Selected quad for the lemma: kingdom_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A66889
|
An answer to the gentleman's letter to his friend shewing that bishops may be judges in causes capital.
|
Womock, Laurence, 1612-1685.
|
1680
(1680)
|
Wing W3333; ESTC R34097
|
18,918
|
24
|
the Bishops Protestation nor the Temporal Lords Negative Voice nor the Kings Le Roy S'avisera are sufficient to hold the Ballance even when the Commons depart from the Principles of Honour Justice and Loyalty And as they never pretended to be infallible so have they not always been observed to be so calm and steddy in their Proceedings as becomes the Wisdom and Honour of so Grave and Solemn a Convention In 50 E. 3. they desired that the Lord Latimer the King's Chamberlain for pretended Oppression might lose all his Offices and be no longer of the King's Council which the King granted yet afterwards 51 E. 3. at the Request of the Commons themselves he was restored to all and declared innocent This Gentleman was so sensible of this their Prejudice and Rashness attended with so much Levity that he could not pass it by without setting some Remark upon it p. 12. But when Justice Loyalty and Honour governs their Debates and Resolutions we may put the King and to use his own Illustration all the Three Estates of Parliament into the same Nest of Boxes and yet their respective Interests which is the Interest of the whole Kingdom interwoven will be secure and preserv'd inviolate But the Gentleman tells us further That if the Bishops be one of the Three Estates nothing can pass in Parliament without them This may be generally true among States coordinate without a Sovereign Head over them and when a Rival is set up to give Check-mate to the Sovereign Authority as it was in the time of Hen. 8. mentioned by this Gentleman at p. 92. when the Question was To whom the Supream Jurisdiction did belong to the King or to the Pope In the time of such a Competition the Crown is obliged to secure it self against such an Usurpation and does most justly abandon the Clergy that sides with it But 2. If Acts have passed without the Bishops they have likewise done so as by him is said sometimes without the Commons Egbert who first united the Seven Kingdoms of the Saxons under the common Name of England he caus'd to be conven'd at London His Bishops and Peers of the highest Rank to advise upon some course against the Danish Pyrates this was a Military Business and Bloud-shed might have ensued upon the Stubbornness of those Pyrates who infested the Sea-Coast of England And King Ethelwolph in Parliament or Assembly of his States at Winchester Anno 855. These Great Councils were the Parliaments of those Times Let. p. 72. by the Advide and Counsel of the Bishops and Nobility confirm'd unto the Clergy the Tenth Part of all mens Goods and Ordered that the Tythe so confirmed unto them should be free from all Secular Services and Impositions And Wingate in his Abridgment and the World Parliament tells us out of the Mirrour of Justices of an Act in Aelfred's Time That Parliaments should be held twice a year and oftner if need requir'd But note saith he This was by the King and Lords only And I believe we may observe the like practice among some of this Gentleman's Precedents But it is much more satisfactory when the Laws are Enacted by the Sovereign Authority at the Request of the Commons with the consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal that is by the King with the joint Assent of the Three Estates of Parliament let us not therefore dissolve or drive them away when we have them That which is alledged out of Bishop Jewel and Crompton p. 93. to 98. I refer you to the Answer of the Quodlibetical Question for your satisfaction That King James was of this Judgment is evident from the very Words and Speech produced by this Gentleman to the contrary The Parliament saith he is composed of a Head and a Body The Head is the King the Body are the Members of the Parliament This Body again is subdivided into two parts the Upper and the Lower House the Upper House compounded partly of Nobility Temporal men who are Hereditable Counsellors to the High Court of Parliament by the Honour of their Creation and Lands and partly of Bishops Spiritual men who are likewise by virtue of their Place and Dignity Counsellors ad vitam Life-Renters of this Court. The other House is compos'd of Knights for the Shires and Gentry and Burgesses for the Towns Here we see though the King makes but Two Houses yet he does clearly distinguish them into Three Estates though he does not call them so To what is said by Stephen Gardiner and Finch I oppose the Testimonies of Livy Selden Cooke and Sheppard To the Expressions of the Late King of B. Memory in his Answer to the 19 Propos when he was fluctuating in the midst of a Storm gathering round about him and to the Declaration of the Commons 2 H. 4. n. 32. I might Answer That the Upper House in a large sense consisting of Lords Spiritual and Temporal sitting and voting together may be taken for One Estate But taken precisely and in a strict sense as their Concerns and Interests are distinct so they are clearly Two But to those Authorities I shall rather oppose the Act of Recognition 1 Eliz. 3. Where the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons in that Parliament Assembled do Recognize the Queens Majesty to be their true lawful and undoubted Sovereign Lieged Lady and Queen in these words We Your most Faithful Loving and Obedient Subjects representing the Three Estates of this Realm which evidently sheweth the Queen was not there esteemed one So when the Funerals of Hen. 5. were ended the Three Estates did Assembled and Acknowledge his Son King To think to elude such Evidence by saying as this Gentleman does in the like case that such Expressions are delivered obiter upon the By is to make what we fancy not in any Statute utterly void and of none effect The next Question concerns the Bishops Peerage For the Affirmative we have these things to say 1. That the Prelates are called by the same Writ for Form and Manner with that directed to the Temporal Barons so the Answer to the Quodlibetical Question That they Sit and Vote there by a double capacity as Bishops first in reference to their several Sees and secondly as Peers in respect of their Baronies Hereupon they affirm to the Lords Temporal in Parliament holden at Northampton Hen. 2. as Selden reports We sit not here as Bishops only but as Barons we are Barons and you are Barons here we sit as Peers And some Statutes call them Peers of the Land in terminis 2. 'T is his Grace of Canterbury's Title Primus Par Angliae That the first Peer should be no Peer is an unheard of Solecism If he be a Peer the rest of the Bishops are his Com-peers what ever they are to the Lords Temporal John Stratford Archbishop of that place in the time of Ed. 3 claim'd this Priviledge in the Right of his See And the Protestat of W. Courtney elsewhere mentioned
above all Laws and what was forbidden by that Law they could not have a thought that it could in any sort be Lawful for them to challenge as their right upon any account This Gentleman knew they did look upon it as sacred They appeal to it and plead it for their exemption and this he sets down with his own Hand at p. 20. in these words Quid in praesenti Parliamento agitur de nonnullis materiis in quibus non licet nobis alicui eorum juxta sacrorum Canonum instituta quomodo libet personaliter interesse Because in this present Parliament some things are to be transacted at which it is not lawful for us by the Decrees of the Holy Canons to be personally present This is the ground and reason of their protestation The wicked Customs therefore which that Monk inveighs against and which cost Becket so severe a Penance must be sought for elsewhere amongst the rest of those Sixteen Constitutions of Clarendon But whatever Opinion the Clergy of those times had of this Canon I doubt not to make it evident that it is grounded upon Principles of Superstition Determ 11. for as the Reverend Davenant hath it Quid impium quid illicitum What is in it that is impious What that is unlawful What that is contrary to the Office or Sacredness of a Priest where there is a just authority for it to bridle and restrain such as are notoriously wicked and disturbers of the Christian Commonwealth by civil penalties and corporal inflictions The Angels of Heaven think it no way disagreeable at Gods command to inflict corporal punishments upon the wicked And why should the Angels of the Church at the appointment of the King who is Gods Image upon Earth think it unlawful to adjudge the same wicked persons to deserve punishment The Act and Exercise of civil Jurisdiction of its own nature is not disagreeable to the most holy person nor any way opposite to the Sacerdotal Function We have the Authority of God himself in the practice of his most Ancient Church to justifie this Jurisdiction Under the Law God himself joyn'd it to the Sacerdotal Office it is not strange therefore nor forbidden by Divine Law that the Priest should obtain a Civil Jurisdiction We find it exemplified in Eli and Samuel and the Maccabees See Numb 25.7 13. and all that were invested with the Office of High Priest This could not be expected amongst the Apostles because then the Civil Magistrates were not Christians yet S. Peter had once a supply of Civil Authority by a Miracle and to shew that it was not unlawful for an Apostle to give Sentence in Cases Capital He pronounc'd Saphira's Doom for Sacriledge and Lying Acts 5.9 Behold the feet of them which buried thy Husband are at the Door and shall carry thee out But these New Masters of Israel were afraid a Sentence of Justice should defile them with the Blood of a Malefactor like the Priests and Elders among the Jews John 18.28 when they had bought and sold the Life of our Blessed Lord and used all the Tricks that Craft and Malice could suborn to destroy him so precise they were for all that they would not go into Pilates Judgment Hall least they should be defiled and unfit to eat the Passover 'T was the Superstition of those Men to think they could render the Priests Office more Sacred and put more veneration upon his person then Gods own Institution had done They would not have him interess or concern himself in a Case of Blood least it should desecrate and unhallow his Person and stain his Function But we know that all Virtue is Ornamental and 't is as well an Act of Justice to condemn the Guilty as to acquit the Innocent 2. Here is Usurpation in this Canon and it is flatly against the King's Supremacy By this means a Foreign Power restrains the Sovereign Authority of the Kingdom from commanding the Service or making use of the Duty of his Subjects in such Cases The Force of this Canon divided the Prelates of those times between the Prince and the Pope either they did not understand or they did wilfully neglect their Duty and some Instances of the mischievous effects hereof this Gentleman gives us in his Letter He tells us p. 7 8. 5 E. 3. The Parliament was declared to be called for the redress of the Breach of the Laws and of the Peace of the Kingdom And because the Prelates were of opinion that it belonged not properly to them to give counsel about keeping the Peace nor punishing such Evils they went away by themselves and they returned no more Nor did their Disobedience stop here but the Gentleman tells us further at p. 96. That 20 R. 2. the Bishops upon occasion of the Statute of Provisors enter a Protestation against whatsoever should be done in derogation or restriction of the Power of their Holy Father the Pope saying they were sworn to his Holiness and to the Court of Rome These and the like Insolencies were the Fruits of those Immunities which the Prelates of those times received by the Decrees of those Holy Canons And as this Canon was grounded upon Superstition and did confront the Kings Supermacy so the Practice of it in those times was irrational and uncharitable First Irrational for 1. Why were the Prelates debarr'd the liberty of sitting Judges in such Cases Was it because they wanted Knowledge Reason or Discretion I suppose not If it were not because they had too little but too much of these Qualifications That was Irrational 2. That the Prelates have been and may be Judges of Misdemeanors this Gentleman does grant at p. 18. But there may be an Impeachment for sundry Offences under the name of Treason which really according to the Rule of Law are no more than Misdemeanors Why may not the Bishops sit as Judges in such Cases Must the Culprit be delivered up to Justice upon such Impeachments without any further Trial or Examination what will it amount unto This would be a kind of Hallifax-Law and that 's Irrational 3. In the Case of Sir John Oldcastle this Gentleman tells us Pag. 38 39. The Popish Bishops did excommunicate and condemn him for an Heretick and so turn'd him over to the Secular Judgment for execution yet certainly saith this Gentlem. p. 39. those good men I mean those Popish Bishops would have no more to do with him as to his further Execution that the World might see they were not men of Blood So that 't is pretended at least that this Holy Canon as they call it was design'd for Caution that the Prelates might have no hand in Blood and yet the practice is so irrational it does not sufficiently prevent it For in their Legislative capacity this Gentleman grants p. 3. that they may Sit and Vote and pass Bills of Attainder * He saith p. 51 the E. of Straffords Trial was compleated that way And p. 104. Acts of