his qui in sacris ordinibus constituti judicium sanguinis agitare unde saith the Canon Prolibemus ne aut per se membrorum truncationes faciant a very fitting Employment for a Bishop aut inferendas judicent and after all this we have still our old Answer upon which we will ever insist it is but a Canon and can make no Alteration in the Rights of Government For tho' Gervasius Dorob tells us In hoc Concilio ad emendationem Anglicanae Ecclesiae assensu Domini Regis primorum omnium Regni haec subscripta promulgata sunt Capitula yet the Canons of this Council are not Laws For that our Historian does not tell us of any Parliament then held or that they were confirmed in Parliament and the good liking of Great Men out of Parliament will not confirm nay not justifie the Canons if they cannot justifie themselves in Parliament Besides that these Canons were not made into Laws we will offer two Reasons 1st For that amongst these Canons there is one that disposeth of the Right of Patronage against the Law as it hath been before and since taken and that is this Nulli liceat Ecclesiam nomine dotalitii ad aliquem transferre vel pro presentatatione alicui personae pecuniam vel aliquod emolumentum pacto interveniente recipere quod si quis fecerit in jure convictus vel confessus fuerit ipsum tam Regia quam nostra freti autoritate patricinio ejusdem Ecclesiae in perpetuum privari statuimus which was never most certainly Law Secondly If this had been a Law the other Canon before-mentioned made by Stephen Arch-bishop of Canterbury was idle nay presumptuous for offering to derogate from a Canon made a Law about 47 years before But however Canons confirmed by Law remain but Canons still and the Breach of them not punished as the Breach of Laws nor no Innovation made thereby upon a civil Right of which before and after more As to the Second Canon we observe how dutiful this Canon in the Stile of it behaves it self towards the Civil Government in that Clerks should not exercise Jurisdiction where Judgment of Blood is to be given under the soft word Statuimus that they should not Literas pro poena sanguinis infligenda scribere that is sign an Order for the Execution of a Condemned Man or be present at the Sentence is under the districtiùs inhibemus but the doing of this is not declared to be a Sin he that is contravenient to the Canon is not thereby to become irregular to be punished by his Superior or to incurr Excommunication or any Censure the Clergy are not declared by this Canon to be incompetent Judges it only declares them unworthy of the Protection of the Church the meaning of it is Judge not least ye be judged If you judge the Laicks they will judge you This is the Scandal for which the Privilegium Clericale will be lost So that upon the whole matter this Canon is but Advice and Counsel and offers reasons to the Choice and Approbation rather than a Command under the Authority of the Church in a Council But let it be what it will if the Canon had been most peremptory in its Prohibition and had lighten'd and thunder'd in its Denunciatiations it would have been of no force to alter the Government or discharge a Judge from doing his Duty but this is farther to be duely observed that this Canon could not be broken if the Law had not been otherwise than these Canons direct and therefore these Canons produced by our Adversaries are the greatest Testimonies to the Right we defend and a practice agreeable thereto Doth not the Canon suppose that a Beneficed Clerk or one in Holy Orders was sometimes in Commission for judging in Capital Causes For certainly the Canon did not prohibit them to murder or enjoyn them not to write Letters to subborn men to kill What can be the meaning of the Canon but this supposing a Beneficed Clerk to be made a Judge of Life and Death to assist in a Commission of Oyer Terminer or Goal-delivery that he should be enjoyned not to pronounce the Sentence or to sign the Order or Calendar for Execution But if he were not a Judge how possibly could he sign an Order for Execution By the other words of the Canon Nec intersit ubi judicium sanguinis tractatur he can be forbidden onely to be present and assisting as a Judge or Officer at the pronouncing of Sentence for it can be no fault sure nor ever was intended by any Canon to be made one for any Clerk to hear a Court pronounce a Judgment of Death or Mutilation or to see a Malefactor executed What therefore can be more evident than that the Bishops did withdraw not for want of Right of Session but they pretended the Canon because they did not like the Causes But further that nothing more than what we have shewed was understood to be done in that Protestation by those times they must be allowed at least to know their own Opinions doth appear for that notwithstanding the Protestation of the Bishops aforementioned the great Council of the Kingdom did not think the Authority of a Parliament when the Bishops were absent unquestionable This Opinion we do not go about to maintain but this we conclude that there could never have been such an Opinion if the Bishops had been denied Right of Session in Capital Causes in that time CHAP. IX THE Commons of England in the 21 R. 2 pray that the Bishops might make their Proxy which they did thrice in that Parliament once by Procuratory Letters to Sir Thomas Percy as is before recited and afterwards William la Scroop Earl of Wilts was made their Procurator and a third time the Earls of Worcester and Wilts were made their Procurators in the matter between the two Dukes of Hereford and Norfolk That it may the better appear that the Bishops were virtually present by their Proxy it ought to appear that they were allowed to make Proxies and that the Lords Spiritual did so as well as the Temporal Lords The first mention of Proxies that occurs in the memory of our Parliaments is in the Parliament of Carlisle under E. 1. and that is of the Bishops Proxies The words are these Quia omnes Praelati tunc plenariè non venerunt receptis quibusdam procurationibus Praelator qui venire non poterant adjornantur And in a Parliament held at Westminster under Ed. 2. dors clauso Ed. 2. m. 11. the Bishops of Durham and Carlisle remaining upon the Defence of the Marches of Scotland are severally commanded to stay there and in the Writ this Clause was added to both of them Sed Procurat vestrum sufficienter instructum ad dictum diem locum mittatis ad consentiendum his quae tunc ibidem praedictos Praelatos Proceres contigerit ordinari Though generally Proxies were admitted to both Spiritual and Temporal Lords
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
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
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