Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	henry_n	john_n	son_n	19,667	5	5.2650	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A77858	An humble examination of a printed abstract of the answers to nine reasons of the House of Commons, against the votes of bishops in Parliament. Printed by order of a committee of the honourable House of Commons, now assembled in Parliament.	Burges, Cornelius, 1589?-1665.	1641 (1641)	Wing B5672; Thomason E164_14; ESTC R21636	38,831	83

suppose the next thing too that Bishops are in the same manner there for their successors in the Land and Honour that pertaine to their places as the Earles and Barons are for their successors in their owne Lands and Honours For is there no difference betweene Successors that usually have no naturall legitimate relation to the present Bishops in any degree of consanguinity or affinity and those of Earles and Barons which are their proper heires at Law and may claime and must enjoy the same Honour which their Ancestors have held before them if not tainted in bloud No difference betweene those that can no more bee denyed place in Parliament without confusion of all than the fundamentall Lawes of the Kingdome and the government thereof can be turned up by the Roots and those who first crept in by favour to serve a Conquerors turne by taking off their dependance upon the Pope and fastening it upon himselfe and can derive no higher for sitting as now they doe in the House of Peeres than an Act of Parliament if so high and therefore by another Act of Parliament may be discharged Now where the difference of the Title is so great between a Bishop and an Earle or Temporall Baron both to their Lands and Honours and Votes in Parliament I much feare that the Nobility and Temporall Lords will hardly in their House allow this doctrine which yet is fitter for them to consider of than for me to confute and therefore I leave it only with this that if the Lords shall find cause to reject this position as heterodox and deny the Bishops to be in Parliament for their successors in Lands and Honours in the same manner or upon as good and immoveable title as the Nobility be for theirs then the Reason of the House of Commons doth stand yet good as to Earles and Barons and it is no way fit that Bishops should have the same Legislative power over the Honours inheritances persons and liberties of Earles and Barons as these have or ought to have over those of Bishops As for Bishops holding their Lands in Fee simple I can say little to it because my skill is very simple in Tenures Only I have beene told that Fee-simple Littletons Instit l. 1. c. 1. 5. 1. Cokus in Little ibid. Sect. 5. is called in Latine foedum simplex idem est quod haereditas legitima vel hareditas pura So that to speak properly Every man that hath a lawfull estate in Fee-simple hath it either by descent or purchase neither of which wayes for ought I know can the Bishop derive his Title But perhaps in some sense wherewith I am not acquainted the Bishops may bee said to hold in Fee-simple as the word may be taken in a larger and lesse proper acception Viz. Because he holdeth Lands in fee in right of his Church but this is not properly Fee-simple because he holds them not in his owne right and the right he hath in them dyes with him as to his heires But I have heard that ordinarily he that is seized of any Lands in Fee in right of his Church his tenure is either that which the Lawyers call Tenure per divine service when the Lands are given upon condition that the Donee performe some divine Service certaine expressed in the Gift or the Lands to revert or else it is * Littl. Institut li. 2. cap. 6. en Frank annoigne when Lands are freely given without any divine service certaine to be performed for them And further albeit the Bishops are usually said to hold of the King per Baroniam yet this haply may be meant rather of the Honour affixed to their place which works it up to a Dignitie than of the Lands pertaining to them which they also hold in Frank almoigne as well as the inferiour Clergy Sir Henry Spel. Not. in Concil v rolam sub Ossa Hereupon it is that in our Municipall Lawes our Bishops for that they enjoy their meanes and maintenance by the bounty and Almes of Kings are called Barones Regis Eleemosynarij The Kings Lords Almesmen or Barons of the Kings Almoignry as the Almesmen at WINDSOR are called The Kings poore Knights and the Reason is rendred out of Ranulphus de Glanvill that famous Iudge in Henry the second his time quia eorum Baroniae sunt de Eleemosyna Domini Regis Antecessorum ejus De Legib. Angl. l. 7. ca. 1. in Calic Because their BARONIES are of the Almes of the KING and his Ancestors Which being so my conceit is that what Reason so ever they have on their side yet at this time especially this free and high language that they holding their Lands in Fee-simple may with as good Reason Vote in the Honours inheritance persons and liberties of others as others may and doe in theirs might have well beene forborne without prejudice to their Cause For if Almesmen bee admitted to Vote in Parliament it will bee their wisedome I take it not to bee so much elated as to enter into termes of comparison with the highest not excepting their Benefactors or Founders themselves even in one of the highest points of honour and power 2. ANSWER to the fifth REASON Many Peeres have beene created for their lives only and the Earle of Surrey for the life of his Father who yet voted in this House EXAMEN But have any except Bishops beene created Peeres for life or otherwise that were not men of great estates and inheritance or at least of extraordinary birth and sufficiency Of such eminency were the Earles of Surrey But when you mention an Earle of Surrey whom do you meane Is it intended of the Noble Family of the Howards descended from the Mowbrayes If of these you will hardly finde any such that being an honour not so frequently communicated in former times Indeed I I find it mentioned that Iohn Lord Mowbray Sonne of Iohn Grand-child to Thomas Duke of Norfolke was by King Henry the sixth in the life time of his Father created Earle of Surrey and was after his Fathers death Duke of Norfolke but that he was a Peere of Parliament for or in the life of his Father I finde not And I have beene told by a Noble branch of that Renowned stemme and now a Peere that there was no Earle of Surrey made a Lord of Parliament upon such termes But whether so or so it matters not much this being but one single instance And how ever you may perhaps instance when you please in others not so highly descended who have had the honour to Vote as Peeres in Parliament yet they were such whose interests in the publike and share in posterity must needs weigh downe any of those that the House of Commons desire to have removed out of the Lords House For however diverse of them bee well lined with wealth yet the House of Commons are in Parliament to looke upon them as the Lawes doe to wit as upon Almesmen that are but

yet both Church and Kingdome binde them to give themselves in all other particulars wholly to the Calling study and exercise of the Ministery which they have received in the Lord Collos 4 17 that they may fulfill it III. REAS. of the House of Commons BEcause Councels and Canons in severall ages do forbid them to meddle with Secular Affaires I. ANSVVER To this 3. Reason a five fold Answere is directed Councels and Canons against Bishops Votes in Parliament were never in use in this Kingdome and therefore they are abolished by the Statute of 25. Hen. 8. II. ANSVVER So are they by the same Statute because the Lords have declared that the Bishops vote hereby the Lawes and Statutes of this Realm and all Canons that crosse with those are there abolished III. ANSVVER So are they by the same Statute as thwarting the Kings Prerogative to call Bishops by summons to vote in Parliament IV. ANSVVER So are they by the Vote of the House of Commons 21. Maii 1641. because they are not confirmed by the Act of Parliament EXAMEN I put all these Answers together because they will not need distinct Examinations they being much what coincident at least in the maine scope which is to keepe this third Reason out of the Court as being no sufficient evidence in Law to eject the Defendants out of their holds in Parliament against some of their desires It is acknowledged that no Councels or Canons not confirmed by Parliament have here in England any power to bind the subjects either of the Clergie or of the Laitie as hath been clearly Resolved upon the Question this Parliament in both houses But whether the House of Commons referre to any Canons so confirmed I may not take upon mee to affirme or deny because they have beene pleased to forbeare to cite those to which they doe referre Nor can it bee I thinke denyed that any Canons were in use within forty yeares before the Statute of 25. Hen. 8.19 to which I conceive the Answerer hath relation against Bishops votes in Parliament and so Bishops bee shot free from such Canons if urged against them in that capacity as binding Lawes But what neede the Answerer to have taken all this paines of multiplying of Answeres to shew that no Councels or Canons not ratified by Parliaments bee binding to Bishops in this or any case whatsoever For where hath the House of Commons so urged them Surely not here They have not vouched them as Lawes to thrust the Bishops out of the House of Peeres as sitting there against the Lawes already in being but as rationall Arguments and prudentiall Grounds to induce the Parliament to use their Legislative power to abrogate the Lawes if any be for their sitting there seeing that many godly Bishops in former Ages have made divers religious and wholesome Constitutions and Provisions against such exorbitant usurpations of the Clergie For however those Canons bee not formally obligatory here yet are they really worthy the Consideration of those who have a power to reduce Bishops by a binding Law to that which heretofore so many learned and pious men of their owne Coat and Calling have pronounced and decreed to be just and necessarie Further than this the House of Commons bee not engaged And who knows not that the Bishops and their Officers have and still doe urge divers Canons of forraigne Councels and domestique too that never were confirmed by Parliament upon both Clergie and Laitie when such Canons make for the Bishops or their Officers And these must take effect like the Laws of the Medes and Persians And yet now when they see such Canons turned upon themselves although not as Lawes but as rationall arguments only how witty they be in putting off all by the Statute of 25. Hen. 8. which makes nothing at all against the House of Commons or this Reason produced by them And what offence or incongruity was it in the House of Commons to urge Canons and Councels against the Bishops in this particular when no Divine that ever complained of such usurpations of the Clergie hath held it incongruous to presse the very same against them I will not trouble my selfe or others with many instances that alone shall suffice which hath beene before * Exam. of the first Answe to the first Reason alledged out of Matthew Parker Archbishop of Canterburie That Prelate taxing the excessive exorbitances and scandalous courses of the Clergie in the reigne of Richard 1. was not affraid to give this as the chiefe if not the only reason of all that prodigious breaking out Quod contra Orthodoxorum Patrum decreta c. that contrary to the decrees of the Orthodoxe Fathers the Clergie did too much intermeddle in worldly businesses If then so great a Prelate did well in laying this home to the charge of the Clergie that their not regarding the Decrees and Canons of former Councels was the maine cause of all the evills committed by them it cannot unbecome the House of Commons assembled in Parliament and passing a Bill against Bishops Votes in Parliament to produce and use the Canons and Councels of Bishops themselves against such courses held on and maintained by our Bishops against the judgement and solemne determinations of their owne Predecessors in the Prelacy in all the Churches of Christ As for the Declaration of the Lords that the Bishops Vote in Parliament by the Lawes and Statutes of the Realme I meddle not with it because as I am ignorant of the Lawes and Statutes by which they vote so am I not acquainted with what the Lords have declared thereupon Only I have heard that divers Abbots voted as anciently in Parliament as Bishops yet are taken away Yea this Answerer hath informed mee Answer to Reason 7. that anciently the Bishops were assisted in Parliament with a double number of Mitred Abbots and Priors But Sir Edward Cooke could find no more in the Parliament Rolles but twenty seven Abbots and two Priors Commentary on Littleton Institutes Sec. 138. Nor doe I know the difference of the Tenures of the one or of the other or why in regard of originall right Bishops should rather vote in Parliament than Abbots and Priors so long as those Orders continued in being That great Master of Law before named tels us that both Abbots and Bishops were called to Parliament by the Kings Writ else they came not there Ibid. although they held of the King Per Baroniam Witnesse the Abbot of the Monasterie of Feversham founded by King Stephen who albeit hee held by Barony yet for that hee was not called by Writ hee never sate in Parliament And perhaps it is not simply a Barony that gives all the Bishops a right to fit there for I have read somewhere that all the Bishops of King Henry 8. his foundation have not Baronies annexed to them Yet they are called by Writ and vote as Peeres in Parliament But bee their right what it will I

heare nothing from the Answerer how farre this right extended The Lords have I believe declared in this very Parliament that the Bishops have no votes in causa Sanguinis and I thinke the Bishops have found it to be so And to my ignorance it is a scruple whether they had originally any libertie of Votes in Civill and State affaires and were not restrained meerly to matters of Religion Ibid The reason of my scruple is because I finde in the same Commentaries of Sir Edward Cooke for I confesse I aspire not so high as to looke into the Rolle it selfe a transcript of an ancient Record forbidding them to intermeddle Rol. Pat. de An 18. H. 3. 1 16 17. upon paine of forfeiting their Baronies with any matters concerning the Crowne the person of the King his Estate or the State of his Councell the words are these Mandatum est omnibus Episcopis qui conventuri sunt apud Gloucestriam die Sabbati in Crastin ' Sanctae Katherinae firmiter inhibendo quod sicut Baronias suas quas de Rege tenent Vide Pol. Virg. in H. 3. ● diligunt nullo modo praesumant Concilium tenere de aliquibus quae Coronam Regis pertinent vel quae Personam Regis vel statum suum vel statum Concilii sui contingunt scituri pro certo quod si fecerint Rex inde se capiet ad Baronias suas Teste Rege apud Hereford 23. Novemb. c. This was in the 8. of Hen. 3. and in a great Councell or Parliament In Hen. 3 ad an 1234. not in a private Councell of Domesticks of his owne Court as Polydore Virgil and Matthew of Westminster would insinuate Touching the Kings Prerogative it is too sacred to be handled by common or private hands Farre be it from me to set bounds to it or to wade farre in it Only I believe that the Kings Prerogative is for the good of his people and if any person unworthy and altogether unfit and therefore uncapable should by the Prerogative Royall be called to and imployed in any place or office of trust wherein the whole Kingdome is interressed this were an abuse of the Prerogative caused by Him that did misinforme the King and there is no doubt but a just King who should be so abused would soone upon better information recall such a Grant or Writ If then the Bishops shall be found to be persons altogether unfit for such high honour and trust wherein all the Kingdome is so deeply concerned I only ask I determine not what thwarting of the Kings Prerogative it could justly bee said to bee to passe an Act with the Kings Soit fait c. unto it that no more such Writs shall henceforth issue to any Bishop of the Kingdome 5. ANS to the third REASON This Argument was in a manner deserted by Master Perpoint and confest to be but an Argumentum ad hominem EXAMEN It is very true that Noble Gentleman after he had faithfully and like himselfe discharged the trust committed to him by the House of Commons in writing hee added a few words in the close of that Conference with the Lords to this effect that how ever hee was commanded to urge this Reason taken from Councels and Canons yet the House did only borrow these Arrowes out of the Bishops own Quivers to use them as weapons against themselvs not with any purpose to bind the House of Commons or other the subjects by them This was not in any sort a desertion of the Argument but a seasonable explanation of the House of Commons in what sense they used it And were it but Argumentum ad hominem yet was it ad illos homines whome it chiefly and most neerly concerned to wit the Bishops themselvs and had force enough in my apprehension to silence them if they should offer to open their mouthes in defence of holding their places and votes in Parliament any longer For if they would but consider what so many famous Bishops and Councels have said and decreed against Clergie mens interposing in and mingling themselves with Civill and Secular affaires which yet be not of that import and consequence as these in question bee common ingenuity would make them to lay their hands upon their mouthes and leave the discussion and determination hereof to others who are not interessed in it and therfore more likely to bee lesse partiall in resolving of it IV. REASON of the House of Commons BEcause the twentie foure Bishops have a dependency upon the Archbishops and because of their Canonicall obedience to them 1. ANSVVER They have no dependency upon the Archbishops but in points of Appeale and Visitation only And owe them no obedience To this Reason a two fold Answe is framed but in these two points None at all in Parliament where they are pares their Equals And as Bracton tels us Par in Parem non habet imperium What hath Canonicall obedience to doe with a vote in Parliament declared in this Bill to be no Ecclesiasticall but a secular affaire EXAMEN The Reason consists of two branches dependency and obedience both which render Bishops unmeet to vote in Parliament For where these two relations meet make but the Archbishops of a side and it will be easie to draw the rest the same way The Answer endeavours to take off both at one pull because there is neither dependance upon nor obedience due to the Archbishops but in two points Appeales and Visitations which no way concern Parliaments or the dispose of their votes therein where they bee all Equals and where the Vote is only a Secular Act. To examine the truth of the Answere so farre as it denyes all dependency or obedience but in Appeales and Visitations were not altogether impertinent if it were a time of leasure because it is with so much confidence denyed Bee there no reserved Cases pertaining to the Metropolitane no Prerogative wills no Inhibitions that may runne and command in the Diocesans Territories and Jurisdiction save onely in Cases of Appeales and during the time of Metropoliticall Visitations Doth not the Archbishop command the severall Bishops upon divers occasions to publish divers things whether decreed in Synodes or received from supreme Authority Hath the Metropolitan no power to correct and censure the delinquencies of the Bishops of his Province and to command them by vertue of their Canonicall Obedience to be more vigilant and diligent when hee findes them slacke in their Office to enjoyne them silence and obedience if they contest and ruffle with his Grace c. to give other senses and interpretations of Rubricks and other matters contained in the Liturgie than the Bishop doth so hee expound nothing contrary to the Booke and is not the Bishop to bee concluded by it It were easie to adde many moe particulars which cannot bee reduced to Appeales or Visitations Therefore here the Answerer came short in his reckoning But hee that desires to looke abroad