him out of the Government and he had no more Christian Graces than Faith Hope and Charity which he attributes to this Ternary of States of his own making But if he had four of those Graces there had been four States if six of those Graces to have match'd them in number he would have found three States in the House of Commons viz. Knights Citizens and Burgesses and have made six States It seems too King James made a Speech in Parliament wherein he was pleased to use his Logick and liked it seems the Ramistical way of Dichotomies The truth is he had more Logick than a wise King could tell how to bestow For in that Speech he saith The Parliament is composed of a Head and a Body himself and the Parliament This Body is sub-divided into two parts the upper House and the lower House The upper House into two Lords Spiritual and Temporal the lower House into two Knights and Burgesses The Citizens were left out for the sake of his Dithotomy His Method was to proceed by the way of two's and therefore 't was impossible we should here in this Speech of any three whatsoever yet this Speech too is produced against three States distinct from the King Besides they tell us that in one of the late King's Declarations drawn by then a young Gentleman but of great hopes and afterwards a very great Man the King is called one of the three States This Gentleman was very probably misled into that Mistake by a Book called Nomotechnia wherein it is said that the King Lords and Commons are the three States a Book of Institutions for young Students which was never yet allowed for Authority in the Law nor ever had the Honor to be cited in our Courts of Westminster These Mistakes or whatever you will call them with the Authority of the Octavo Author are united together to form an Opinion that the King is but the Bishops are not one of the three States which will be a very dishonorable Error For that it will lead us into a Mistake of our Government and which is much worse for that it hath a tendency to subvert it that is to depress the King and to suppress the Bishops It is an Indign thing and not to be suffer'd that we should lose our Government by Surreption and be made a Babel by dividing and confounding our Language To prevent this mischief we have declared our Government from the very Reason and Nature of the Structure thereof to consist of three States that is three different Orders which make the Great Council of the Kingdom whose End and Business is to administer Council and Auxiliaries to the King who is intrusted with the executive Power of the Government and Laws And besides now we will produce great Authorities to put this Mistake out of Countenance and to prevent its gaining any farther Authority with the People For Errors of this nature in process of time turn into Truth and things prove to be so at last as the Error and Mistake first bespake them and this our Lawyers know well enough with whom 't is a Maxime it belongs only to them and matters within their Province Communis Error facit Jus. And first for this purpose we will mention the Stile that the Parliament used which was convened by the Authority of Richard the Second he being then about to relinquish the Crown to H. 4. This Parliament in transacting so weighty an Office had reason to consider and know who they themselves were They without doubt in all their Proceedings in this High Matter used their true as well as biggest Stile which was that of States Walsingham tells us Sede Regali tunc vacua Procurators Regis Richardi Archiepiscop Eborac Hereford Renunciationem dicti Regis cessionem omnibus statibus Regni tunc adunatis ibi publice declararunt And again Quoniam videbatur cunctis Regni statibus super dictis Articulis singulatim ac etiam communiter interrogatis And again Ordinati sunt Comissarii ex parte statuum Communitatis ejusdem Regni Observe here that the King is none of these States that they are called all the States which signifies more than two that there is mention of States besides Community and therefore it was then understood that there were two States in the Lords House But afterwards he recites us the Form of a most important Instrument which follows In Dei nomine Amen Nos I. Episc Assavensis I. Abbas Glasconiensis Thomas Comes Glocestriae Thomas Dominus de Berkley Tho. de Epingham Tho. Gray Miles Willielmus Thirning Justiciarius per Pares Proceres Regni Angliae Spirituales Temporales ejusdem Regni Communitates omnes status ejusdem Regni Representantes Commissarii ad infra scripta specialiter deputati c. By which it is most clear that the Government was then understood to consist of three States of which the King was none as he cannot be with any Congruity 1 R. 3. Rot. Parl. apud Westm die Veneris 23 Jan. it appears that a Bill was exhibited coram Dom. Rege in Parl. Wherein is contained That several Articles on the behalf and in the name of the three States of the Realm viz. Lords Spiritual Temporal and Commons were delivered to the King And farther that the said three Estates were not assembled in form of Parliaments therefore be it ordained by this present Parliament that the Tenor of the said Articles delivered as aforesaid on the behalf of the said three Estates out of Parliament c. Now by the three Estates assembled in this present Parliament be the same ratified and approved Ac idem Dominus Rex de assensu dictorumtrium statuum Regni Authoritate praedicta omnia singula praemissa in billa praedicta contenta concedit ea pro vero indubio pronunciat decernit ac declarat This was in like manner an Act of Parliament for declaring the Right of the Crown to be in Rich. 3. In the Statute made 2 H. 4. the Word State is used plurally and for more than two of which the King was none to signifie the Parliament as appears cap 15. And so it is also in 4 Hen. 4. cap. 4. in which these words are Sith it is the desire of all the States of the Realm that nothing shall be so demanded of our Sovereign the King He will that all those who make any Demand c. So that hereby it is evident that in the Understanding of that time there were three States besides the King But to spare the Reader the trouble of the mentioning the Records at large that testifie the Parliament to consist of the King and the three Estates viz. Lords Spiritual Lords Temporal and Commons I will refer them that doubt to the Collection made in Mr. Pryn's Index to Sir Robert Cotton's Abridgment under that Title who himself was of this Opinion which nothing but the Evidence of the truth of the thing could have
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
recommend to all ingenious Gentlemen that would be rightly instructed and informed neither deceive others nor would be deceived themselves as they love truth and virtue wisdom and sober thoughts to dispise this sort of wit in others and repress it in themselves And never allow it to be used but in the hours of mirth in the Relaxations of their minds from serious Contemplations and matters grave and weighty where this prophane thing wit ought always to be shut out with care Enough hath been said for rectifying the mistakes of any true Protestant especially any Clergy-man of the Church of England which you have objected against them about Government or Parliament dissenters from the Church of England and Popery Especially when it is made apparent that these mistakes are made serviceable to the Popish Plot and the means which that party prosecute to compass and bring about the ruine of our Church But that nothing may be wanting that lyes in my poor power for pulling their Foot out of the Snare I shall more distinctly consider them First I shall desire them to consider what our Government is and where the true knowledge of it is to be found And where can it be found but in our Statute Books the Commentaries of our Law the Histories of our Government and of the Kingdom Search them if you be at leisure if you are not consult those that have read them and whose business and employment it is to understand them and you cannot fail to be informed That the King hath no power to make Laws that both Houses of Parliament must joyn with the King in making a Law It can with no more reason be concluded that the King hath the Legislative power because his Assent makes the Bills in Parliament Laws than it can because the third Unit added to two makes a Triad that the other two do not go to the making of that number when a matter 's moved from the King in Parliament to pass into a Law the Commons consent last The Letters Patents of Ed. Sir E. Cook 8 R. 3. for making the Eldest Son of a King in Succession Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall was confirmed as there must have been otherwise they would have been void by the House of Commons And yet we will not say that the House of Commons can make a Prince of Wales or Duke of Cornwall And yet upon no better reason than this some men will talk as if they believed themselves that the Legislative power is in the King when no King of England yet ever pretended to it but by their process of Law have punished such officious and mischievous Knaves They will tell you that the Laws are the measures of our Allegiance and the Kings Prerogative and declare the terms of Obedience and Government That a Legislative authority is necessary to every Government and therefore we ought not to want it and therefore Parliaments in which our Government hath placed the making of Laws cannot be long discontinued nor their Conventions rendred illusory and in vain which is all one as to want them That to Govern by Laws implieth that great fundamental Law that new Laws shall be made upon new emergencies and for avoiding unsufferable mischiefs to the State By the Statutes of 4 Ed. 3. c. 14.36 Ed. 3. c. 10. it is provided that Parliaments be holden once every year The Statute of this King required a Parliament every three years which being an affirmatory Law doth not derogate from those of Ed. the 3. But if the King doth not call a Parliament once in a year He neglects these Laws and if he delays calling a Parliament three years he neglects the other Law of his own time to And for that he is by the Law intrusted with the calling of Parliaments He is at liberty to call them within the times appointed And that Laws ought to be made for Redress of mischiefs that may ensue appears by the Statute of provisors 25. E. 3. cap. 23. In which we have these words Whereupon the Commons have prayed our said Soveraign Lord the King that sith the right of the Crown of England and the Law of the said Realm is such that upon the mischiefs Dammage which happeneth to this Realm he ought and is bound of the Accord of his said People in his Parliament thereof to make Remedy and Law in avoiding the mischief and dammage which whereof cometh which that King agreed to by his Royal Assent thereto given I dare be bold to say that never any Bill in Parliament was lost and wanted the Royal Assent that was promoted by the general desires of the people If Popery therefore which is the greatest mischief to us that ever threatned this Kingdom can be kept out by a Law we ought to have such a Law and nothing can hinder such a Law to be past for that purpose but want of an universal desire to have it I desire these Gentlemen to consider how they will answer it to their Saviour at the last day if they suffer his true Religion and the professors of it to be destroyed and persecuted when nothing but their desires of a thing lawful to be had and of right due was requisite to prevent it Their sufferings will be just and righteous from God if their sin occasioneth it and very uncomfortable to themselves The extent of the Legislative authority is no where to be understood but by our Acts of Parliament in which it hath been exercised and used and by such Acts that declare the extent of its power by the 13. Eliz. cap. 1. it is made Treason during that Queens Life and forfeiture of Goods and Chattels afterwards To hold maintain and affirm that the Queen by the Authority of the Parliament of England is not able to make Laws and Statutes of sufficient force and validity to limit and bind the Crown of this Realm and the descent limitation inheritance and Government thereof And this authority was exercised by Entailing the Crown in Parliaments in the times of Richard the 2d Henry the 4th Henry the 6th Edward the 4th Richard the 3d. Henry the 7th thrice in the time of Henry the 8th and upon the Marriage of Queen Mary to King Philip of Spain both the Crowns of England and Spain were Entailed whereby it was provided that of the several Children to be begotten upon the Queen one was to have the Crown of England another Spain another the Low-Countries The Articles of Marriage to this purpose were confirmed by Act of Parliament Those that are truly Loyal to our present Sovereign have reason to recognize with high satisfaction that such a power of altering and limiting the descent of the Crown is duly lodged in the King and States of the Realm For under the authority of an Act of Parliament of the Kingdom of Scotland we derive our selves to the happiness of his Government and and He his title to the Crown of Scotland which drew to