Regni definitum est quod Comes Johannes disseiseretur de omnibus Tenementis suis in Anglia Castella sua obsiderentur This is a Cause of Treason for that Richard the First immediately upon the demise of the Crown was King It can be no objection that this was not a formal Parliament for whether it was or no it seems the Bishops power in that Cause was allowed That it was Commune Concilium Regni and had the Nature of a Parliament And that the Bishops therein had a parity of Authority with the Temporal Lords But soon after his return King Richard held a Parliament at Notingham Hoveden mentions the Bishops that were present by Name In which Parliament our Historian tells us That the King Petiit sibi Judicium fieri de Comite Johanne fratre suo qui contra fidelitatem quam ei juraverat Castella sua occupaverat terras suas transmarinas destruxerat foedus contra eum cum inimico suo Rege Franciae contra eum inierat And the like Justice he required against the Bishop of Coventry for that he had adher'd Regi Franciae Comiti Johanni inimicis suis and it was thereupon adjudged Judicatum saith Hoveden quod Comes Johannes Episcopus Coventrensis peremptoriè citarentur si intra quadraginta dies non venerint nec Juri steterint Judicaverunt Comitem demeruisse regnum Episcopum Coventrensem subjacere judicio Episcoporum in eo quod Episcopus erat Judicio Laicorum in eo quod ipse Vicecomes Regis extiterat You see here the Bishops zeal and Loyalty that they adjoyn'd the censure of the Church which they had power of as Bishops to a Civil punishment which they with the Temporal Barons had Authority to pronounce against One of their own Order who was guilty of a design to engage a Nation in a War by opposing the lawful Successour to the Crown and this being so great a Cause We hear nothing here of any scruple the Canon gave them nor mention of any Priviledge of an Ecclesiastick to be exempt from the Judgment of the secular Court In the same Parliament Giraldus de Canavilla was accus'd of harbouring of Pirats and Praeterea saith Hoveden appellaverunt eum de Laesurâ Regiae Majestatis in eo quod ipse ad vocationem Justitiariorum Regis venire noluit nec juri stare de praedictâ receptatione raptorum neque eos ad Justitiam Regis producere sed respondet se esse hominem Comitis Johannis velle in Curiâ suâ Juri stare Hoveden tells us all that were present at this great Council Hubert Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Galfridus Arch-Bishop of York Hugh Bishop of Durham Hugh Bishop of Lincoln William Bishop of Ely William Bishop of Hereford Henry Bishop of Worcester Henry Bishop of Exeter and John Bishop of Carlisle Earl David Brother of the King of Scots Hamelinus Earl de Warrenna Ranulfus Earl of Chester William Earl of Feriers William Earl of Salisbury and Roger Bigot Let any one judge if it was likely that the Bishops did withdraw in the Case of Earl John or the said Bishop when besides them there were but six Barons present at that Parliament What manner of great Council would this Parliament have been that had consisted but of six Barons of what Authority would such a Parliament have been in the absence of the King and a troubled Estate of the Kingdom CHAP. VII IN the time of Edward the Second in the two Judgments against the Spencers the Right of the Bishops to judge in capital Causes in Parliament was carried so high in opinion that their presence was thought necessary to give Authority and validity to the Judgment of the House of Lords in such Cases and their absence was assigned for Error for Reversal of those Judgments for an Error that appears in the irregularity of the Proceedings is an allowable Cause for vacating the Judgment by the same Court that gave it And so far did that Opinion prevail that the presence of the Lords Spiritual was necessary to give Authority to a Judgment of that House that for this Cause because the Prelates were absent that Judgment was reversed Which opinion did arise upon this mistake that because the Lords Spiritual was one of the two States that made the House of Lords nothing could be done without their concurrence But though they are a distinct State from the Temporal Lords they make but one House and they are both there under one Notion and Reason viz. as they are both Lords Spiritual and Temporal the Baronage of England But let any man tell me that can whether if the Lords Spiritual had not been understood Judges in Parliament in Capital Causes it could have been a question whether their absence could avoid the Judgment in the Case of the Spencers much less that such an opinion should prevail that the Judgment should be as it was for that reason reversed And tho' the Reversal of that Judgment was set aside and the Judgment affirmed in 1 E. 3. Yet the publick Recognition of the Bishops Right in the Reversal remains an undeniable Testimony to their Right of sitting Tho' the Reversal of that Judgment was not warrantable for the reason of the Bishops absence as it could not have been reversed by reason of the absence of as many Temporal Barons if there remained enough besides to make a House to give the Judgment And yet we find the Reversal of the Reversal reversed in 21 R. 2. and the Family of the Spencers restored in the person of the Earl of Glocester So prevalent was the opinion that the Bishops Concurrence was necessary in all capital Judgments in Parliament at that time For this see Sir Robert Cottons Abridgment fol. 373. Yet it is observable that the consequence from the Bishops being a third State and an Essential constituent part of that House to a necessity of their presence in all judicial matters even of Capital Offences and Treason did so stick with that Age for they then in that Age did no more know what three States served for or that they both made but one House than some in our time can tell how to find them For that very Reason in 21 R. 2. the first Petition that the Commons made in that Parliament to the King was for that diverse Judgments were heretofore undone for that the Clergy were not present The Commons prayed the King that the Clergy would appoint some to be their Common Proctor with sufficient Authority thereunto The Prelates therefore being severally examined appointed Sir Thomas de la Piercy to assent The words of which Petition and the procuratory Letters for greater Authority and more satisfaction I have thought fit to transcribe Nos Thomas Cantuar. Robertus Eborac Archiepiscopi ac Praelati Clerus utriusque Provinciae Cantuar. Ebor. jure Ecclesiarum nostrarum Temporalium earundem habentes jus interessendi in singulis Parliamentis Domini nostri Regis
yet when the business of the Parliament was extraordinary the Writs of Summons both to the Prelates and Barons had a Premonition that a Proxy should not be allowed unless they could not possibly be present dors claus 6 E. 3. m. 36. claus 1 R. 2. m. 37. 2 R. 2. m. 29. Nor was it unusual with the Prelates to make such their Procurators who were no Members of that House In that Parliament of Carlisle under E. 1. the Bishop of Exeter sends to the Parliament Henry de Pinkney Parson of Haughton as his Proxy The Bishop of Bath and Wells sends William of Charleton a Canon of his Church In the Parliament 17 R. 2. the Bishop of Norwich made Michael Cergeaux Dean of the Arches and others his Procurators In the same year the Bishop of Durham his Proxies are John of Burton Canon of Beudly and others In the Statute of Praemunire 16 R. 2. cap. 5. it is said that the advice of the Lords Spiritual being present and of the Procurators of them that were absent was demanded This making of others then Barons of Parliament Proxies is not without President likewise in the case of Temporal Lords Lit. Procurator Parl. 4 H. 5. Thomas de la War gave his Procuratory Letters to John Frank and Richard Hulme Clerks So that it appears that by the Law of Parliament the Proxies of the Bishops in the 21th of R. 2. were legal Proxies and consequently the Bishops there virtually Besides that the lawfulness thereof doth appear for that it was required of them by the Parliament that they should make their Proxies and be present by their Procurators for this reason lest otherwise the Proceedings in that Parliament should be void CHAP. X. IT is true that the Parliament 21 R. 2. was wholly repealed by 1 H. 4. but that was for a good reason indeed because that Parliament of 21 R. 2. had delegated their whole power to a few of their number who finally without any resort back to the House made and past Laws But did ever any man before the Octavo argue at this rate that because there is one error in a case for which the Judgment is reversed that therefore there was nothing in the case legal and well considered And therefore how unreasonable and false this way of arguing is and that it is disputing against fact we shall further shew and prove For a probable Opinion still continued of the necessity of the Bishops sitting which implies a clear Recognition of a Right for in the 2 H. 5 the Earl of Salisbury petitioned the House to reverse a Judgment given against the Earl his Father Anno 2 H. 4. the Error assigned was the Absence of the Spiritual Lords The Case was much debated but the Judgment affirmed as we allow it ought to be but we produce it as an irrefragable Testimony of the Bishops Right to sit for if that had not been allowed there could not have been the least colour in the case nor matter of debate CHHP. XI BUt tho' the Actual Exercise of the Bishops Right in their own Persons though whatsoever is done by a Deputy is done in the Right of him that makes the Deputation as every body knows was for some time discontinued tho' their Right in that time was most solemnly owned and recognized yet in 28 H. 6. we find them re-continuing the Exercise of that Right and Authority and in their own Persons sitting in Judgment upon William de la Pool Duke of Suffolk who was impeach'd of Treason by the Commons for that he had sold the Realm to the French King and had fortified Wallingford Castle for a place of Refuge The Impeachment of High Treason was brought from the House of Commons by several Lords Spiritual and Temporal sent thither by the King's Command the Ninth of March the Duke was brought from the Tower into the Presence of the King the Lords Spiritual and Temporal The Impeachment was read unto him The Thirteenth of March he was sent for to come before the King the Lords Spiritual and Temporal to answer to his Charge which he did On Tuesday the Seventeenth of March the King sent for all the Lords Spiritual and Temporal who were in Town They are named two Arch-Bishops and thirteen Bishops besides the Temporal Lords who being assembled the King sent for the Duke There was no Judgment given by the Parliament but he submitted to the King and the King gave him Penance which was that he should be absent for Five Years out of England The Lords Spiritual and Temporal by Viscount Beaumont declared to the King that this that was so decreed and done against the Person of the Duke proceeded not by their Advice and Council with this Protestation that it should not be nor turn in Prejudice nor Derogation of them their Heirs ne of their Successors in time coming but that they may have and enjoy their Liberty and Freedom as largely as ever their Ancestors or Predecessors had and enjoyed before this time Observe here that the Lords Spiritual were present at every Motion of this Cause This Cause was thrice before them no Exception taken to the Bishops being Judges They could not sit by Permission without Right if the Bishops had no Right to sit the Proceedings had been certainly erroneous For though one Judge's Absence if there be a Quorum will not vacate a Judgment yet if one sit in Judgment that is not an Authorized Judge the Proceeding is certainly erroneous and void Can any man believe that the Government should lose it self forget it s own Establishments in the highest concerns We may as soon believe that a man may forget his own name One positive Act of Session signifies more than 100 Omissions for if it had not been well understood that the Bishops had a Right to sit in Judgment in Capital Causes in Parliament they could never have been admitted they would never have presumed to endeavour it But with false Logick and absurd Reasonings and dislike to the Order it is become an Opinion in this Age because sometimes the Bishops absented that they have no Right But we have one thing further to add that declares an inherent Right in the Lords Spiritual to the Authority in question and that is an Opinion of the Judges 10 E. 4. 35. which says that the Lords Spiritual in case of a Tryal of a Temporal Peer in Parliament shall make a Procurator for then it seems an Opinion was received which was error temporis That it was indecent for Bishops to sit in their own persons in Judgment in such cases But they themselves are best Judges of what is indecent and unbecoming their Order for no man is obliged to any man but himself in the matters of Decency and the measures that make things decent or indecent is very mutable as changable and mutable as Customs Fashions and Opinions Besides that there is nothing that is very valuable and is of great concernment but can and
continue them great The contempt of the Bishops and Clergy the great cause of our evil State at present out of which we cannot recover but by an excellent Clergy and a high esteem of them with the people The Postscript ERRATA PAge 13. Line 18. read they p. 15. l. 15. r. Taxeotam Buleutam p. 19. l. 9. r. Blaesensis p. 23. l. 4. r. can p. 44. l. ult dele as p. 51. l. 22. to but add not l. ult to usage add other p. 57. l. 29. r. hucusque p. 130. dele in p. 165. l. 8. r. here p. 167. r. interpolatis p. 180. l. 3. dele them to r. send l. 29. to fit add to mention p. 206. l. 29. r. injurious p 240. l. ult dele near POSTSCRIPT P. 32. l. 1. r. he made his natural Sons first noble l. 7. r. Eufame p. 34. l. 1. r. is not subject p. 42. l. 25. r. decedents p. 45. l. 30. r. he p. 46. l. 8. r. more cruel p. 58. l. 18. r. futility p. 59. l 26. r. being What else is escaped the Reader is desired to correct by reason of the Authors absence from the Press The Argument CHAP. I. IN this question the Constitution of the Government is concerned and the Right of a most principal constituent part and that in a matter of the highest Trust which if truly a Right can be no more relinquished as the Nature of this Right is than a trust can be betrayed a duty and a Right denyed to be paid and performed or the Constitution of the Government changed For of such a Nature doth appear to be the Right in pretence and Controversy of the Lords the Bishops to have judgment in the House of Lords in Capital Causes For by their being made Barons they owed their judgments in such Causes as a service to the King at first by their Tenures in Baronage for though since they are become Barones Rescriptitii or Barons by Writ their duty is not abated And besides the Cognisance of such Causes become their own Right being a part of and belonging to the dignity and office of a Baron And it likewise became an appointment in the Government in which the whole Community have their Interest for that is principally provided for and procured in all Governments whose greatest concern it is to have Justice done against all Criminals and to have great and wise just and good men in the Administrations of Justice and other great offices of the Government The people of England did anciently understand the benefit of this Constitution when nothing but the Baronage of England the Lords Spiritual and Temporal could resist the Torrent of Arbitrary Government And it may be easily understood too that nothing but the Baronage of England is able to support the Throne For that Monarchy unless so supported is the weakest and most precarious and dependent Government in the World except it be supported with an Army and turned into a Tyranny That the Throne should be established by Natural and gentle provisions and the Government fixed is every mans greatest interest If the Lords Temporal have more under command and a larger Potestas jubendi yet the Lords Spiritual out-did them Authoritate suadendi and had more voluntary obedience The Lords Spiritual have several Advantages as they are Novi homines men chosen out of Thousands for an excellent Character and Spirit and need not want any accomplishments if duely chosen and preferred for the discharge of the greatest Provinces that are to be managed by wisdome and integrity and therefore they cannot be well wanted in any Ministries in the Government to which they are bespoken and have a legal designation Since this Authority by the very opening of the Cause doth appear probably belonging to the Bishops and if so that it cannot without breach of their duty that they owe to all the parts of the Government and the whole Community depart from it it may surely be insisted upon disputed and maintained by them without blame or imputation But so unhappily it falls out that the very disputing and contending of this Matter by reason of the unseasonableness of the dispute and the delays that were thereby given to the most important business of the Nation to the great hazard as some think of the summ of Affairs was very mischievous to the publick And now both parties are charging one another with all the mischiefs and the delays that this Controversy hath given to publick proceeding or can with any probability be thought to have occasioned And there are not men wanting on either side within doors and without that are forward enough to charge all those mischiefs as deserved by their oppoposite party which may eventually happen hereupon Who sees not how fatal this Controversy is like to prove to one or other of the Litigants and to the Government in consequence if this Cause cannot be duely heard and considered and be determined upon its own Merits without undue Censures and Reflections on either side Since at last the contenders themselves must be the Judges and give judgment in the Cause or it can never be quieted and have an end I am sure passion is no equal Judge and Arbiter and men angred and provoked have not the same sentiments of the same things as when calm and serene And because there is no common Judicature it ought to be considered by both parties with all equality of judgment and an exact pondering and weighing of the reasons offered on either side for that otherwise it can never be fairly decided but must for ever remain a Controversy to the immediate overthrow and destruction of the Government or over-ruled by the force and Power of a most dangerous consequence in the course of time to the Government and will be a laying of the Axe to the very root of the Tree and will put the Government it self into a State of War between the several constituent parts of it and given an occasion for one part to usurp upon another until the tone and frame of Goverment become changed and at last fall into ruine I am very well aware of the gravity of the Question and its importance the high honour and regard that is due to the House of Commons in Parliament what commendations are due to them in their persons for their zeal and endeavour by all means if it be possible to save the Nation Religion and Government And what a great Capacity that House in its very constitution in the first designation of the Government and by their mighty growth in power and interest in the Course of time have in procuring the publick good and that they cannot have any interest divided from the common Weal I must do them right and with the greatest clearness and satisfaction I determine with my self that their zeal for public Justice against unpardonable offences in their judgment and a prejudicate opinion they had conceived of the Spiritual Lords unindifferency how duely will appear by
will take notice of nothing that is faulty in this Case but that this proceeding tends to abridge freedom of speech in Parliament which he loved from his youth which we do not blame in him As he did also to talk against Bishops which he cannot depart from when he is old But in the first of Hen. 4. this Judgment of Attainder was repealed and annull'd as he himself tells us Fol. 25. And here the Lords Spiritual were Judges which must be remark't for the honour of their Order that though they were the pars laesa by that fault such as it was yet notwithstanding they concurred readily to the repealing the Judgment But by this it appears that the Bishops did agreeable to their rightful Authority sit in Judgment in Parliament in capital Causes and therefore in consequence because it is a Case of his own production he ought to allow that the Bishops might have had Session in the Repeal of the Attainder of Roger Earl of March if it had been or could have been repealed by Judgment or a judicial Act of the Lords House For will this renownedly wise-man for avoiding of this his own testimony which he hath justly produced though it proves to testify against himself say that the Bishops can be present at repealing of a Judgment of Condemnation but not present at confirming any Doth not it in this proceeding come before them in Judgment and consideration Whether the sentence shall be repealed or affirmed and is not this with a witness a question of blood The Judgment being upon an appeal or review must be final peremptory and decretory and is more a question of blood than the Cause can be reckoned and deem'd to be upon the first Instance Or doth he think fit that there should be two sorts of Judges appointed a hanging Judge and a saving Judge if he doth I am sure he will not be able to find an employment for a just Judge So that I think to all men that can consider we have sufficiently vacated that testimony that the Cases of the Earl March and Haxey's seem'd to give against us and they are fairly come over to our side And we have provided herein sufficiently for the recovering of all men into an indifferency against the Prejudices this Octavo by its great Esteem hath done to their Judgments The Third Precedent is 15 E. 3. That Parliament was declared to be called for the Redress of the breach of the Laws and of the Peace of the Kingdom and as the Octavo hath it Fol. 8. because the Prelates were of opinion that it belonged not properly to them to give Councel about keeping the peace nor punishing such evils they went away by themselves and returned no more saith he but that is out of the Record so ready this Authour in Octavo is to shut them out of the House but I pray would not the Temporal Lords if the King had consulted the Parliament in matters Ecclesiastical have in like manner departed but would such departure of the Temporal Lords exclude them from having any thing to do in the Affairs of the Church Why then are the Bishops treated in their Right so unequally And this must serve for an Answer to the Folio p. 17. where he is very large in reciting Records of process and Proclamation against the Earl of Northumberland agreed only by Lords If a Liturgy or book of Canons were to be established by Law the Bishops certainly would have the forming of them The Octavo saith that Commissions were then framed by the Counts Barons and other Grants and brought into Parliament but no Bishop was present so much as to hear the Commissions read because they were to enquire into all Crimes as well Capital as others And for affirming this for all that can appear to us he only consulted his Will and pleasure like an honest man to the cause he defends for he hath not told us from any Record what the Nature of these Commissions were But we observe that though this Parliament was called for matters of the peace yet the Bishops had their Summons and it was not a Parliament excluso Clero The Bishops it seems upon the opening of the Parliament and the causes of convening modestly it seem'd declared that they were not competent as not perhaps studied in Pleas of the Crown or perhaps had not been so observant in fact of the matters of grievance What harm in all this they that cannot propound may judge of Expedients propounded and so did they for it doth appear by the Record 6 E. 3. N. 3. that the Results of the Temporal Lords were approved in full Parliament by the King Bishops Lords and Commons which the Folio agrees But it seems modesty is a dangerous thing and not to be forward to judge and determine though the matter be not understood may be a good Cause to turn a Judge out of his Office and forfeit his Judicature Besides the principal business of this Parliament was Legislation in which the Prelates have an undisputed Right of Session and may they not advise upon what they make into a Law May not they consider of the matter that is to pass into a Law in all the steps it makes But it is admirable what the Folio Book saith viz. that by this Record it is evident that the Prelates have no judicial power over any personal Crimes which are not Parliamentary I suppose he means Crimes not debated in Parliament This doth very much fortify the foundations and grounds of his discourse What are the grounds of his discourse I shall never be able to find out except it be an over-weening Opinion of himself to meddle with these matters which seem too high for him and to which the reading of my Lords Cooks Institutes and the broken Commentaries of the Law will never render any man competent It s true the Bishops have never any power and Cognizance of any Causes except they are commissionated thereto out of Parliament But as true it is of the Temporal Lords and therefore whatsoever advantage this will do his Cause with all my heart let him take it The next Case produced as a Precedent for them is the Case of Sir William de La Zouch and Sir John Gray for a quarrel in the Kings presence they were both committed to the Tower and after brought into Parliament no Bishops there It is a Case that could not be judged there neither was it but one of them was discharged because no probable matter of offence against him and the other remanded to the Tower I suppose to be proceeded against as the Law required Is this cause I pray to his purpose have not the Prelates judgment in causes of Trespass that properly come before that House by his own Confession And yet the Octavo remarks here that no Bishops were present to judge so much as of a Battery though the Record warrants him to say only an Assault But out of his great
sincerity and to make a Precedent where he could not find one for his turn he foists a Battery into the Case hoping that then the forward Reader would supply the Rest and smell blood in the Case which must be interdicted to a Bishops Cognizance But observe what an aking-tooth he hath against the Bishops Right for he could not but have in his mind what almost immediately after he writes down in his Octavo viz. the Case of Sir John Lee 24 E. 3. and of several persons 50 E. 3. and 51 E. 3. censured in Parliament by Bishops for misdemeanors And he saith well they might which certainly together with the Case of Michael de la Pooll 10 R. 2. he troubled himself to transcribe to make a shew of Number and false musters a sleight that must not pass upon the people and a Stratagem that will never get him any advantage towards a Victory We omitted to consider the Case of Sir William de Thorpe 50 E. 3. as it lies in order in his Book because we thought it more expedite to examine those that spake to the same thing together but now we will examine it The Record of a Judgment of death against him for Buggery was brought into Parliament saith the Octavo in full Parliament saith Sir Robert Cotton and the King caused it to be read before the Grants in Parliament The Bishops saith the Octavo could not be there because this was no imployment for them and thus he proves his cause it was so because it was so And for want of proof concludes he hath a very good Cause But he knows if he would tell us the truth that a full Parliament doth include Bishops that the Bishops are truly Grants and so called that the Bishops could not vanish away at the putting of the question But we should have had a most famous Record of that story and wonderful Accident The Cause of William de Weston and John de Gomenits 1 R. 2. was for traiterously surrendring Towns and Castles in Flanders to the Kings Enemies And the question was whether they behaved themselves well in their defence and did therein like valiant and faithful Commanders Whether the Towns could be preserved against the strength of the Enemies that did attach them Indeed not a very proper question for a Bishop to determine The Examination of the Charge and defence was committed to several Lords Temporal named in the Record But it must be observed though these Lords managed the Cause found the Towns upon Examination not of necessity but willfully delivered and agreed what Judgment should be pronounced against them Yet observe their Answers were put in full Parliament When the Judgment was pronouncing there was likewise sitting a full Parliament which the Octavo doth wilfully omit And the Record further saith that they were brought before the Seigniors in Parliament Friday the 27. of November and again before the said Lords Saturday the 28. of Nov. That all this while in the Record there is no mention of the Names of any particular Lords so that we hear nothing yet in the Record but of a full Parliament Seigniors in Parliament which are the most comprehensive terms and can and do include Bishops and strongly intend them included He that saith all excepts none the Record saith that when the Judgment was to be pronounced Les Seigniors dudit Parliament cestascavoir and then names the Duke of Lancaster Earls of Cambridge March Arundel Warwick Stafford Suffolk Salisbury Northumberland Lord Nevil and Clifford and other Lords Barons and Bannerets being then in Parliament had met and advised upon the matters before These Lords agreed it seems the Judgment for the whole House and it was pronounced in full Parliament and that in the Names and Authority of the whole Parliament Pray let it be observed that when the Record speaks of Seigniors in the first part of it no Lords are named and so all intended when afterwards he mentions the Lords the Record saith avantdits or foresaid Lords and no Lords named yet so that all the Lords of Parliament are then likewise included But when he names the Lords that had advised there is no avantdits or aforesaid Though the Octavo puts the avantdits or the aforesaid to the named Lords to the purpose that it may seem that no Lords were present in this Cause before in Parliament but those named and mentioned amongst the which there were no Bishops against the Faith of the Record To the Record I appeal Rot. Parl. 1 R. 2. Mem. 5. The next is Sir Ralph Ferrers his Case 4 R. 2. He was brought into Parliament and there tryed for Treason in holding intelligence with the French The Entry is It seem'd to the Lords of the Parliament that the said Sir Ralph was innocent This testimony too is argumentative and concludes Bishops not there because not expresly mentioned as they were in Alice Perries Case 1 R. 2. I never could have a good opinion of a cause that hath nothing but argumentative proofs for this reason because there are more things possible than ever happen'd but a reasoning Witness is always accounted a willing Witness and therefore a Witness suspectae fidei but most certain a Witness with a reason His testimony is no better than his reason But I pray must the Entries of the Clerks be so nicely weighed Are they so oracularly penned that every iota of the Journal must comprehend a Mystery of State and carry in it the very constitution of the Government must that be such and no other than short or large Entries make it Must a Criticism upon the Clerks form of Entry alter and refix the Government must it change and be ambulatory at the haste or leasure the short or more large Entry of the Clerk Did ever any wise man before this Criticiser ever determine questions of the greatest moment upon such trifling considerations or suspend the most momentous concerns of a Nation the very Government it self upon such a very slender thread But to leave no scope for such Cavillations we will turn him to the Parl. Rolls of 14 E. 3. Were not the Grants the Bishops as well as the Temporal Lords Are not both Bishops and Peers called Seigniors Are not Seigniors and Grants of the same import And as certainly this argumentative testimony makes no credit to the Cause nor to the Author of the Octavo who produc'd it The next Case is of the Bishop of Norwich 7 R. 2. who is brought to Judgment in Parliament amongst other offences for betraying Graveling to the French which was Treason And this cause the Record saith was heard before the Lords Temporal And here I will agree that the Bishops were not present but I will not allow that they were excluded And if that addition of Temporal had been to the Seigniors in Sir Ralph Ferrers Case or to the Grants in Sir Wil. Thorps I would have allowed the Bishops in those Cases not present likewise But why I pray may
it not be with as much fairness concluded that the Bishops were present because the addition of Temporal is not made to Seigniors and Grants in the said Cases of Sir Ralph Ferrers and Sir Wil. Thorp as it can be that they were absent in the hearing of the said Cases because the word Prelate or Bishop is not in those Entries expressed If he will be just and change the Tables He must yield us the Argument for he knows that there is no establishment in the Modus tenendi Parliamentum directing the Forms of Entries or any solemnes formulae whose import and value is ascertained and made indisputable but are to be expounded by an easy interpretation such as we use when we make fair constructions in common speech But to give this another Answer The Arguer is herein guilty of that fallacy which they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or non causa pro causa And his Witness doth not speak ad idem The Bishop was an Ecclesiastical person and though the Bishops might try a Temporal Lord for the same offence yet they would not consent to try a Bishop and forgo that great priviledge of the Clergy with so much earnestness defended in that Age to be exempt from secular Judicatures They would not be present to try because of the person of the Defendant which cannot be drawn into Argument to prove that they had no cognizance of the Cause with any fairness But further the Octavo doth afterwards produce a Testimony that doth contradict this last Testimony in the point for which he produc'd it It is the Case of Thomas Arundel Arch-Bishop of Canterbury 21 R. 2. The Bishops pronounced Judgment against him in Treason by their Proxy They can it seems upon great Reasons wave that priviledge and submit a great Malefactor of their own Order to Justice as they did in the Case of Becket heretofore So that you see here they used a Jurisdiction in a Cause of Treason in the Case of Thomas Arundel which the Bishops could not have used without a Right And the Case of the Bishop of Norwich is only an omission consistent with a Right The Case of Sir William Rikehill is next in order who was sent by R. 2. to Calais to take the Confession of the Duke of Glocester who soon after was Murdered The Judge was arrested and brought into Parliament before the King Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons the whole matter was examined and the Judge was examined Here is likewise a clear Case for the Bishops an Instance wherein they did take cognizance of a Capital Cause in Parliament But the Octavo hath a Shift for us and says that there was no impeachment or charge against the Judge and so the Bishops might be present at his Examination Let the Reader here observe the sleights wriglings and prevarications of this Octavo Author Whatever the World thinks of this Author I am much dissatisfyed about him and cannot believe him a man indifferent and impartial in this Enquiry In his observations of the Parliament of the 15 E. 3. the Bishops he saith vanished like lightning they went away immediately at the opening That matters of the Peace in general were to be treated of wherein Blood and Member might not at all be concerned for all that appears They went away and as he would have it they returned no more and they must not hear so much as a Commission of the Peace read But here in this Case of Rikehill they may examine a Murder He will say I am sure that though the Bishops did examine it they could make no judgment of the matter But who will believe him In the Case of de la Zouch and Gray he observes that Bishops could not be present so much as at a Battery though there was no Battery in the Case and yet he allows them to judge of all misdemeanors in the same little Book I observe but these things of many more of like nature which the Reader may observe of himself in that little Octavo that the World may judge how unjustly he deals in this Cause with what iniquity and prevarication he manages a noble question of Right concerning the Government of the Kingdom With what petulancy spight and inveterate displeasure he useth the Bishops That he is grinning at them whetting his teeth and squinting upon them perpetually with an evil Eye He oppugns their Right with Cavillations upon the Clerks Entries with what is in the Record and what is not and what he is pleased to add of his own upon them and with Precedents that reprove one another Had it not been more fair for him to have stated the Right upon a probable result of all the Records considered together than to make their Right sometimes more sometimes less sometimes to affirm sometimes to deny their Right in the same little Octavo He cannot sure think that every Judgment that hath been given upon deliberation in the greatest Judicature can uncontroulably make the Law much less a Fact much less an Omission a Negative that can operate nothing If nothing be Law but what hath always and constantly been done in the same manner and form and all circumstances the same as this Author it seems would have it and nothing true Theology according to Vincentius Lirinensis his Rule but what hath been received ab omnibus ubique semper We can have no Law nor no Theology Vain and idle opinions must be discharged such as can have no consideration with wise men and the Law must be declared by the Nature of Government reason and the general order of things But we have made too long an Excursion We must return to a further consideration of Rikehil his Case And now I submit it to any impartial man whether the Judge could be arrested and brought under an Arrest into the Parliament and be examined and not accused The very next Case he recites is that of John Hall in which we find nothing but an Examination and confessal upon which he was condemned as a Traytor And so would it have fared with Sir William Rikehil without doubt if he had been guilty and had confessed Neither the Octavo nor Sir Robert Cotton mentions any formality more against the one than the other The House of Lords are not tyed to Formalities in their proceedings like other inferior Judicatures and the more inferior any Court is the more regular forms are exacted and that with great reason which we will not hear treat of Besides in the Case of the Earl of Northumberland recited in the Octavo Book Fol. 34. in 5 H. 4. a Judgment was given against him for an offence upon a petition which he exhibited for a pardon of the same offence But in the Case of the Earl of Northumberland I pray observe what the Octavo saith in reference to our question After he hath recited part of the Record in these words The petition being read and understood the Lords as Peers of Parliament
to whom such Judgment doth of Right appertain did give their Judgment He concludes that the Bishops could not he said to be his Peers which shews they were not there But he must give us leave with much better Logick to conclude that they were present and We with reason presume because they are Peers of Parliament for so the Record is not his Peers for he fallaciously changeth the Terms they were there except he can prove them absent if common Right is not Reason of presumption no presumption can be reasonable But we can prove to him they were there And thereby in consequence we have another proof that they are Peers Sir Robert Cottons Abridgment tells us 5 H. 4. Fol. 426. that at the same time the Arch-Bishops and Bishops at their own request and therefore certainly then present were purged from suspicion of Treason by the said Earl And at the same time I pray observe Sir Henry Piercy his levying of War was adjudged Treason by the King and Lords in full Parliament Note that here is said to be a full Parliament and yet nothing in the Entry but the stile of Lords So various and contingent in respect of form are the Entries which ought to be observed But to review and consider again the Case of John Hall condemned in Parliament for Treason for murdering the Duke of Glocester And to this place I have reserved the Case of the two Merchants that killed John Imperial an Ambassadour of Genoua for both Cases are of the same nature and must receive the same answer and that is this The Statute of the 25 E. 3. was made to declare certain matters Treason and to be so judged in ordinary Judicatures but withall that Statute did provide that if any other Case supposed Treason do happen it shall be shewed to the King and Parliament whether it ought to be judged Treason Concerning which the King and Parliament do and are to declare by their Legislative power as it is agreed by all and as they did in the Case of John Imperial as appears by that Record expresly So that though the Bishops were not present at the Judgment of John Hall they might have been it must be confessed by our Adversary if the Judgment against John Hall was by the Legislative Power as it must be By this it appears how false an Argument this of his is To conclude no Right from absence for it is plain here it proves too much it proves a thing notoriously false a thing false by the confession of our Adversary and from what any falshood may be inferred is not it self true but stands reproved by the falshood and absurdity of what follows in consequence thereof But this is too Solemn Reproof of so frivolous an Argument for it is no more in effect than this That no man can have an Authority but what he is always in the exercise of The Octavo goes on and remembers that in the 2 H. 4. the first Writ de Haeretico comburendo was framed by the Lords Temporal only and without question it was so For the order of proceedings in Case of Hereticks Convict so required it The Bishops are upon the Matter the pars laesa in Heresy The authority of the Church is therein offended and it was not therefore proper for an Ecclesiastick to be an Actor therein The Author doth improve this as he doth all things that he can with any manner of colour to render the Order of Bishops hated and disesteemed which is the publick establishment the legal provision for the Government and guidance of Religion What mischief then is he a doing How great is his fault to deprave that provision to destroy their Reputation and Esteem with the people to destroy all their authority as much as in him lyeth His utmost endeavours are not thereto wanting to make their Ministries useless and to frustrate the provisions of the Law and the care of the Government in the highest concernment of the Nation Doth this become a great man I will not say a good man God rebuke him To lessen the Authority and disrepute and dishonour any Order of men or any Constitution that can be any ways useful to the publick is a great fault but this of his is a most enormous offence But what can be inferred from hence against the Order of the Bishops may be with like unworthiness inferred against the Christian Religion it self For it may be as well concluded that the Christian Religion is a bad Religion for that men of that denomination in the general Apostasie by pretence of Warranty from that Religion though it gave none murdered innocents As that the practices of the Bishops of that Religion so depraved do reflect any dishonour against the Bishops of reformed Christianity And this Answer will suffice too for the Case of Sir John Old-Castle As for the Earls of Kent Huntingdon and Salisbury the Lord le Despencer and Sir Ralph Lumley before that executed and declared Traytors in Parliament by the Lords Temporal only in the Parliament of the 2 H. 4. and the Earl of Northumberland and Lord Bardolph against whom it was proceeded in a Court of Chivalry after their death who were declared Traytors after they were dead in the Parliament in the 7 H. 4. I hope the Octavo Gentleman and all that are at present of his Opinion will take this for a sufficient Answer if we had no more to say that it was irregular very irregular indeed to condemn men after they were dead when he himself would set aside the Authority of the Case of William de la Poole in 28 H. 6. in Parliament where the Bishops were present which though he saith is the sole single precedent of Bishops acting in Capital Causes We shall therein convict him to be a man of Will to have lost himself in his passions and his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And enter that Case with a cloud of other testimonies and reasons that affirm I will not stick to say demonstrate so as such matters can be demonstrated with a moral demonstration such as shall leave no doubt with any man of the Bishops Right of judging in Capital causes in Parliament But We shall further add for Answer that the Temporal Lords did not herein exercise the Office of a Judge For it could be no Judgment they delivered It was only an officious declaration an avowing of the justness of the slaughter of these great men and to enter themselves of the other side But is it as reasonable for this Writer to fore-judge the Bishops of their Franchise and to have it seized because they would not be guilty of a misuser thereof and would not consent to so insolent a thing as to judge men unheard nay when dead and they could not be heard And to kill over again the murdered Lords for so they are in consideration of the Law who are not by legal process condemned and executed I cannot but observe in many of
the great convulsions of State and the simultates amongst the Great men and extravagant excesses of injustice to the glory and honour of the Bishops it must ever be remembred that they did preserve themselves from being ingaged in such violences as were committed against the last mentioned Lords But that the Author of the Octavo should produce the Case of Sir John Mortimer against us who was condemned upon a bare Indictment without Arraignment or due Tryal a good reason why the Bishops were not there when he immediately after produceth the Case of the Duke of Suffolk wherein the Bishops were present and will have it stand for nothing because in that it was irregularly proceeded is monstrous partiality and iniquity But in what I pray was the irregularity in the Case of the Duke of Suffolk Why because the Commons desired he might be committed upon a general Accusation But he was not And the second irregularity was that some Prelates and some Lords should be sent down to the House of Commons which is often done But it is not the Prelates that he is thus concerned for but that the Lords lessened their Estate This to excuse him might make him very angry with that Case and quarrelsome And yet after all there is a fallacy in the Case of Sir John Mortimer which he would put upon us for Sir John Mortimer was condemned by Act of Parliament and therefore the Bishops might have been there if they had pleased and that with his leave For it was by the Duke of Glocester who in the Kings absence was commissionated to call and hold that Parliament by the Advice of the Lords Temporal at the prayer of the whole Commonalty in this present Parliament and by the Authority thereof ordered and decreed that he should be led to the Tower and from thence drawn to Tyburn I cannot therefore but observe how by the pretence of the Canon a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes and by other prudent Arts and Recesses from tumultuations the Bishops kept themselves often from being engaged in the Animosities of Great men against one another A matter remarkable for the commendation of their Exemplary Wisdom and Justice and a Recommendation of the men of that Order to be continued in the greatest trusts that the Government hath committed to them But now shortly and summarily to review what we have offered in the matter of Precedents and together to consider what true value and weight they are of in the Cases of Roger Mortimer and Haxey and of Sir John Mortimer 2 H. 6. every body may see a reason why the Bishops should not act if they had Authority and therefore without wilfulness it cannot be concluded they had none Who sees not that these Cases are Precedents for us for that the Bishops judged in the Reversal of the sentence against Haxey which if they had reason for it they ought to have affirmed And the Bishops might have been present rightfully at the undoing the Attainder of Roger Mortimer by the Confessions of these Authors The Proceedings in the Parliament of 15 E. 3. is a true argument of the Bishops modesty But it proves more than he is willing to prove if true viz. that the Bishops cannot joyn in making Laws to punish publick Crimes and therefore logically concludes nothing besides that the matter is false in fact as it is alledged The Cases of Sir William Thorpe and Sir Ralph Ferrers taken at best for him are but militant and have as much to say for as against the Bishops being there present But to be true to the cause of the Bishops We have this advantage against him that the Bishops were always in the possession of their Right because never fore-judged and it was once theirs as we shall prove by and by And this makes a presumption that they always used it when there is nothing to the contrary The Bishops were not present in the Bishop of Norwich's Case but the Bishops may be at any time absent upon a sontica Causa The defendant was a Bishop which was a very allowable one in those times But this must be considered with the Case of Thomas Arundel Bishop of Canterbury in whose judgment they were present virtually by their Proxy and therefore had a Right to be there The Case of John de Gomets and William de Weston is unduely and against the faith of the Record produced against us for upon the truth of the Record the Bishops were present notwithstanding any thing that can be from thence deduced to the contrary The Case of Sir William Rikehil 1 H. 4. is for us so is the Case of the Earl of Northumberland 5 H. 4. The Case of John Hall who murdered the Duke of Glocester and of the two Merchants that killed John Imperial the Genoua Ambassadour 3 R. 2. are foreign to this question and so is the Case of Sir John Mortimer except Judicial Authority and Legislative Authority in Blood are of the same consideration as I think they are and shall hereafter make out to be probable and then those Cases are for our Right They confess that the Bishops might have been present if they pleased and their absence at the passing of those Bills doth not conclude against their Right themselves being Judges The Writ de haeretico comburendo is of another consideration and doth not fall in with the present question There was no Judgment given or to be given in the Cases of the Earl of Huntingdon Kent Salisbury Lord Le Despencer Sir Ralph Lumley the Earl of Northumberland and Lord Bardolph All these Precedents such as they are happened in no long Tract of time but very tumultuous Not one of them pretends to be an exclusion of the Bishops upon Judgment or positive declaration of State They pretend to be only instances of Omission or non user which may well consist with a Right And yet contrary to the true import of these Precedents and the true Nature of them being only of Omission and absence of the Prelates which as they are can make no induction or establish any proposition whereupon to frame an Argument or conclude a prescription Besides that a prescription is not possible in a meer negative and to and of nothing And where no body can use or possess that Authority in pretence in the defailance of the party to use it whose Right it was Besides that it is not a prescriptible matter which we shall further explain hereafter it being in a matter of the Government and a Right arising from its constitution Contrary I say to the whole nature of the matter He makes this Argument à saepe facto ad jus valet argumentum His Argument should have been if agreeable at all to the matter this That where a Right is sometimes not used there can be no Right But if this had been said in English every body would have condemned his reasoning and disallowed if not laughed at the Argument So that we have
left this Author neither reason or Argument We have stript the Cause of all the Precedents that pretend to favour it and have left it Rara Avis indeed but not nigro simillima Cygno as the learned Author in Octavo hath it with which he reproaches the Right of the Bishops as assisted only with a single Precedent But to a Bird of no colour at all the bird in the Fable I mean furtivis nudata coloribus to be exposed to laughter with its naked Rump CHAP. IV. BUt if these Precedents had been all such as they pretend to be and the Bishops not present in Judgment in any of those Cases which the Octavo and Folio have produced and if they had been all Capital Causes that came in Judgment in that House and all determined judicially and not by the Legislative power of Parliament and no reason was to be assigned for the Prelates absence from the Nature of the Cause If they had had no inducements to withdraw from any dissatisfaction they had in the prosecution and the pretended Right of the Church-men in those days much insisted upon to be exempted from the jurisdiction of secular Courts had not been the Cause of their absence which suppositions are not so in fact And tho' the Bishops had never used the Authority and power in question as they have yet if we can prove they had once a Right those Omissions of theirs can be no prejudice to the meer-Right Though then I confess we should labour a-the gainst invincible prejudice in the Opinions of most 1. For that no man can lose a Right by not using of it but where that right can be usurpt by another and is so And that usurpation having been for immemorable time when no body can tell when it was otherwise shall in a matter prescriptible be intended to be acquired by good Right and that with great reason in favour of possession and the quieting of them for that Estates and Rights can last longer than the Grants and Evidences or Records themselves that first created them But where the nature of the Right is such as this of the Bishops in pretence is which no body can use for them For the Temporal Lords sit in Judgment in their own Right which is a plenary and compleat right and cannot be made more or less Secondly for that no Franchise from the Power and Authority upward of a Court Leet which can be neither more nor less by usuage than the Law hath establisht can be prescribed to And a Quo Warranto will fore-close and extinguish an immemorial usuage of any irregular and illegal Franchise A Right that can never be prejudged and fore-closed by non user and such is every Right that grows from the constitution of the Government though it should be discontinued for a long tract of time may be at any time rightfully and legally continued The happiness of our Case is that we can point to the time when the Right of the Prelates to sit in Judgment in Capital Causes in Parliament was established And which is more imposed upon them and they put under a Compulsory and obliged by the Tenure of their Lands to serve the Crown in that capacity And that was in the beginning of the Reign of William the Conquerour Mr. Selden in his Titles of honour with great probability hath fixed it in the 4 year of his Reign when he made the Bishopricks and Abbies subject to Knight service in chief by creation of new Tenures upon them and so first turned their possessions into Baronies and thereby made them Barons of the Kingdom by Tenure This he saith is justified by Mat. Paris and Roger of Windover out of whom Mat. Paris took this Relation Anno 1070. so are their words Rex Willielmus pessimo usus consilio Episcopatus Abbatias omnes quae Baronias that is by Anticipation for the Lands made Baronies tenebant in purâ perpetuâ eatenus ab omni servitute seculari libertatem habuerunt sub servitute statuit militari c. This he makes further probable for that in a Manuscript Copy which he used in a very antient hand these words are noted in the upper Margin over the year 1070. hoc anno servitium baroniae imponitur Ramesiae It seems saith he the volumn belonged to the Abby of Ramsey And some Monk of the House noted that in the Margin touching his own Abby which equally concerned the rest of the Abbies that were mentioned in that Relation by their Lands being put under the Tenure by Barony and they made Barons they had a Right to sit with the rest of the Barons in Councellor Courts of Judgment For saith Mr. Selden tenere de Rege in capite habere possessiones sicut Baroniam and to be a Baron and to have Right to sit with the rest of the Barons in Council or Courts of Judgment according to the Laws of that time are Synonymies So that there were no distinctions of Barons as to power and Authority or Jurisdiction but the Right of a Baron was the same whether he was a Temporal or Spiritual Baron for the Tenure of both is one and the same and therefore the Services must be the same The office that is the result of this Tenure is the same in the House of Lords and indeed no office can be less than what the Law appoints it The King cannot make a Peer a Judge or a Bishop and put any Restraint upon the exercise of the powers and the jura ordinaria that belongs by the appointment of the Law to a Peer Bishop or Judge And that it is an office by Tenure can make no difference for the Law declares the Power and Authority So that the Powers of all Barons are and must be equal and what is allowed to one Baron cannot be denyed to another William the Conqueror made the Bishops Barons by putting them to hold as by Barony did not intend only the Bishops more honour but himself also more service and better assured He cannot be intended especially to abate them their service in punitive or vindictive Justice which a Conquerour of all other performances cannot want I do not doubt and if it were not unnecessary to this question likewise to shew that before the Conquest the Bishops or Spiritual Lords had a great share with the Thanes or Temporal Lords in the Government and were then one of the three States agreeable to all the Gothish Saxon for the Saxons were Goths which we must not here insist upon and Modern Governments that have been planted in Europe which we shall speak to more hereafter But we will resort no higher than this of their becoming Barons by Tenure in time of the Conquerour for the clearing of the Prelates Right now in question And therefore we are not concerned to say any thing to the Case of E. Godwin mentioned in the Octavo in Edward the Confessor's time For Brevity sake and because we will
as many of them as were most proper to judge or assist in the Judgment as the Case did require were appointed by the King or his Capitalis Justiciarius And that it was so in Fact appears by that Famous Cause wherein Arch-bishop Lanfranck recovered against Odo Bishop of Baieux Earl of Kent Eadmerus Hist Nov. l. 1. f. 9. tells us That there was Principum Conventus an Assembly of Barons at Pinneden in Kent and that the Kings Precept was Rex quatenus adunatis primoribus probis viris non solum de Comitatu Cantiae sed de aliis Comitatibus Angliae Querele Lanfranci in medium ducerentur examinarentur determinarentur disposito itaque saith he principum Conventus apud Pinneden Gaufridus Episcopus Constantiensis vir ea tempestate praedives in Anglia Vice Regis for Odo Bishop of Baieux one of the Litigants was at that time the Justiciarius Angliae justitiam de suis querelis strenuissimè jussus fecit where we see Godfrey at the King's Precept took so many Barons of that Country or of any other where any of the Lands lay as Assistants to him For our Historian saith that Lanfranck though Godfred pronounced the Judgment did recover judicio Baronum qui placita tenuerunt The probi homines were such by whom the truth of the matter might be better understood and did probably enquire of it who did accord and agree the Judgment to be right Lanfranc did recover ex communi omnium astipulatione judicio as our Historian also informs us I might cite many more Records of the Method of the Administration of Justice in this Curia Regis but I should be too long in this matter not being strictly necessary to the Question in hand though the understanding of the Nature of this Court and the Constitution of the Government at this time will many ways inserve to the clearing the Right thereof In this Court Peers were tryed all Pleas of the Crown heard and whatever is now the Business of the Courts of Common Pleas and Exchequer was dispatch'd in this Curia Regis Here Fines were levyed as appears by a Record furnished to us by Sir Hen. Spelman in his Gloss f. 279. the word Fines There men famous for their Skill in the Law did attend and by this Judicature some place was assigned them where they were to hear such Causes as were referred and sent down to them and it is very possible that Fines may be levyed i. e. Concord made of the thing in pretence that was referred to them and it may be true that in a Charter of a Grant of Conusance of Causes Words may be conteined for excluding the Intromissions of the Justices of the one Bench and the other For such Charters never want words These matters are produced by Sir Edward Coke in his Preface to the Eighth Report to prove that the Common Pleas was a Court before the Magna Charta of King John for that these matters are in time before that Charter but these Justices were no other than Ministers to the Curia Regis They were not such Justices as now make that Court all Common Pleas being now appropriated to their Judicature For the Writs before that Charter were returnable coram me vel Justitia mea Glanvil l. 1. cap 6. but after that Charter they were returnable coram Justiciariis meis apud Westmonasterium Bracton l. 2. cap. 32. But before this all Common Pleas were adjudged in the Curia Regis and that Court did send down the Cause to such as did attend that Court to receive its References By Magna Charta cap. 11. it was provided Communia placita non sequantur Curiam nostram sed teneantur in aliquo certo loco And now Writs were made returnable there the Common Pleas were taken out of the Jurisdiction of the Curia Regis one Judicature was appointed for all Causes between the Subjects and one place of Attendance for Litigants By this Provision Justice was administred without Noise and Tumult the Administration of it committed to men of Skill and to such who might be answerable for their Judgments and from whom it might be appealed But after Magna Charta made by King John and confirmed by H. 3 9. the Authority continued of the Justitia or capitalis Justiciarius to him was the resort for Writs from whence all Judicial Authority was still derived He did direct and bound the Justice of the Court of Common Pleas by such Formula's as were allowed in the Curia Regis where the Chancellor and his Colledge of Clerks did attend for the forming of Writs according to the nature of the Complaint with the Allowance of that Court but the Authority of this Court ceasing and the Office of this great Justiciary about the end of H. 3. we find in the Statutes of Glouc. 6 E. 1. c. 7. Laws for a Writ of Entry to be granted to the Reversioner where Tenant in Dower Aliens in Fee though her Alienation was a Forfeiture of that Estate at Common Law But it seems there had been no such Writ yet formed and the Chancellor had no such Power of forming a new Writ That Statute provides that in that Case there shall be a Writ of Entry thereof made in Chancery which is called A Writ of Entry in casu proviso And for that Power might not be wanting in the Chancellor to issue out new Writs where no Writs before formed were fitted to the Case So that Writs in Cases of like reason had been granted by W. 2. cap. 24. it was provided quotiescunque evenerit in Cancellaria quod in uno casu reperitur Breve in consimili casu cadente simili indigente remedio concordent Clerici de Cancellaria in Brevi faciendo Whereas in the full Authority of the Court of the Curia Regis no Right could have failed of a Remedy For Jura sunt matres Actionum But Derivative Authorities are always stricti Juris no Rights are now remediable but where they are in a Parity of Reason or Analogy with such Rights as had received relief in the time of that Great and Original Judicature So inconvenient are those Reformations that reform by pulling down Want of Authority to do Right is a greater Fault in Government than the allowance of a Power that may be abused to Wrong and Oppression But this is the true reason why we have so many Causes irremediable at Common Law petitioning for relief at this day in our Court of Chancery though if the Statute of Westm 2. before-mentioned were well improved the Defects of our Law would not be so shameful and notorious By what hath been said it appears that the Common Pleas was not an Original Court or a Court of ordinary Jurisdiction in the First Constitution of the Government and such it remains and continues to this time For that Court cannot proceed to Judgment in any Cause without an Original Writ out of Chancery though a late Statute makes their
pleaded in Bar upon which the Defendant will be certainly relieved in Chancery may notwithstanding it hath not heretofore be hereafter allowed in our Law-Courts we should be in a great measure restored to our easie expedite cheap and certain Justice which the Methods of our Common Law-Courts hath most excellently provided until a Parliament sometime or other may consider whether it be not fit to take it quite down by inabling Courts of Law to do true Right in all Causes that shall come before them For nothing renders the Chancery tolerable but the mo exemplary Virtue and Great Endowments of our present Lord Chancellor in which he is not like to have a Successor But to return to the Curia Regis it was not only the great Judicature of the Nation formally but it was also materially our Parliament too That this Curia Regis was not without any more the Parliament of these times is evident first that the Curia Regis was summoned by a general Writ of Summons directed to the Sheriffs in this Form viz. Rex Vicecomiti Northamptoniae c. praecipimus tibi quod summoneri facias Archiepiscopos Episcopos Comites Barones Abbates Priores Milites Liberos homines qui de nobis tenent in Capite c. Rot. Claus 26 H. 3 M. 7. Dorso This must necessarily be this Curia Regis in Distinction to a Parliament For that in the Grand Charter of King John made in the last year of his Reign it was granted that Ad habendum Commune Concilium Regni de auxilio assidendo aliter quà m in tribus praedictis casibus i. e. Those cases of Aid to make the eldest Son a Knight to marry the eldest Daughter and of Ransom and de Scutagiis assidendis faciemus summoneri Archiepiscopos Episcopos Abbates Comites majores Barones Regni sigillatim per Literas nostras Et praeterea faciemus summoneri in generali per Vicecomites Ballivos nostros omnes alios qui in capite tenent de nobis At present we make no other use of this Grand Charter than to prove it a distinctive mark of a Parliament where the Summons are personal to the Bishops Earls and the greater Barons This Charter of King Johns declares the ancient usage of summoning the greater Barons by special Summons to them severally directed for that the Kings before him as Sir Henry Spelman in his Glossary p. 80. Propter crebra bella simultates quas aliquando habuêre cum his ipsis majoribus suis Baronibus alios etiam eorum interdum omitterent aegrè hoc ferentes Proceres Johannem adegêre sub magno sigillo Angliae pacisci ut Archiepiscopos Episcopos Comites majores Barones Regni sigillatim per Literas summoneri faceret By which it was provided that all the Barons should have pro more Summons to the Parliament that non of those great Barons should want his several Summons and they had anciently several Summons for in a general Summons no body was excluded By which it doth appear that the Council at Northampton wherein Thomas of Becket was brought in judgment was a Parliament and not the Curia Regis for that the Bishops had their several Writs of Summons which appears in that Fitz Stephens tells us as matter of observation that Thomas of Canterbury had not his Writ of Summons but was cited as a Criminal to answer which we before observed And this was but necessary that when the Tenents in capite or Barons which principally at least made the Parliament were to be consulted about some arduous Affairs that they should have notice and a solemn intimation thereof and their presence required and enjoyned by Writs to them particularly and personally directed Besides that it was agreeable to all the forms of Government then in use to have their ordinary and extraordinary Council For Omnes Germanicae Originis Reges atque Imperatores duplici Concilio antiquitùs utebantur altero statario qui Senatus dicitur ad res quotidianas altero evocato concilium aut conventus ordinum ad res momenti majoris as Grotius assures us Neither can it be denied by any man of modesty who hath heard any thing of the state of our Government before the Conquest and that knows that many ancient Burroughs send Burgesses to Parliament by Prescription and will consider the Records produced by Mr. Petit in his very learned and elaborate Book called The Ancient Right of the Commons of England to prove the Right of ancient Burroughs to send Members to Parliament who represent them but that such though not Suiters to the Curia Regis were Members de jure of the great Council of Parliament But the truth is they are not mentioned in any Record or History of any Parliament from the beginning of the Conquerours Reign to the end of Henry 3. as a distinct part of the Parliament of England their Numbers and Qualities were little and mean of no consideration in comparison to that great Body of the Baronage that constituted our Parliaments in that time but our Parliaments seem by the style used in Histories and Records to be onely the Baronage of England William the First in the fourth year of his Reign Consilio Baronum suorum saith Hoveden pag. 343. fecit summoneri per universos Consulatus Angliae Anglos nobiles sapientes sua lege eruditos ut eorum jura consuetudines ab ipsis audiret Those who were returned shewed what the Customs of the Kingdom were which with the assent of the same Barons were for the most part confirmed in that Assembly which was a Parliament of that time saith Mr. Selden Titles of Honour pag. 701. Amongst the Laws of Hen. 1. published by Mr. Abraham Whelock cap. 2. I find thus Forestas communi consensu Baronum in manu mea retinui sicut pater meus eas habuit And after Lagam Regis Edwardi vobis reddo cum illis emendationibus quibus pater meus emendavit consilio Baronum suorum The Parliament is styled Commune Concilium gentis Anglorum and at the same time Commune Concilium Baronum and also Clerus Populus Matth. Paris fol. 52 53 54. And this is sometimes called Communitas for that it represents the whole people and involves their consent Which appears by 48 H. 3. Pars unica M. 8. D. Haec est forma pacis à Domino Rege Domino Edwardo filio suo Praelatis Proceribus omnibus Communitate Regni Angliae communiter concorditer approbata And that Communitas Regni hath no other sense than commune concilium Regni and used as a comprehensive term of them that made it is evident for that it is said in the second Record Si videntur communitati Praelatorum Baronum And again Per consilium communitatis Praelatorum Baronum Further Magnates Vniversitas Regni sometimes used for the Parliament Matth Paris 659,666 And after King John's Charter wherein it was
concesserunt in sententiam Excommunicationis generaliter latam apud Westm decimo tertio die Maii Anno Regni Regis praedicti 37 in hac forma viz. Quòd vinculo praefatae sententiae ligentur omnes venientes contra Libertates contentas in Chartis communium Libertatum Angliae de Foresta omnes qui Libertates Ecclesiae Angliae temporibus Domini Regis praedecessorum suorum Regni Angliae obtentas usitatas scienter malitiosè violaverint aut infringere praesumpserint And the Record concludes In hujus rei memoriam in posterum veritatis testimonium tam Dominus Rex quà m praedicti Comites ad instantiam aliorum populi praesentium which at that time was the style of a Parliament and the manner of passing such Acts scripto sigilla sua apposuerunt Rot. Pat. 37 H. 3. M. 12. dorso And whereas it was provided by the Confirmat Chart. c. 4.25 E. 1. and by the Statute De Tallagio non concedendo c. 4.34 E. 1. That Excommunication should twice a year be denounced against the Infringers of Magna Charta At a Synod held for the Province of Canterbury in that Kings time John Peckam Archbishop of Canterbury enjoyned the like Denunciations near four times every year Constit Provinc tit De Sententia Excom And in the Province of York it obtained three times in a year Manuale juxta usum Ecclesiae Eboracensis By which the exemplary zele of the Bishops in those times against Oppression and the violation of the common Rights and the attempts of absolute and unlimited power appears for that they prevented the Temporal Baronage and outdid the Parliament it self in defending and guarding the Government of Laws By the way we cannot but take notice of Mr. Selden his mistake in his book De Synedriis which he fell into by inserving to his beloved Erastian Hypothesis viz. That that Excommunication before mentioned in 37 H. 3. was enacted by Parliament whereas it was onely confirmed but pronounced by the Bishops though with the seeming good liking of that King so that the Power of the Keys was not usurp'd but the exercise thereof approved by Parliament according to what hath been usual as Grotius observes Vsum Clavium Divino Juri congruum poenarum injunctionem Canonibus Legibus consentaneum summae potestates solent approbare atque hoc est Imperiale Anathema Quòd non una Justiniani lege comprehensum est Which together with what hath been said by us here will serve for an Answer to what Mr. Selden hath aggested in his book De Synedriis for wresting the Keys out of the hands of the Bishops They pretend to a Jus Divinum only for that which merely concerns their Spiritual Office and I cannot for my part suspect them of holding any Opinion of a Jus divinum in Civil Offices which are of a Humane Original because I can imagine no reason for such an Opinion though I know it is by some imputed to them By a Thomas of Becket a Sibthorp and Manwaring and a few less-considering Clergy-men in an Age we are not to conclude the Judgment of the Body of our Learned Clergy They assuredly know as all men in their Wits do believe that the Government is de jure such as it is and can be no other nor rightfully admit any Alteration That God never made any Commonwealth but one by his directive Will and that only for one Nation for in these things he hath left men ordinarily in the Hands of their own Councils and to their own Prudence in which he had no regard to the absolute rightful Sovereignty of Adam's right Heir the wildest certainly of all the Paradoxes that this giddy phantastick Age hath produced The Kentish Knight should have kept his Dream to himself until he had found him out and then have brought him and his Book called Patriarcha together to the King Then I doubt not but his Majesty would have provided him his due Reward But his Book and the Publishers thereof deserve his Majesty's utmost Displeasute For we are in fear that the Government is about to be changed when Books are licensed to prove any thing Lawful in that kind And besides it makes a Charge upon our Divines that they have a good liking to the Design for that they who best understand by their Profession the jura divina have not answered it But to speak the Truth the Book is not to be answered For it is but a fine Essay how near Non-sence may be made to look like Sence and it is truly worth no man 's Undertaking But whatsoever sinister thoughts some ill affected Men to the Bishops may conceive of them we expect and with reason too that they will with equal Courage to that recorded of their Predecessors stand up for the Preservation of the Government in its true and rightful Constitution And the rather for that the true Religion their Principal Care and their Temporal Rights and Dignities will inevitably perish in the Change Nay perhaps in consequence of the very Attempt of a Change except they strenuously for their parts oppose it However their Order will certainly by their Silence and Indifferency be rendred despicable They will lose all opinion with the People of their Sincerity perform their Functions with no advantage and lose that share in the Honors and Affections of the People that will establish them bespeak them useful and necessary to the Church and state in their several Capacities in all after times That they answer their Trust and perform that Duty which they owe to the Publick in their several Offices is that we may justly expect And this they will certainly do though they should be censured as they were in K. John's days or in the Language of the Folio Author charged to be clamorous and over-busie Medlers in Matters of State and Government But to return Is it not a course Artifice in the Octavo pag. 96. that he will so willfully mistake the Question'd of the Bishops being one of the three States and representing the Matter as if the Bishops should have a Negative by themselves to stop the passing of any Bill if they are admitted to be a distinct State CHAP. XXVI WHen it is not disputed or brought into Question whether they are divided in their Voting from the Temporal Barons most certainly they never were nor was it ever disputed Though an obstinate Opinion was maintained from the Time of E. 2. in the Case of the Spencers until the Time of E. 5. in the Case of the Earl of Salisbury that the Bishops Presence was necessary in Judgments even in Capital Causes which must be allowed a clear Argument for their Right of Judgment in such Causes For the Spiritual and Temporal Lords though two States make but one House upon the Reasons afore-mentioned according to the general Understanding and Usage of former Ages But upon this Supposition he tells us of several Bills that gave furtherance to
the Reformation to which the Bishops did not assent and would never have passed if they had had a Negative upon them But by his Favor these Instances of his are great Arguments of those Bishops their Sincerity For they must needs be under great and violent Prejudices Besides every great man as the Author of the Letter well knows is apt to value himself and cares not to be accounted a light man and the higher in place the more unwilling to be found in a Mistake and they are not content if Old Men Quae juvenes dedicere senes perdenda fateri There is good Hopes therefore that our Rightfully Reformed Bishops will be the last that will give up the Cause of Reformed Christianity and will not be out-done by the Popish Bishops in Constancy when they have a better Cause I must likewise take notice to do the Spiritual Lords Justice of the Behavior of the Gentleman in Folio towards the Bishops He takes notice and that dutifully of the Satyrical so he calls it Language of the Pamphleteers against the Court and the greatest Scurrilities with which the House of Commons are aspersed but has not heard sure of any against the Bishops and the whole Ecclesiastical Order For he makes not the least mention of any such But because they shall not escape besides that in his Book he declaims 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against the Order and seems so fond of this Office that he forbids all other the use of the Cart he tells the Story of Hephestion and Craterus the one of which loved Alexander and the other the King By this Apologue I doubt not but he intended a Slander and to signifie thereby supprestly a lewd Reproach viz. that the Bishops are not true Servants of the King and Government but of themselves than which a falser thing I hope cannot be said nor a more malitious thing imagined if not true For he may know that they are better men in their true Character than his Loyal Patriots that are true to the King and House of Commons For they have I doubt not I am sure they ought to have a care of the whole Government in the Integrity of its Constitution The Bishops well know how much the People are concerned in the Greatness of the House of Lords which establisheth the Throne and makes and supports the King Great and by their Power and Interest make his Government equal to which they contribute no small Share for to them is entrusted by the Authothority of our Lord Christ the Conduct of Religion and that mighty and momentous Office hath commended them and advanced them to the State of Peerage and will continue them in great Authority with the People as long as the Nation continues in any degree Religious The Temporal Baronage cannot want them in the Support of that mighty Province that belongs to that House In them the People will find their Interest as long as they can value Wisdom and Religion that is as long as they are Christian Men and by them the Kingly Office will find it self served as long as true Religion and Wisdom can minister to the Support of Government and wise and good men under the greatest Trust and in the highest Dignity in the Government can be fit Councellors and Ministers of State The Octavo hath also a hint to this purpose for pag. 30. where he brings in the Case of Thomas Arundel Arch-bishop of Canterbury when all the Bishops made Sir Thomas Piercy their Procurator he says That uniting in one man argued a great Unanimity in the Voting of the Prelates which seems saith he hath ever been The meaning of this is a sly Disparagement of the Bishops in their Voting viz. that have one Common Tie and Dependency upon the Crown that determines them to their Interest and produces the Unanimity of Voting But are the Bishops more depending because they once for all received their Temporalities from the King than the Temporal Lords who are commoly Officers of State and otherwise depend upon their Prince's Favor Is not the Bishops Advancement rather a Reward to their Eminent Services performed in the matter of Religon of the greatest Importance certainly to the State and a Recognition of the excellent Character of those men that are preferred to that Office than a Bribe upon their Actings after they have that Favor irrevocable Do not we know that the Services of Church-men are rewardable upon the Churches Stock and that the King need not impair the Royal Treasure to pay Thanks to Episcopal Men whose Worth doth bespeak the Royal Favor to that Preferment and Advancement Are not the Temporalities of the Church the King 's only to give but not to retain What evil Prejudice or Obligation can this be to any man to serve the King unfaithfully who hath chosen him perhaps though there were others but as equally fit for that Office For we ought to suppose no other disposition of those Dignities than what is just and fit in our general Discourses however things are administred in particular Cases Is not this an Office together with its maintenance of the Provision of the Law and not of the King But to remove that Scandal of their Unanimity in voting which some have reproached with a scoffing Term of a dead Weight it may be considered that Men of the best Judgments and Honesty mostly agree That Variety of Judgments proceeds oftner from Passion and Interest than from Difficulty of the matter debated It mostly grows either from want of Integrity or want of Judgment Agreement in Votes is an Argument therefore of true Judgment and unbiassed Integrity As it is also farther of a good Correspondence amongst themselves of previous Debates and more mature Deliberation Besides that it is no unusual thing in difficult and lubricous Affairs for many to compromise the matters to a few or to the Majority of their own Numbers and abide the Result of the major part But because this matter of Exception to the Integrity of my Lords the Bishops in the great Affair now in Agitation is argumentum ad hominem and gives Prejudice to the true Right and Merits of the Cause and is the most prevalent and hopeful Argument if not the only one that our Adversaries can rely upon For whatever the Causa justifica or Pretence be for the espousing of any Opinion or part of any Controversie if the Causa suasoria the Inducement and true moving cause thereto be strong and persuasive the slightest Reasons will be a pretence for Confidence and the smallest Color of Right shall prevail finally and in the last Issue especially where the Parties concerned must judge or by their Power can make their Will and determinate Resolves to obtain to the biggest purposes I will therefore farther add that we well know what a high Esteem their true Character doth deserve That they are intended the Light of the World the Salt of the Earth If the Salt hath lost its Savor
the King for that office the best of those they know which are many times most unfit But this may be remedied when his Majesty shall please to give leave to the Clergy of the Diocess to choose their own Diocesan their Choice notwithstanding submitted to the Kings approbation and Confirmation which was permitted by Justinian the Emperor and was in use in several of the best Ages of the Church or by some other method which may be advised by his great Council whereby the greatest assurance may be given that the best and fittest persons be preferred to Bishopricks for the Common people are envious and suspicious and what ever may be done by bad means they always think is so But if Bishops were promoted to their Sees with the gratulations and applauses of the whole body of the Clergy of the respective Diocesses all that passeth under their advice and consent would likely meet with the general satisfactions of the people as it would well deserve as long as the Clergy can have any Authority with them That is as long as the Nation continues Christian But the general Corruption of Manners and decay of Piety is the great and truest cause why the Bishops unenvied enjoy no part of that honour that our Ancestors Wisdome and Piety conferred upon their order conformably to all other the Ancient Christian Governments But when Virtue and Piety shall recover their esteem the reverence of the Clergy will return We are not like long to expect this happy Change for Vice is now arrived to a Plethora and like to burst by its own excesses And we well hope that the mischiefs which we suffer will cure that evil from whence they spring and prevent the greater Calamities that it further threatens However it becomes all good men to assist to support the present Government which is the cheapest the surest and the next way to arrive at a happy constitution of things This was the design of the Author of the Grand Question After the publication of that Book I laid by all thoughts of publishing this Treatise But perceiving that notwithstanding what he hath said the Right yet remains controverted and a Book is since printed wherein several things are objected in prejudice of this Right and more is expected I did review these Papers wherein I found I had prevented those objections and with a little application they would appear insignificant I did resolve to make this publick And besides that I apprehended some things material to the Question were omitted by the Grand Question that a several way of speaking things to the same purpose hath its advantage Our great Courts affect to have several arguments on the same side in great Causes and our Reporters publish them Besides herein several things are occasionally discourst of which makes it of further usefulness to the publick Our adversaries also were treated too kindly by him and had deserved sharper reflections than he makes upon them for their false and perverse Reasonings and ought to lose that reputation which they abuse to the hurt of the Government And further I thought it not for the honour of our faculty that never fails to supply the worst cause with Advocates That a question of this Nature wherein both Church and State Religion and our Civil Policy is concerned and the Right thereof not only clear and evident in it self but also useful to the State should have not one of the Robe to plead for it The friends of the Cause will not grudge to read two Books for the Right as well as several against it and the Adversaries of our Cause ought to suffer the like trouble themselves which they occasion to others These Considerations did induce me to publish this Treatise I am well pleased that I am ingaged in a good Cause that was suited to one of my slender Abilities Right is so strong an Argument for it self that it wants only light to discover it Whereas an unrighteous cause stands in need of disguisings and shadowings and all the Artifices and fetches of the Wit of abler men to give that a Colour at least which is destitute of Law and Right THE CONTENTS CHAP. I. THe Nature of the Right the obligation to use it the obvious indications of it and the benefit which may be reasonably expected in the exercise of it How it came to be drawn into question and how it can be fairly determined how it hath been opposed and upon what Reasons and Evidence the Right doth rely Chap. II. The general prejudice against this Right from an Opinion conceived that the Clergy ought not to intermeddle in Secular Affairs remov'd That Bishops have been employed in the greatest trusts by Emperors not hindred by the Church but this hath been envy'd to them by the Pope Chap. III. The Precedents that are produc'd from the Parliament Rolls against this Right are considered They prove not pertinent at most but bare Neglects not Argumentative or concluding against the Right Chap. IV. This Right cannot be prejudic'd by non user The Nature of Prescription that the Right in question is not prescriptible The Original of this Right that it is incident to Baronage The Bishops when made Barons and for what reason That all Offices whether by Tenure or Creation are Indivisable Chap. V. Bishops never pretended the Assise of Clarendon when said to be absent Bishops sat in Judgment upon Becket and his Crime and Charge Treason by which it is demonstrated that the Assise of Clarendon only put them at liberty but not under restraint from using their Right of Judging in Capital Causes Chap. VI. Bishops sat in Judgment upon John Earl of Moreton after King John the Bishop of Coventry c. for Treason Chap. VII An Opinion prevail'd and continued long that no Judgment in Parliament where the Bishops were absent was good and their absence assigned for Error to reverse Judgment in Treason in Parliament prov'd by the Petition of the Commons 21 R. 2. upon their protestation made 11 R. 2. And by that protestation it is evident they had a Right and that they saved it by that protestation They pretended they could not attend the matters then treated of by reason of the Canon But alledged no Law for their absence Chap. VIII Of Canons Canon law What effect Canons can have upon a Civil Right The Canons prohibiting the use proves the Right Chap. IX Bishops made their Proxies in Capital Causes which proves their Right and their thereby being virtually present and the lawfulness of making Proxies and such as they made Chap. X. A Repeal of the Parliament 21 R. 2. No prejudice to what the Bishops did in making their Proxies The Opinion of Bishops presence being necessary in Parliament continued in time of H. 5. Chap. XI Bishops actually exercised this Authority in 28 H. 6. in the Case of William de la Pool Duke of Suffolk Opinion of the Judges that Bishops ought to make Proxies in the Tryal of a
Peer in Parliament Of what consideration decency can be Chap. XII Their Sitting in Judgment not so much against the reason of the Canon as their assent to Bills of Attainder which was never condemned And the Nature of an Act of Attainder Chap. XIII Over-ruling a Plea of pardon doth not condemn the Criminal and therefore they may judge of such Plea Though they are not to be present at the making of a Judgment of Condemnation Quousque perveniatur in Judicio further explain'd And that which follows upon another thing is not always caus'd by it XIV Bishops one of the three Estates of all the Realms of Christian Europe And how they came to be advanc't to that dignity and trust The convenience of their not being divided in a distinct house from Lay Peers They cannot be detruded from that dignity no more than the Government can be chang'd which no Law can do Six Bishops of the twelve Peers of France and their Aristocratical power That all Governments are lawful that are lawfully establish't Chap. XV. William the Conqueror agreeable to all the Princes of that time put Bishops under Tenure by Baronies and all Baronies at that time feudal with the reason of his Policy and the inconvenience it produced Of the Curia Regis which consisted of the Baronage in which the Capitalis Justitiarius Angliae did preside Of the administration of Justice in that time And that the Baronage of England upon special Writs of Summons became a Parliament An account how all our present Courts derived out of it Of the Court of the High Steward and of the Court of Chancery and the reasons of its rise and growth and how inconvenient it is And how we recovered out of the inconveniencies of that Constitution of Parliament by representatives in the time of H. 3. And that this it being allowed can give no countenance to those that are desirous to change our present and better Constitution That in all this Change the Bishops suffered no diminuion But when the ancient reason of Baronage failed they are after to be considered under the new reason of Baronage Chap. XVI The remembrance of the old reason of Baronage became a prejudice in the Judges upon which T. Furnival Plea allowed that he held not per Baroniam An Entail of Baronies with lands after allowed The reason of Nobility changed and no man now Noble by his Acres Many men Summoned to Parliament and yet not Noble No prejudice to the immovable Right of Bishops to have Summons to Parliament and that objection answered Kings may erect new successive Nobility in Clergy-men That Bishops are of a distinct sort of Nobility and under that and other reasons they are considered as a distinct State Chap. XVII Of the three States which make the Government under the King that he is none of them The Objections against this answered And the reasons of their being distinct and the several Offices and Expectances in the Government that make them so That the several Orders of Peers make but one Baronage and in that there is a great trust and honour greater belongs to Bishops than Lay Barons in our present constitution Their Character and qualifications commend them to the highest trust and render them fittest Judges Chap. XVIII The Reason of Tryals per Pares and that the Bishops are competent upon that reason in Parliament though not so fit to be of the High Stewards Court The Law of M. Charta not Lex scripta Bishops ought to be tryed by their Peers How that Right came to be discontinued and that in Parliament they ought still to be Tryed by their Peers Chap. XIX The unreasonableness of maintaining an Opinion upon a single Objection against a matter evidently proved that Questions of this nature should be considered with candor and not opposed with meer possibilities Chap. XX. Several alterations in the Government since the Conquest that the Alteration in what concerns the Baronage the Bishops Right is to be considered in analogy to the Change That changes of Government for the better cannot again be altered but our zeal is required to defend the Government made better and they deserve ill that go about to reduce us to our old mischiefs by their Antiquity Chap. XXI The advantage of the Change in the constitution of our Parliament in the change of granting Subsidies And how the Lords are bound by a Bill of Aids Chap. XXII The beneficial Change that hath been made by the clause praemunientes in the Bishops Writs of Summons to Parliament which gives Authority for the Convocation By this we are discharged of Provincial Councils and Canons of the Church kept distinct from Laws of the State The Church kept in peace from rending Questions and Religion is conducted not by Laws but by Canons not force but perswasion which commends our Episcopal Government Chap. XXIII The danger we avoided of having our Baronage of England ambulatory and fixing of it in Families and an indefectible Succession in which the Right of the Peer-age of Bishops is established Chap. XXIV The advantages the Adversaries seek to their cause by aspersing the Bishops Remembrance of all the faults in all times committed by any of the Order that many of those faults are principally due to the Papal Vsurpation and the neglect of Kings to defend the Rights of their own Bishops and are all the Vitia Temporum the times of Popery Chap. XXV How inculpably our Bishops have been in administration of their Ecclesiastical Authority how faithful in their Temporal Trust and Asserters of the Rights of the people They have not been irreverent to Kings nor have they encroached any power in Civil matters in ordine ad spiritualia That the power that they challenge is meerly spiritual and they challenge nothing of Divine Right but the exercise of their Ministry which they cannot lay aside Mr. Selden's Arguments for Erastianism answered The Church of England doth not tye her self always to think and enjoyn as she doth at present The moderation of the Church in opinions her apprehensions of Schism just and great They are not answerable for the ejectment of the Nonconformists nor for the scandalous Lives of their Clerks nor their Chancellors nor abuse of Excommunications Why matters of Incontinency are committed to their censures They have exercised the power of the Keys against the Infractors of M. Charta and how it hath been guarded with the denunciations of the Church we have reason to expect as much from our Bishops to support the Government of Laws Chap. XXVI We have as much reason that the Protestant Bishops should be as constant to the Reformed Religion as Popish Bishops obstinate for Popery An Apology for their Vnanimity in Voting Their dependance not so great upon the Crown as to oblige them to disserve their Prince The King bestows nothing upon them but what is the Churches the great expectation the Government hath of their fidelity and performances That which advanced them must