Courts some have their Judicature by Office and some by Commission and some Authority to Hear and Determine and some only to Inquire and to Certifie into other Courts Now for the Distribution of what Pleas every Court may hold it is commonly held that all the Pleas of the Crown and of all Offences contrary to the Peace are to be holden in the Kings Bench or by Commissioners for Bracton saith Sciendum est quod si Actiones sunt Criminales in Curia Domini Regis debent determinari cum sit ibi poena Câ—rporalis infligenda hoc coram ipso Rege si tangat personam suam sicut Crimen Laesae Majestatis vel coram Justitiariis ad hoc specialiter assignatis That is to say That if the Plea be Criminal it ought to be determin'd in the Court of our Lord the King because there they have power to inflict Corporeal punishment and if the Crime be against his person as the Crime of Treason it ought to be determin'd before the King himself or if it be against a private person it ought to be determin'd by Justices Assigned that is to say before Commissioners It seems by this that heretofore Kings did hear and determine Pleas of Treason against themselves by their own Persons but it has been otherwise a long time and is now For it is now the Office of the Lord Steward of England in the Tryal of a Peer to hold that Plea by a Commission especially for the same In Causes concerning Meum and Tuum the King may sue either in the Kings-Bench or in the Court of Common Pleas as it appears by Fitzherbert in his Natura Brevium at the Writ of Escheat Ph. A King perhaps will not sit to determine of Causes of Treason against his Person lest he should seem to make himself Judge in his own Cause but that it shall be Judged by Judges of his own making can never be avoided which is also one as if he were Judge himself La. To the Kings-Bench also I think belongeth the Hearing and Determining of all manner of Breaches of the Peace whatsoever saving alwayes to the King that he may do the same when he pleaseth by Commissioners In the time of Henry the 3d and Edward the 1st when Bracton wrote the King did usually send down every seven years into the Country Commissioners called Justices Itinerant to Hear and Determine generally all Causes Temporal both Criminal and Civil whose places have been now a long time supplyed by the Justices of Assize with Commissions of the Peace of Oyer and Terminer and of Goal-delivery Ph. But why may the King only Sue in the Kings-Bench or Court of Common-Pleas which he will and no other Person may do the same La. There is no Statute to the contrary but it seemeth to be the Common-Law for Sir Edw. Coke 4 Inst. setteth down the Jurisdiction of the Kings-Bench which he says has First Jurisdiction in all Pleas of the Crown Secondly The Correcting of all manner of Errors of other Justices and Judges both of Judgments and Process except of the Court of Exchequer which he sayes is to this Court Proprium quarto modo Thirdly That it has power to Correct all Misdemeanours extrajudicial tending to the breach of the Peace or oppression of the Subjects or raising of Factions Controversies Debates or any other manner of Misgovernment Fourthly It may hold Plea by Writ out of the Chancery of all Trespasses done Vi Armis Fifthly It hath power to hold Plea by Bill for Debt Detinu Covenant Promise and all other personal Actions but of the Jurisdiction of the Kings-Bench in Actions real he says nothing save that if a Writ in a Real Action be abated by Judgment in the Court of Common-Pleas and that the Judgment be by a Writ of Error reversed in the Kings-Bench then the Kings-Bench may proceed upon the Writ Ph. But how is the Practice La. Real Actions are commonly decided as well in the Kings-Bench as in the Court of Common-Pleas Ph. When the Kng by Authority in Writing maketh a Lord-Chief-Justice of the Kings-Bench does he not set down what he makes him for La. Sir Edw Coke sets down the Letters Patents whereby of Antient time the Lord Chief-Justice was Constituted wherein is expressed to what end he hath his Office viz. Pro Conservatione nostra tranquilitatis Regni nostri ad Justitiam universis singulis de Regno nostro exhibendam Constituimus Dilectum Fidelem nostrum P. B. Justitiarium Angliae quamdiu nobis placuerit Capitalem c. That is to say for the preservation of our self and of the Peace of our Realm and for the doing of Justice to all and singular our Subjects we have Constituted our Beloved and Faithful P. B. during our pleasure Chief Justice of England c. Ph. Methinks 't is very plain by these Letters Patents that all Causes Temporal within the Kingdom except the Pleas that belong to the Exchequer should be decidable by this Lord-Chief-Justice For as for Causes Criminal and that concern the Peace it is granted him in these words for the Conservation of our self and peace of the Kingdom wherein are contained all Pleas Criminal and in the doing of Justice to all and singular the Kings Subjects are comprehended all Pleas Civil And as to the Court of Common-Pleas it is manifest it may hold all manner of Civil-Pleas except those of the Exchequer by Magna Charta Cap. 11. So that all original Writs concerning Civil-Pleas are returnable into either of the said Courts but how is the Lord-Chief-Justice made now La. By these
words in their Letters Patents Constituimus vos Justitiarium nostrum Capitalem ad Placita coram nobis tenenda durante beneplacito nostro That is to say we have made you our Chief-Justice to hold Pleas before our self during our pleasure But this Writ though it be shorter does not at all abridge the power they had by the former And for the Letters Patents for the Chief-Justice of the Common-Pleas they go thus Constituimus dilectum Fidelem c. Capitalem Justitiarium de Communi Banco Habendum c. quamdiu nobis placuerit cum vadiis foedis ab antiquo debitis consuetis Id est We have Constituted our Beloved and Faithful c. Chief-Justice of the Common-Bench To have c. during our pleasure with the ways and Fees thereunto heretofore due and usual Ph. I find in History that there have been in England always a Chancellour and a Chief-Justice of England but of a Court of Common-Pleas there is no mention before Magna Charta Common-Pleas there were ever both here and I think in all Nations for Common-Pleas and Civil-Pleas I take to be the same La. Before the Statute of Magna Charta Common-Pleas as Sir Edw. Coke granteth 2 Inst. p. 21. might have been holden in the Kings-Bench and that Court being removeable at the Kings will the Returns of Writs were Coram Nobis ubicunque fuerimus in Anglia whereby great trouble of Jurors ensued and great charges of the parties and delay of Justice and that for these causes it was Ordain'd that the Common-Pleas should not follow the King but be held in a place certain Ph. Here Sir Edw. Coke declares his Opinion that no Common-Plea can be holden in the Kings-Bench in that he says they might have been holden then And yet this doth not amount to any probable proof that there was any Court of Common-Pleas in England before Magna Charta For this Statute being to ease the Jurors and lessen the Charges of Parties and for the Expedition of Justice had been in Vain if there had been a Court of Common-Pleas then standing for such a Court was not necessarily to follow the King as was the Chancery and the Kings-Bench Besides unless the Kings-Bench wheresoever it was held Plea of civil Causes the Subject had not at all been eased by this Statute For supposing the King at York had not the Kings Subjects about London Jurors and parties as much trouble and charge to go to York as the People about York had before to go to London Therefore I can by no means believe otherwise then that the Erection of the Court of Common-Pleas was the effect of that Statute of Magna Charta Cap. 11. And before that time not existent though I think that for the multiplicity of Suits in a great Kingdom there was need of it La. Perhaps there was not so much need of it as you think For in those times the Laws for the most part were in setling rather than setled and the old Saxon Laws concerning Inheritances were then practised by which Laws speedy Justice was Executed by the Kings Writs in the Courts of Barons which were Landlords to the rest of the Freeholders and Suits of Barons in County-Courts and but few Suits in the Kings Courts but when Justice could not be had in those Inferior Courts but at this day there be more Suits in the Kings Courts than any one Court can dispatch Ph. Why should there be more Suits now than formerly For I believe this Kingdom was as well Peopled then as now La. Sir Edw. Coke 4 Inst. p. 76. assigneth for it six Causes 1. Peace 2. Plenty 3. The Dissolution of Religious Houses and dispersing of their Lands among so many several persons 4. The multitude of Informers 5. The number of Concealers 6. The multitude of Attorneys Ph. I see Sir Edw. Coke has no mind to lay any fault upon the Men of his own Profession and that he Assigns for Causes of the Mischiefs such things as would be Mischief and Wickedness to amend for if Peace and Plenty be the cause of this Evil it cannot be removed but by War and Beggery and the Quarrels arising about the Lands of Religious Persons cannot arise from the Lands but from the doubtfulness of the Laws And for Informers they were Authorised by Statutes to the Execution of which Statutes they are so necessary as that their number cannot be too great and if it be too great the fault is in the Law it self The number of Concealers are indeed a number of Couseners which the Law may easily Correct And lastly for the multitude of Attorneys it is the fault of them that have the power to admit or refuse them For my part I believe that Men at this day have better learn't the Art of Caviling against the words of a Statute than heretofore they had and thereby encourage themselves and others to undertake Suits upon little reason Also the variety and repugnancy of Judgments of Common-Law do oftentimes put Men to hope for Victory in causes whereof in reason they had no ground at all Also the ignorance of what is Equity in their own causes which Equity not one Man in a thousand ever Studied and the Lawyers themselves seek not for their Judgments in their own Breasts but in the precedents of former Judges as the Antient Judges sought the same not in their own Reason but in the Laws of the Empire Another and perhaps the greatest cause of multitude of Suits is this that for want of Registring of conveyances of Land which might easily be done in the Townships where the Lands ly a Purchase cannot easily be had which will not be litigious Lastly I believe the Coveteousness of Lawyers was not so great in Antient time which was full of trouble as they have been since in time of Peace wherein Men have leisure to study fraud and get employment from such Men as can encourage to Contention And how ample a Field they have to exercise this Mystery in is manifest from this that they have a power to Scan and Construe every word in a Statute Charter Feofment Lease or other Deed Evidence or Testimony But to return to the Jurisdiction of this Court of the Kings-Bench where as you say it hath power to correct and amend the Errors of all other Judges both in Process and in Judgments cannot the Judges of the Common-Pleas correct Error in Process in their own Courts without a Writ of Error from another Court La. Yes and there be many Statutes which Command them so to do Ph. When a Writ of Error is brought out of the Kings-Bench be it either Error in Process or in Law at whose Charge is it to be done La. At the Charge of the Clyent Ph. I see no reason for that for the Clyent is not in fault who never begins a Suit but by the advice of his Council Learned in the Law whom he pays for his Council given Is not
this the fault of his Councellor Nor when a Judge in the Common-Pleas hath given an Erroneous Sentence it is always likely that the Judge of the Kings-Bench will reverse the Judgment though there be no Question but as you may find in Bracton and other Learned Men he has power to do it because being Professors of the same Common-Law they are perswaded for the most part to give the same Judgments For Example if Sir Edw. Coke in the last Terme that he sate Lord-Chief-Justice in the Court of Common-Pleas had given an Erroneous Judgment that when he was removed and made Lord-Chief-Justice of the Kings-Bench would therefore have reversed the said Judgment it is possi he might but not very likely And therefore I do believe there is some other power by the King constituted to reverse Erroneous Judgments both in the Kings-Bench and in the Court of Common-Pleas La. I think not for there is a Statute to the contrary made 4 o Hen. 4. cap. 23. in these words Whereas as well in Plea Real as in Plea Personal after Judgment in the Court of our Lord the King the Parties be made to come upon grievous pain sometimes before the King himself sometimes before the Kings Council and sometimes to the Parliament to answer thereof anew to the great Impoverishing of the Parties aforesaid and to the subversion of the Common-Law of the Land it is ordained and established that after Judgment given in the Court of our Lord the King the Parties and their Heirs shall be there in Peace until the Judgment be undone by Attaint or by Error if there be Error as hath been used by the Laws in the times of the Kings Progenitors Ph. This Statute is so far from being repugnant to that I say as it seemeth to me to have been made expresly to confirm the same For the substance of the Statuâ—e is that there shall be no Suit made by either of the Parties for any thing adjudged either in the Kings-Bench or Court of Common-Pleas before the Judgment be undone by Error or Corruption prov'd and that this was the Common-Law before the making of this Statute which could not be except there were before this Statute some Courts authorised to examine and correct such Errors as by the Plaintiff should be assign'd The inconvenience which by this Statute was to be remedied was this that often Judgment given in the Kings Courts by which are meant in this place the Kings-Bench and Court of Common-Pleas the Party against whom the Judgment was given did begin a new Suit and cause his Adversary to come before the King himself here by the King himself must be understood the King in Person for though in a Writ by the words Coram nobis is understood the Kings-Bench yet in a Statute it is never so nor is it strange seeing in those days the King did usually sit in Court with his Council to hear as sometimes King James and sometimes the same Parties commenced their Suit before the Privy-Council though the King were absent and sometimes before the Parliament the former Judgment yet standing For remedy whereof it was ordained by this Statute that no Man should renew his Suit till the former Judgment was undone by Attaint or Error which Reversing of a Judgment had been impossible if there had been no Court besides the aforesaid two Courts wherein the Errors might be Assigned Examin'd and Judg'd for no Court can be esteemed in Law or Reason a Competent Judge of its own Errors There was therefore before this Statute some other Court existent for the hearing of Errors and Reversing of Erroneous Judgments What Court this was I enquire not yet but I am sure it could not be either the Parliament or the Privy-Council or the Court wherein the Erroneous Judgment was given La. The Doctor and Student discourses of this Statute cap. 18. much otherwise than you do For the Author of that Book saith that against an Erroneous Judgment all Remedy is by this Statute taken away And though neither Reason nor the Office of a King nor any Law positive can prohibit the remedying of any Injury much less of an unjust Sentence yet he shows many Statutes wherein a Mans Conscience ought to prevail above the Law Ph. Upon what ground can he pretend that all Remedy in this case is by this Statute prohibited La. He says it is thereby enacted that Judgment given by the Kings Courts shall not be examin'd in the Chancery Parliament nor elsewhere Ph. Is there any mention of Chancery in this Act It cannot be examin'd before the King and his Council nor before the Parliament but you see that before the Statute it was examin'd somewhere and that this Statute will have it examin'd there again And seeing the Chancery was altogether the highest Office of Judicature in the Kingdom for matter of Equity and that the Chancery is not here forbidden to examine the Judgments of all other Courts at least it is not taken from it by this Statute But what Cases are there in this Chapter of the Doctor and Student by which it can be made probable that when Law and Conscience or Law and Equity seem to oppugne one another the written Law should be preferr'd La. If the Defendant wage his Law in an Action of Debt brought upon a true Debt the Plaintiff hath no means to come to his Debt by way of Compulsion neither by Subpoena nor otherwise and yet the Defendant is bound in Conscience to pay him Ph. Here is no preferring that I see of the Law above Conscience or Equity for the Plaintiff in this case loseth not his Debt for want either of Law or Equity but for want of Proof for neither Law nor Equity can give a Man his Right unless he prove it La. Also if the Grand-Jury in Attaint affirm a false Verdict given by the Petty-Jury there is no farther Remedy but the Conscience of the party Ph. Here again the want of Proof is the want of Remedy for if he can prove that the Verdict given was false the King can give him remedy such way as himself shall think best and ought to do it in case the Party shall find surety if the same Verdict be again affirmed to satisfie his Adversary for the Dammage and Vexation he puts him to La. But there is a Statute made since viz. 27 Eliz. c. 8. by which that Statute of Hen. 4. 23. is in part taken away for by that Statute Erroneous Judgments given in the Kings-Bench are by a Writ of Error to be examin'd in the Exchequer-Chamber before the Justices of the Common-Bench and the Barons of the Exchequer and by the preamble of this Act it appears that Erroneous Judgments are only to be reform'd by the High Court of Parliament Ph. But here is no mention that the Judgments given in the Court of Common-Pleas should be brought in to be examin'd in the Exchequer-Chamber why therefore may not the Court of Chancery
examinâ—â— Judgment given in the Court of Common-Pleas La. You deny not but by the Antient Law of England the Kings-Bench may examine the Judgment given in the Court of Common-Pleas Ph. 'T is true but why may not also the Court of Chancery do the same especially if the fault of the Judgment be against Equity and not against the Letter of the Law La. There is no necessity of that for the same Court may examine both the Letter and the Equity of the Statute Ph. You see by this that the Jurisdiction of Courts cannot easily be distinguished but by the King himself in his Parliament The Lawyers themselves cannot do it for you see what Contention there is between Courts as well as between particular Men. And whereas you say that Law of 4 Hen. 4. 23. is by that of 27 Eliz. cap. 8. taken away I do not find it so I find indeed a Diversity of opinion between the makers of the former and the latter Statute in the preamble of the latter and Conclusion of the former The Preamble of the latter is forasmuch as Erroneous Judgments given in the Court called the Kings-Bench are only to be reformed in the High Court of Parliament and the Conclusion of the former is that the contrary was Law in the times of the Kings Progenitors These are no parts of those Laws but Opinions only concerning the Antient Custom in that Case arising from the different Opinions of the Lawyers in those different times neither Commanding nor Forbidding any thing though of the Statutes themselves the one forbids that such Pleas be brought before the Parliament the other forbids it not But yet if after the Act of Hen. 4. such a Plea had been brought before the Parliament the Parliament might have Heard and Determin'd it For the Statute forbids not that nor can any Law have the force to hinder the Law of any Jurisdiction whatsoever they please to take upon them seeing it is a Court of the King and of all the People together both Lords and Commons La. Though it be yet seeing the King as Sir Edw. Coke affirms 4 Inst. p. 71. hath committed all his power Judicial some to one Court and some to another so as if any Man would render himself to the Judgment of the King in such case where the King hath committed all his power Judicial to others such a render should be to no effect And p. 73. he saith farther That in this Court the Kings of this Realm have sitten on the High Bench and the Judges of that Court on the Lower Bench at his feet but Judicature belongeth only to the Judges of that Court and in his presence they answer all Motions Ph. I cannot believe that Sir Edw. Coke how much soever he desir'd to advance the authority of himself and other Justices of the Common-Law could mean that the King in the Kings-Bench sate as a Spectator only and might not have answered all motions which his Judges answer'd if he had seen cause for it For he knew that the King was Supream Judge then in all causes Temporal and is now in all Causes both Temporal and Ecclesiastical and that there is an exceeding great penalty ordained by the Laws for them that shall deny it But Sir Edw. Coke as he had you see in many places before hath put a Fallacy upon himself by not distinguishing between Committing and Transferring He that Transferreth his power hath deprived himself of it but he that Committeth it to another to be Exercised in his name and under him is still in the Possession of the same power And therefore if a Man render himself that is to say Appealeth to the King from any Judge whatsoever the King may receive his Appeal and it shall be effectual La. Besides these 2 Courts the Kings-Bench for Pleas of the Crown and the Court of Common-Pleas for Causes Civil according to the Common-Law of England there is another Court of Justice that hath Jurisdiction in Causes both Civil and Criminal and is as Antient a Court at least as the Court of Common Pleas and this is the Court of the Lord Admiral but the proceedings therein are according to the Laws of the Roman Empire and the Causes to be determin'd there are such as arise upon the Marine Sea For so it is ordain'd by divers Statutes and confirm'd by many Precedents Ph. As for the Statutes they are always Law and Reason also for they are made by the Assent of all the Kingdom but Precedents are Judgments one contrary to another I mean divers Men in divers Ages upon the same case give divers Judgments Therefore I will ask your Opinion once more concerning any Judgments besides those of the King as to their validity in Law But what is the difference between the proceedings of the Court of Admiralty and the Court of Common-Law La. One is that the Court of Admiralty proceedeth by two Witnesses without any either Grand-Jury to Indict or Petty to Convict and the Judge giveth Sentence according to the Laws Imperial which of old time were in force in all this part of Europe and now are Laws not by the Will of any other Emperor or Forraign Power but by the Will of the Kings of England that have given them force in their own Dominions the reason whereof seems to be that the causes that arise at Sea are very often between us and People of other Nations such as are Governed for the most part by the self same laws Imperial Ph. How can it precisely enough be determin'd at Sea especially near the mouth of a very great River whether it be upon the Sea or within the Land For the Rivers also are as well as their Banks within or a part of one Country or other La. Truly the Question is difficult and there have been many Suits about it wherein the Question has been whose Jurisdiction it is in Ph. Nor do I see how it can be decided but by the King himself in case it be not declar'd in the Lord Admirals Letters Patents La. But though there be in the Letters Patents a power given to hold Plea in some certain cases to any of the Statutes concerning the Admiralty the Justices of the Common-Law may send a Prohibition to that Court to proceed in the Plea though it be with a non-obstante of any Statute Ph. Methinks that That should be against the Right of the Crown which cannot be taken from it by any Subject For that Argument of Sir Edw. Coke's that the King has given away all his Judicial Power is worth nothing because as I have said before he cannot give away the Essential Rights of his Crown and because by a non-obstante he declares he is not deceived in his Grant La. But you may see by the Precedents alledged by Sir Edw. Coke the contrary has been perpetually practised Ph. I see not that perpetually for who can tell but there may have been given other Judgments in such cases
oldness newness or swelling vanity of the words and of the last sort is that spoken of in 2 Pet. 2. 18. By this fallacie the Papists conclude the Fathers to be on their side for deserving by good works Whosoever saith Mans merits are Crowned they say Mans works do deserve But the Fathers say Mans merits are Crowned Therefore the Fathers say Mans works do deserve Where Merits is an old word put for any works done under the hope of reward whether it come by desart or freedom of promise Doubtfulness of a word Likeness of name is either called Homonymia or by a Trope or fineness of speech The Likeness of name or Homonymia is when one word is given to signifie divers things As He that believeth shall be saved The Hypocrites to whom our Saviour Christ would not commit himself believed Therefore they shall be saved Where Faith doth note out both a justifying Faith and a dead Faith Doubtfulness by a Trope is when a word is taken properly which is meant figuratively or contrarily As That which Christ saith is true Christ saith that Bread is his Body Therefore it is true Where by body is meant the Sign or Sacrament of his body Unto the first a perfect Logician would answer that the Proposition is not an Axiome necessarily true according to the Rule of truth because of the doubtfulness of the old and new signification of merit And if the word be far worn out of use that it be not understood then the answer must be I understand it not or put your Axiome in plain words To the second he would answer that the Proposition or first part is not according to the Rule of Righteousness because the proper Subject and Adjunct are not joyned together which hath justifying faith or believing sincerely shall be saved and then the assumption being in the same sense inferred is false Unto the third he would answer that the Assumption is not necessarily true because if the word Body be taken properly it is not then true that is set down but if it be taken figuratively it is true and therefore would bid him make the Assumption necessarily true and then say Christ saith in proper words It is my Body and then it is false Hitherto of the fallacies in single words Now of those that are joyned together It is either Amphibolia or the doubtfulness of speech or Exposition or unapt setting down of the reason The first is when there is doubtfulness in the frame of speech as thus If any obey not our word by a Letter note him where some refer by a Letter to the first part of the Sentence and some to the latter where the signification of the word and right pointing doth shew that it must be referred to the first The answer is that the right and wise placing of the Sentence is perverted Unapt setting down of the Reason is when the parts of the Question and the reasons intreated is not set down in fit words as All sin is evil Every Child of God doth sin Therefore every Child of God is evil Here the answer according to Logick is that the assumption doth not take the argument out of the proposition but putteth in another thing and so it is no right Frame of concluding as appeareth by the definition of the assumption Hitherto of the deceits of reason which lye in words Now of the default of Logick called Sophisme It is either General or Special The General are those which cannot be referred to any part of Logick They are either begging of the question called the Petition of the principle or bragging of no proof Begging of the Question is when nothing is brought to prove but the Question or that which is doubtful As That Righteousness which is both by Faith and works doth justifie But this Righteousness is inherent Righteousness Ergo. Here the Proposition in effect is nothing but a Question If together with the Blood of Christ we must make perfect satisfaction for our sins before we come to Heaven Then there must be Purgatory for them that die without perfection But the first is so Ergo. Where the argument they bring is as doubtful and needeth as much proof as the Question The answer is this out of the definition of the Syllogisme that there is no new argument invented therefore it cannot be a certain frame of concluding Bragging of no proof is when that which is brought is too much called Redounding It is either impertinent to another matter called Heterogenium or a vain repetition called Tautologia Impertinent or not to the purpose is when any thing is brought for a proof which is nothing near to the matter in hand whereunto the common Proverb giveth answer I ask you of Cheese you answer me of Chalk A vain repetition is when the same thing in effect though not in words is repeated as they that after long time of Prayer say Let us pray And this fallacie our Saviour Christ condemneth in prayer Mat. 5. and this is a fault in Method Special are those which may be referred to certain parts of Logick and they are of two sorts Such as are referred to the spring of reasons called Invention or to Judgment Those referred to Invention are when any thing is put for a reason which is not as no cause for a cause no effect for an effect and so of the rest In the Distribution this is a proper Fallacie when any thing simply or generally granted thereby is inferred a certain respect or special not meant nor intended as He that saith there are not seven Sacraments saith true He that saith there are only three saith there are not seven Therefore he that saith there are three saith true The right answer is that the Proposition is not necessarily true for there may be a way to say there are not seven and yet affirm an untruth Fallacies of judgment are those that are referred to the judgment of one sentence or of more Of one Sentence either to the Proprieties of an Axiome or to the sorts To the Proprieties as when a true is put for a false and contrarily and Affirmative for a Negative and contrarily So some take the words of Saint John I do not say concerning it that you shall not pray for no denyal when as it doth deny to pray for that sin To the sorts are referred either to the Simple or Compound The first when the General is taken for the Special and contrarily So the Papists by this fallacy do answer to that general saying of Paul We are justified by Faith without the works of the Law Which they understand of works done before Faith when that was never called in doubt The fallacies which are referred to a compound Axiome are those which are referred either to a disjoyned or knitting Axiome To a disjoyned Axiome when the parts indeed are not disjoyned As Solomon was either a King or did bear Rule To a Knitting Axiome is when the parts
whatsoever was repugnant to those 4 General Councils For if they had I believe the Anabaptists of which there was great plenty in those times would one time or other have been question'd upon this Article of the Nicene Creed I believe one Baptism for the Remission of sins nor was the Commission it self for a long time after Registred that Men might in such uncertainty take heed and abstain for their better safety from speaking of Religion any thing at all But by what Law was this Heretick Legat burnt I grant he was an Arian and his Heresie contrary to the Determination of the Church of England in the Highest Points of Christianity but seeing there was no Statute-Law to burn him and no Penalty forbidden by what Law by what Authority was he burn't La. That this Legat was accused of Heresie was no fault of the High Commissioners but when he was accused it had been a fault in them not to have examin'd him or having examin'd him and found him an Arian not to have judged him so or not to have certified him so All this they did and this was all that belonged unto them they medled not with his Burning but left him to the Secular Power to do with him what they pleased Ph. Your Justification of the Commissioners is nothing to the Question the Question is by what Law he was burn't the Spiritual-Law gives no Sentence of Temporal Punishment and Sir Edw. Coke confesseth that he could not be burned and Burning forbidden by Statute-Law By what Law then was he burned La. By the Common-Law Ph. What 's that It is not Custom for before the time of Henry the 4th there was no such Custom in England for if there had yet those Laws that came after were but Confirmations of the Customs and therefore the Repealing of those Laws was a Repealing of the Custom For when King Ed. the 6th and Queen Eliz. abolished those Statutes they abolished all Pains and consequently Burning or else they had abolished nothing And if you will say he was burn't by the Law of Reason you must tell me how there can be Proportion between Doctrine and Burning there can be no Equality nor Majority nor Minority Assigned between them The Proportion that is between them is the Proportion of the Mischief which the Doctrine maketh to the Mischief to be Inflicted on the Doctor and this is to be measur'd only by him that hath the charge of Governing the People and consequently the Punishing of Offences can be determined by none but by the King and that if it extend to life or member with the Assent of Parliament La. He does not draw any Argument for it from Reason but alledgeth for it this Judgment executed upon Legat and a story out of Hollingshed and Stow But I know that neither History nor Precedent will pass with you for Law And though there be a Writ de haeretico comburendo in the Register as you may Read in Fitzherbert grounded upon the Statutes of 2 H. 4. cap. 15. and 2 H. 5. cap. 7. yet seeing those Statutes are void you will say the VVrit is also void Ph. Yes indeed will I. Besides this I understand not how that is true that he saith that the Diocesan hath Jurisdiction of Heresie and that so it was put in ure in all Queen Elizabeths Reign whereas by the Statute it is manifest that all Jurisdiction spiritual was given under the Queen to the High Commissioners how then could any one Diocesan have any part thereof without deputation from them which by their Letters Patents they could not grant nor was it reasonable they should For the Trust was not committed to the Bishops only but also to divers Lay-Persons who might have an Eye upon their Proceedings lest they should Incroach upon the power Temporal But at this day there is neither Statute nor any Law to Punish Doctrine but the ordinary Power Ecclesiastical and that according to the Canons of the Church of England only Authorized by the King the High Commission being long since abolished Therefore let us come now to such Causes Criminal as are not Capital Of Praemunire La. THe greatest Offence not Capital is that which is done against the Statute of Provisoes Ph. You have need to expound this La. This Crime is not unlike to that for which a Man is outlawed when he will not come in and submit himself to the Law saving that in Outlawries there is a long Process to precede it and he that is outlawed is put out of the Protection of the Law But for the Offence against the Statute of Provisors which is called Praemunire facias from the words in the Original VVrit if the Offender submit not himself to the Law within the space of 2 Months after notice he is presently an Outlaw And this Punishment if not Capital is equivalent to Capital For he lives secretly at the Mercy of those that know where he is and cannot without the like Peril to themselves but discover him And it has been much disputed before the time of Queen Elizabeth whether he might not be lawfully killed by any Man that would as one might kill a VVolf It is like the Punishment amongst the old Romans of being barred the use of Fire and VVater and like the great Excommunication in the Papacy when a Man might not eat or drink with the Offender without incurring the like Penalty Ph. Certainly the Offence for which this Punishment was first Ordained was some abominable Crime or of extraordinary Mischief La. So it was For the Pope you know from long before the Conquest incroached every day upon the Power Temporal VVhatsoever could be made to seem to be in ordine ad Spiritualia was in every Common-wealth claimed and haled to the Jurisdiction of the Pope And for that end in every Country he had his Court Ecclesiastical and there was scarce any cause Temporal which he could not by one shift or other hook into his Jurisdiction in such sort as to have it tryed in his own Courts at Rome or in France or in England it self By which means the Kings Laws were not regarded Judgments given in the Kings Courts were avoided and presentations to Bishopricks Abbies and other Benefices founded and endowed by the Kings and Nobility of England were bestowed by the Pope upon Strangers or such as with Money in their Purses could travel to Rome to provide themselves of such Benefices And suitably hereunto when there was a Question about a Tythe or a VVill though the point were meerly Temporal yet the Popes Court here would fetch them in or else one of the Parties would appeal to Rome Against these Injuries of the Roman Church and to maintain the Right and Dignity of the Crown of England Ed. 1. made a Statute concerning Provisors that is such as provide themselves with Benefices here from Rome for in the 25th year of his Reign he ordained in a full Parliament that the Right of Election of
Justice La. The Judgment for Felony is Ph. Heresie is before Felony in the Catalogue of the Pleas of the Crown La. He has omitted the Judgment against a Heretick because I think no Jury confin'd Heresie nor no Judge Temporal did ever pronounce Judgment upon it For the Statute of 2 H. 5. c. 7. was that the Bishop having convicted any Man of Heresie should deliver him to the Sheriff and that the Sheriff should believe the Bishop The Sheriff therefore was bound by the Statute of 2 H. 4. after he was delivered to him to burn him but that Statute being repeal'd the Sheriff could not burn him without a Writ de Heretico comburendo and therefore the Sheriff burnt Legat 9. king James by that Writ which was granted by the Judges of the Common-Law at that time and in that Writ the Judgment is expressed Ph. This is strange reasoning when Sir Edw. Coke knew and confessed that the Statutes upon which the Writ de Heretico comburendo was grounded were all repeal'd how could he think the Writ it self could be in force Or that the Statute which repealeth the Statutes for burning Hereticks was not made with an intent to forbid such burning It is manifest he understood not his Books of Common-Law For in the time of Hen. 4. and Hen. 5. the word of the Bishop was the Sheriff's warrant and there was need of no such Writ nor could he till the 25 Hen. 8. when those Statutes were repeal'd and a Writ made for that purpose and put into the Register which Writ Fitzherbert cites in the end of his natura brevium Again in the later end of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth was published a correct Register of Original and Judicial Writs and the Writ de Haeretico comburendo left out because that Statute of 25 H. 8. and all Statutes against Hereticks were repeal'd and burning forbidden And whereas he citeth for the granting of this Writ 9. Jac. the Lord Chief Justice the Lord Chief Baron and two Justices of the Common-pleas it is as to all but the Lord Chief against the Law for neither the Judges of Common-Pleas nor of the Exchequer can hold Pleas of the Crown without special Commission and if they cannot hold Plea they cannot condemn La. The Punishment for Felony is that the Felon be hang'd by the Neck till he be dead And to prove that it ought to be so he cites a Sentence from whence I know not Quod non licet Felonem pro Felonia decollare Ph. It is not indeed lawful for the Sheriff of his own Head to do it or to do otherwise than is commanded in the Judgment nor for the Judge to give any other Judgment than according to Statute-Law or the usage consented to by the King but this hinders not the King from altering his Law concerning Judgments if he see good cause La. The King may do so if he please And Sir Edw. Coke tells you how he altered particular Judgments in case of Felony and sheweth that Judgment being given upon a Lord in Parliament that he should be hang'd he was nevertheless beheaded and that another Lord had the like Judgment for another Felony and was not hang'd but beheaded and withal he shews you the inconveniency of such proceeding because saith he if hanging might be altered to beheading by the same reason it might be altered to burning stoning to Death c. Ph. Perhaps there might be inconveniency in it but 't is more than I see or he shews nor did there happen any inconveniency from the execution he citeth Besides he granteth that death being ultimum supplicium is a satisfaction to the Law But what is all this to the purpose when it belongeth not to consider such inconveniencies of Government but to the King and Parliament Or who from the authority of a deputed Judge can derive a power to censure the actions of a King that hath deputed him La. For the death of a Man by misfortune there is he saith no express Judgment nor for killing a Man in ones own defence but he saith that the Law hath in both Cases given judgment that he that so killeth a Man shall forfeit all his Goods and Chattels Debts and Duties Ph. If we consider what Sir Edw. Coke saith 1 Inst. Sect. 745. at the word Felony these Judgments are very favourable For there he saith that killing of a Man by Chance-medley or se defendendo is Felony His words are wherefore by the Law at this day under the word Felony in Commissions c. is included Petit Treason Murder Homicide burning of Houses Burglary Robbery Rape c. Chance-medley and se defendendo But if we consider only the intent of him that killeth a Man by misfortune or in his own defence the same judgments will be thought both cruel and sinful Judgments And how they can be Felony at this day cannot be understood unless there be a Statute to make them so For the Statute of 25 H. 3. cap. 25. The words whereof Murder from henceforth shall not be judged before our Justices where it is found Misfortune only but it shall take place in such as are slain by Felony and not otherwise make it manifest if they be Felonies they must also be Murders unless they have been made Felonies by some latter Statute La. There is no such latter Statute nor is it to say in Commission nor can a Commission or any thing but another Statute make a thing Felony that was not so before Ph. See what it is for a Man to distinguish Felony into several sorts before he understands the general name of Felony what it meaneth but that a Man for killing another Man by misfortune only without any evil purpose should forfeit all his Goods and Chartels Debts and Duties is a very hard Judgment unless perhaps they were to be given to the Kindred of the Man slain by way of amends for dammage But the Law is not that Is it the Common-Law which is the Law of Reason that justifies this Judgment or the Statute-Law It cannot be the Law of Reason if the Case be meer misfortune If a Man be upon his Apple-tree to gather his Apples and by ill fortune fall down and lighting on the Head of another Man kill him and by good fortune saves himself shall he for this mischance be punished with the forfeiture of his Goods to the King Does the Law of Reason warrant this He should you 'l say have look'd to his Feet that 's true but so should he that was under have look'd up to the Tree Therefore in this Case the Law of Reason as I think dictates that they ought each of them to bear his own misfortune La. In this Case I agree with you Ph. But this Case is the true Case of meer misfortune and a sufficient reprehension of the Opinion of Sir Edw. Coke La. But what if this had hapned to be done by one that had been stealing Apples upon the Tree