Remember what was said before touching the Writ of Summons in the said Kings time from this time till the last Parliament of King Charles there is no Kings Reign of which we have not many though not all the Acts of Parliament still in Print amongst us Nor is there any Act of Parliament in the Printed Books to the Enacting of which the Bishops Approbation and Consent is not plainly specified either in the general Proeme set before the Acts or in the body of the Acts themselves as by the Books themselves doth at large appear 7ly And to this kind of proof may be further added the Form and Manner of the Writ by which the Prelates in all times have been called to Parliament being the very Law Verbatim with that which is directed to the Temporal Barons save that the Spiritual Lords are commanded to attend the Service in fide dilectione the Temporal in fide Homagio and of late times in fide Ligeantia quibus nobis tenemini A Form or Copie of which Summons as antient as King Johns time is still reserved upon Record directed Nominatim to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury (†) Titles of Hon. part 2. cap. 1. and then a scriptum est similiter to the residue of the Bishops Abbates Earls and Barons Then adde the Privilege of Parliament for themselves and their Servants during the time of the Sessions the Liberty to kill and take one or two of the Kings Deer as they passe by any of his Forests in comming to Parliament upon his Commandment (†) Charta de foresta cap. their injoying of the same immunities which are and have been heretofore injoyed by the Temporal Barons (†) Camden in Britania and tell me if the Bishops did not sit in Parliament by as good a Title as the Temporal Lords and therefore certainly Essential Fundamental parts of the Court of Parliament By this discourse it may appear that the Bishops Sit and Vote in Parliament by a double capacity as Bishops first in reference to their several Sees and secondly as Peers in regard of their Baronies In both respects accounted one of the three Estates and the first also of the three as from the Premises may be gathered without any great trouble But in so nice a point as this we shall not only build upon general Inferences but particular Evidences And first it is affirmed by Titus Livius in his relation of the Life and Reign of King Henry the 5th That when his Funerals were ended the 3 Estates of the Realm of England did assemble together and declare his Son King Henry the 6th being an Infant of 8 Months old to be their Soveraign Lord (†) Tit. Liv. M. S. in Bibl. Bodl. as his Heir and Successor And three Estates there could not be to perform that service unlesse the Bishops were acknowledged to be one of the number 2ly In the Parliament Roles of King Richard the third there is mention of a Bill or Parchment presented to that Prince being then Duke of Gloucester on the behalf and in the name of the 3 Estates of the Realm of England that is to wit of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and of the Commons by name which for as much as neither the said 3 Estates nor the persous which delivered it on their behalf were then assembled in form of Parliament was afterwards in the first Parliament of that King by the same three Estates assembled in this present Parliament I speak the very words of the Act it self and by Authority of the same enrolled recorded and approved (†) An. Speed in K. Rich. 3. And at the request and by the assent of the three Estates of this Realm that is to say the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons of this Land Assembled in this present Parliament and by Authority of the same it be pronounced decreed and declared that our said Soveraign Lord the King was and is the very and undoubted Heir of this Realm of England c. And 3ly So it is acknowledged in a (†) 1 Eliz. Cap. 3. Statute of 1 Eliz. cap. 3. where the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons in that Parliament Assembled being said expresly and in terminis to represent the three Estates of the Realm of England did recognize the Queens Majestie to be their true Lawful and Undoubted Soveraign Leig'd Lady and Queen And in a Statute of the 8th year of the said Queens Reign the Bishops and Clergy are declared to be the greatest Estates of the Realm and called the High Estate of Prelacy in another place It may perhaps be thought unnecessary or impertinent to adde the Testimony and Authority of a private person to that which hath been said by our Laws and Statutes But being it is such a Person as was accounted for the Oracle of Law when he served in Parliament his Judgement may be taken for a creditable and sufficient Evidence in the present Case It is the Testimony and Authority of Sir Edward Coke successively Chief Justice of either Bench who in his book concerning the Jurisdiction of Courts speaks thus of Parliaments (†) Coke of Parl. Fol. 1. This Court saith he consisteth of the Kings Majesty sitting there as in his Royal Politick Capacity and of the three Estates of the Realm viz. of the Lords Spiritual Archbishops and Bishops who sit there by Succession in respect of their Counties Baronies parcel of their Bishopricks which they hold also in their Politick Capacity And every one of these when any Parliament is to be holden ought ex debito Justitiae to have a Writ of Summons Secondly the Lords Temporal Dukes Marquesses Earls Viscounts and Barons who sit there by reason of their dignities which they hold by Discent or Creation and likewise every one of these being of full age ought to have a Writ of Summons Ex debito Justitiae The 3d. Estate is the Commons of the Realm whereof there be Knights of Shires or Counties Citizens of Cities and Burgesses of Burghes All which are respectively Elected by the Shires or Counties Cities and Boroughs by force of the Kings Writ ex debito Justitiae and none of them ought to be omitted And these represent all the Commons of the whole Realm and are trusted for them So He and this is plain enough beyond all exception Adde hereunto ex abundanti that in all Christian Kingdomes of the Gothick Model there are no more nor fewer than three estates convented at the will and pleasure of the Supreme Prince for their assistance and advice in Affairs of consequence that is to say the Bishops and other Ecclesiastical persons who are alwayes one the Nobles for themselves and the Commissioners for the Commons of their several Provinces For so we find it in the Constitution of the Roman Empire and the Realms of Spain the Kingdoms of France Poland Hungary together with those of Dane mark Sweden and the Realm of Scotland And it
Realm and One that ought to have the first voice in Parliament in right of his See But hear him speak his own words which are these that follow Amici for he spake to those that took witnesse of it Rex me ad hoc Parliamentum scripto suo vocavit ego tanquam major par Regni post Regem primam vocem habere debens in Parliamento jura Ecclesiae meae Cantuarensis vendico ideo ingressum in Parliamentum pero (†) Antiqui Britan in Gati Stratford which makes it plain enough that the Arch-Bishop did not challenge a place in Parliament as the first Peer of the Realm either by way of favour or of custome only but as a power and privelege as he ought to have habere debens are the words in the Right of his See 7ly And lastly there is the protestation on Record of all the Bishops in the raign of King Richard the 2d at what time William Courtney was Arch-Bishop of Canterbury who being to withdraw themselves from the house of Peers at the pronouncing of the sentence of death on some guilty Lords first made their Procurators to supply their rooms and then put up their protestations to preserve their Rights the sum whereof for as much as doth concern this businesse in their own words thus De jure consuetudine Regni Angliae ad Archiepiscopum Cantuarensem qui pro tempore fuerit nec non cateros Suffraganos confratres compatres Abbates Priores Aliosque Prelatos quoscunque per Baroniam de Domino Rege tenentes Pertinet in Parliamentis Regis quibuscunque ut Parâ—s Regni predidi personaliter interesse ibidemque de Regni negotiis ac aliis tradari consuetis cum caeteris didi Regni patibus aliis ibidem jus interessendi habentibus Consulere Tradare Ordinare Statuere Diffinire ac caetera facere quae Parliamento ibidem iminent facionda (†) In vita Gu. Courtney It appertaines say they both by Right and Custome to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury for the time being As also unto all the rest of his Compeers as well the Suffragan Bishops as to the Abbots Priors and other Prelates whatsoever which hold their Land by Barony of our Lord the King to be personally present at all Parliaments as Peers of the Realm and three together with the rest of the Peers and all other which have Right to be therein present to Consult Treat of and Ordain and finally to determine and establish all such things and matters as are accustomably handled and ordained in Parliaments Which sets the matter as I take it beyond all dispute as to the first of these two heads or sorts of Arguments whereby I was to prove this point which were those de jure Let us next see whether this Right of theirs be confirmed and countenanced by continual practise and that they have not lost it by Discontinuance which is my second kind of Argument those I mean de facto And in this way of proof we can goe as high as the first preaching of the Gospel to the English Saxons and so descend unto those last times without interruption By which it will appear that Christianity in this Nation and the Bishops Votes in Parliaments and Common Councils are of like Antiquity For first no sooner had King Ethelbert received the Gospel but presently we read that as well the Clergy as the Laity were summoned to the Common Council which the Saxons sometimes called Mycell Synoth the great Assembly and sometimes Wittenegemote the Counsell or Assembly of the Wise men of the Realm Anno 605. Ethelbertus Rex in fide corroboratus Catholicâ c. Cantuariae convocavit Commune Consilium tam Cleri quam popusi King (†) H. Spelmon in Concil p. 116. Ethelbert as my Author hath it being confirmed in the Faith in the year 605. which was but nine years after his Conversion together with Berha his Queen their Son Thalbald the reverend Arch-Bishop Augustine and all the rest of the Nobility did solemnize the Feast of Christs Nativity in the City of Canterbury and did there cause to be assembled on the 9th of January the Common Council of his Kingdome as well the Clergy as the Lay-Subject by whose Consent and Approbation he caused the Monastery by him built to be dedicated to the honour of God Almighty by the hand of Augustine And though no question other examples of this kind may be found amongst the Saxon Heptarches yet being the West Saxon Kingdome did in fine prevail and united all the rest into one Monarchy We shall apply our selves unto that more punctually and with greater care I. And first we read of Egbert who first united the seven Kingdomes of the Saxons under the common name of England that he caused to be convened at London his Bishops and the Peers of the highest rank pro consilio capiendo adversus Danicos Pyratas (†) Charta whitlagiâ— mercyoâ—um Regis ap Ingulph to advise upon some course against the Danish Pirates who infested the Sea-coast of England II. Another Parliament or Council call it which you will called at Ringbury Anno 855. in the time of Ethelwolph the Son of Egbert pro negotiis Regni (†) Charta Bertult mer. Regis ap Ingulf to treat of the affairs of the Kingdome the Acts whereof are ratified and subscribed by the Bishops Abbats and other great men of the Realm III. We find that the same King Ethelwolph in a Parliament or Assembly of his States at Winchester Anno 855. Cum consilio Episcoporum Principum (†) Ingulf Croyland hist. by the Advice and Councel of the Bishops and Nobility confirmed unto the Clergy the tenth part of all mens Goods and ordered that the Tythe so confirmed unto them should be free ab omnibus Secularibus Servitutibus from all secular Services and Impositions IV. The two Charters were issued out by Athelstone above mentioned Consilio Wifelmi Archiepiscopi mei aliorum Episcoporum meorum (†) Ap Eund p. 402 403. by the advice of Wifelme his Arch-Bishop and his other Bishops And 5ly That Ina in the year 902. caused the great Council of his Realm to be Assembled consisting ex Episcopis Principibus Proceribus c. of Bishops Princes Nobles Earls and of all the wise men Elders and people of the whole Kingdom and there Enacted divers Laws for the Weal of his Realm (†) ap cund p. 219. We also read this in the Reign of Edrid Anno 948. viz. In festo igitur nativitatis Beatae Mariae cum universi Magnates Regni per Regium edictum summoniri tam Archiepiscopi Episcopi ac Abbates quam caeteri totius Regni proceres optimates Londiniis convenissent ad tractandum de negotijs publicis totius Regni (†) Id ibid. p. 497. edit Lon. That in the Feast of the Nativity of the blessed Virgin the great men of the Realm that is
to say Archbishops Bishops Abbots Nobles Peers were summoned by the Kings Writ to appear at London to handle and conclude about the publick Affairs of the Kingdom Mention of which Assembly is made again at the foundation and endowment of the Abby of Crowland (†) M. id p. 500. and afterwards a confirmation of the same by Edgar Anno. 966. Praesentibus Archiepiscopis Episcopis Abbatibus optimatibus Regni (†) Id p. 5. p. 1.50 In the presence of Archbishops Bishops Abbots and Peers of the Realm The like Convention of Estates we find to have been called by Canutus the Dane after the death of Edmund Ironside for the setling the Crown on his own head of which thus the Author (†) Rog. Heveden Annal pag. prior p. 250. Cujus post mortem Rex Canutus omnes Episcopos Duces nec non Principes cunctosque optimates gentis Angliae Londoniae congregari jussit Where we still find the Bishops to be called to Parliament as well as the Dukes Princes and the rest of the Nobility and to be ranked and marshalled first which clearly shews that they were alwayes reckoned for the first Estate before the greatest and most eminent of the secular Peers And so we find it also in a Charter of King Edward the Confessor the last King of the Saxon Race by which he granted certain Lands and Privileges to the Church of Westminster Anno 1066. Cum Concilio deereto Archiepiscoporum Episcoporum Comitum aliorumque optimatum (*) ap H. Spel. in Concil p. 630. with the Counsel and Decree of the Archbishops Bishops Earls and others of his Nobles And all this while the Bishops and other Prelates of the Church did hold by no other Tenure than in purô perpetuô Eleemosynâ (*) Camden in Brit. or frank Almoigne as our Lawyers call it and therefore sate in Parliament in no other capacity than as spiritual persons meerly who by their extraordinary knowledge in the Word of God and in such other parts of Learning as the world then knew were thought best able to direct and advise their Princes in all points of difficulty But when the Norman Conquerour had possest the State then the case was altered The Prelates of the Church were no longer suffered to hold their Land in frank Almoigne as before they did or to be free from secular services and commands as before they were Although they kept their Lands yet they changed their Tenure and by the Conquerour were ordained to hold their Lands sub militari servitute (*) Mat. Patis in will 1. An. 1070. either in Capite or by Baronage or some such military hold and thereby were compellable to aid the Kings in all times of War with Men Arms and Horses as the Lay-Subjects of the same Tenures were required to do Which though it were conceived to be a great disfranchisement at the first and an heavy burthen to the Prelacy yet it conduced at last to their greater honour in giving them a further title to their place in Parliament than that which formerly they could pretend to Before they claimed a place therein ratione Officij only by reason of their Offices or Spiritual Dignities But after this by reason also of those Baronies which were erected and annexed to their several Dignities En respect de lour possessions L' antient Baronies annexes a lour dignities (†) Stanford Pleas. l. 3. as our Lawyers have it From this time forwards we must look upon them in the House of Parliament not as Bishops only but as Peers and Barons of the Realm also and so themselves affirmed to the Tempotal Lords in the Parliament holden at Northampton under Henry the second Non sedimus hic Episcopi sed Barones Pares hic sumus (†) Selden titles of hon p. 2.18 We sit not here say they as Bishops only but as Barons we are Barons and you are Barons here we sit as Peers Which last is also verified terminis by the words of a Statute or Act of Parliament wherein the Bishops are acknowledged to be Peers of the Land But to proceed more particularly to our proofs de facto after the alteration of their Tenures by the Norman Conqueror we find a Parliament assembled in the fifth year of that King wherein are present Episcopi Abbates Comites primats totius Angliae (†) Math. Paris in willielmo 1. the Bishops Abbats Earls and the rest of the Baronage of England And 3ly In the ninth year of William Rufus an old Author telleth us de regni statu acturus Episcopos Abbates quoscunque regni proceres in unum praecepti sui sanctione egit that being to consult of the Affairs of the Kingdom he called together by his Writ the Bishops Abbots and all the Peers of the Realm (†) Eadmer hist Nov. l. â— And 3ly During the raign of King Henry the first for we will take but one example out of each Kings raign though each Kings raign would yeild us more a Parliament was called at London wherein were many things dispatched as well of Ecclesiastical as Secular nature the Bishops and Abbots being present with the other Lords Coactâ— apud Londoniam Magno Episcoporum Procerum Abbatumque consilio multa Ecclesiasticarum Secubarium rerum ordinata negotia dieisa Litigia saith the Monk of Malmsbury (†) Malâ—b Hist. Reg. Ang. l. 5. And of this Parliament it is I take it that Edmor speaketh Hist Novel l. 4. p. 91. Proceed we 4ly to King Henry the second for King Stephens Raign was so full of Wars and Tumults that there is very little to be found of Parliaments and there we find the Bishops with the other Peers convened in Parliament for the determination of the points in controversie between Alphonso King of Castile and Sancho King of Navarre referred by compromise to the King of England and here determined by King Henry amongst other things Habito cum Episcopis Comitibus Baronibus cum deliberatione Consilio as in Roger Hoveden (†) Hoveden Annal. pac Rose in H n. 2. 5ly Next time comes Richard the first his Son during whose Imprisonment by the D. of Austria his Brother John then Earl of Moriton endeavoured by force and cunning in Normandy to set the Crown on his own head which caused Hubert the Archbishop of Canterbury to call a Parliament Convocatis coram eo Episcopis Comitibus Baronibus Regni (†) Id. in Iâ—h wherein the Bishops Earls and Barons did with one consent agree to seize on his Estate and suppresse his power the better to preserve the Kingdome in Wealth Peace and Safety 6ly After succeeded John and he calls a Parliament wherein were certain Laws made for the defence of this Kingdome Communi ascensu Archiepiscoporum Episcoporum Comitum Baronum omnium fidelium suorum Angliae by the Common Counsel and Assent of the Archbishops Bishops Earls Barons and the rest of his Lieges
were strange if in the Constitution of the English Parliaments or conventus ordinum the Bishops should have been left out and none at all elected to present the Clergy But being admitted with the rest in those publique meetings and being looked on as the first Estate in the Stile of that Court it must needs be that their exclusion shakes the very fundamentals of the said Assemblies and makes the whole Body to be maimed and mutilated for want of such a principal Member so necessary to the making up of the whole Compositum But against all this it is objected first that some Acts have passed in Parliament to which the Prelates did not Vote nor could be present in the House when the Bill was passed as in the sentencing to death or mutilation of a guilty person as doth appear both by the Laws and Constitutions recognized at Clarendon and the following practice This hath been touched upon before and we told you then that this restraint was laid upon them not by the common Law of England or any Act or Ordinance of the House of Peers by which they were disabled to attend that service It was their own voluntary Act none compelled them to it but only out of a conformity to some former Canons ad Sanctorum Canonum instituta (†) Antiqui Britan. in Gul. Courtney as their own words are by which it was not lawful for the Clergy men to be either Judges or Assessors in causa sanguinis (†) Constitut Othâ—lbâ—n Fol. 45. And yet they took such care to preserve their Interests that they did not only give their Proxies for the representing of their persons but did put up their protestations with a salvo jure for the preserving of their Rights for the time to come Jure Paritatis interessendi in dicto Parliamento (†) Antiqu. Britan. in Gul. Courtaey quoad omnia singula ibi exercenda in omnibus semper salvo as the manner was Examples of the which are as full and frequent as their withdrawing themselves on the said occasions But then the main Objection is that as some Acts have passed in Parliamen absentibus Prelatis when the Bishops did absent themselves of their own accord so many things have been transacted in the Parliament Excluso Clero when the Clergy have been excluded or put out of the House by some Act or Ordinance A President for this hath been sound and published by such as envied that poor remnant of the Churches honour though possibly they will find themselves deceived in their greatest hopes and yet the evidence will not serve to evince the cause The Author of the Pamphlet entituled the Prerogative and practice of Parliaments first layes this Tenet for his ground that many good Acts of Parliament may be made though the Archbishops and Bishops should not consent unto them (†) Printed at London 1628 p. 31. which is a point that no man doubts of considering how easily their Negative may be over-ruled by the far greater number of the secular Peers Then he adds that in a Parliament holden at St. Edmunsbury 1196. in the Reign of Edward the first a Statute was made by the King the Barons and the Commons excluso Clero and for the proof hereof referres us unto Bishop Jewill Now Bishop Jewill saith indeed That in a Parliament holden at St. Edmunsbury by King Edward the first Anno 1296. the Archbishops and Bishops were quite shut forth and yet the Parliament holden and good and wholesome Lawes were there Enacted the departing or absence of the Lords Spiritual notwithstanding (†) Defence of the Apolog. part 6. c. 2. S. 1. In the Records whereof it is written thus Habito Rex cum Baronibus suis Parliamento Clero excluso statutum est c. The King keeping the Parliament with his Barons the Clergie that is to say the Archbishops and Bishops being shut forth it was enacted c. Wherein who doth not see if he hath any eyes that by this reason if the proof be good many good Acts of Parliament may be made though the Commons either out of absence or opposition should not consent unto the same of whose consent unto that Statute whosoever it was there is as little to be found in that Record as the concurrence of the Bishops But for answer unto so much of this Reeord so often spoke of and applauded as concerns the Bishops we say that this if it be truly senced as I think it is not was the particular Act of an Angry and offended King against his Clergy not to be drawn into example as a proof or argument against a most clear known and undoubted Right The cause stood thus A Constitution had been made by Boniface the eighth Ne aliqua collecta ex ecclesiastic is proventibus Regi aut cuivis alij Principi concedatur (†) Math. westm in Edw. 1. that Clergie men should not pay any Tax or Tallage unto Kings or Princes out of their Spiritual preferments without the leave of the Pope Under pretence whereof the Clergy at this Parliament at St. Edmunsbury refused to be contributory to the Kings occasions when the Lay-Members of the House had been forwards in it The King being herewith much offended gives them a further day to consider on it Adjourning the Parliament to London there to begin on the morrow after St. Hilaries day and in the mean time commanded all their Barnes to be fast sealed up The day being come the Clergy still persisting in their former obstinacy Excluso Parliamento Clero Consilium Rex cum solis Baronibus populo habuit totumque statim Clerum protectione sua privavit (†) Antiqu. Brit. in R. Winchelsâ—y the King saith the Historian excluding the Clergy out of the Parliament advised with his Barons and his people only what was best to be done by whose advice he put the Clergie out of his protection and thereby forced them to conform to his will and pleasure This is the summa totalis of the businesse and comes unto no more but this that a particular course was advised in Parliament on a particular displeasure taken by the King against the body of his Clergy then convened together for their particular refusal to contribute to his wants and Wars the better to reduce them to their natural duty Which makes not any thing at all against the right of Bishops in the House of Peers or for excluding them that House or for the validity of such Acts as are made in Parliament during the time of such exclusion especially considering that the King shortly after called his States together and did excuse himself for many extravagant Act which he had committed (†) Wolsingh in Edw. the 1. Anno 1297. against the Liberties of the Subject whereof this was one laying the blame thereof on his great occasions and the necessity which the Warrs which he had abroad did impose upon him And so
much as in answer unto that Record supposing that the words thereof be rightly senced as I think they are not and that by Clerus there we are to understand Archbishops and Bishops as I think we be not there being no record I dare boldly say it either of History or Law in which the word Clerus serves to signifie the Archbishops and Bishops exclusive of the other Clergy or any writing whatsoever wherein it doth not either signifie the whole Clergy generally or the inferiour Clergy only exclusive of the Archbishops Bishops and other Prelates Therefore in answer unto that so much applauded Cavill of Excluso Clero from what Record soever it either hath been hitherto or shall hereafter be produced I shall propose it to the consideration of the sober Reader whether by Clerus in that place or in any other of that kind and time we must not understand the Inferiour Clergy as they stand distinguished in the Laws from my Lords the Bishops For howsoever it be true that Clerus in the Ecclesiastical notion of the word doth signifie the whole Clergy generally Archbishops Bishops Priests and Deacons Yet in the Legal notion of it it stands distinguished from the Prelates and signifyeth only the inferiour Clergy Thus do we find the Ecclesiasticks of this Realm divided into Prelates men of Religion and other Clerks 3 Edw. 1. cap. 1. the Seculars either into Prelates and Clerks 9 Edw. 2. cap. 3. 1 Rich. 2. cap. 3. or Prelates and Clerks beneficed 18 Edw. 3. cap. 2. or generally into the Prelates and the Clergy 9 Edw. 2. cap. 15. 14 Edw. 3. cap. 1. and 3. 18 Edw. 3.2.7 and 25 Edw. 3.2.4 and 8 of Hen. 6. cap. 1. And in all Acts and grants of Subsidies made by the Clergie to the Kings or Queens of England since the 32 of Hen. 8. when the Clergie Subsidies first began to be confirmed by Act of Parliament So also in the Latin Idiom which comes neerest home Nos Prelati Clerus in the submission of the Clergy to King Henry the eighth (†) Regist Watham and in the sentence of divorse against Anne of Clere (†) Regist Cranmer and in the Instrument of the grant of the Clergy Subsidies presented to the Kings of England ever since the 27th of Queen Eliz. and in the form of the Certificates per (†) Stat. 8. Eliz. c. 17. ever fince Praelatos Clerum returned by every Bishop to the Lord High Treasurer and finally Nos Episcopi Clerus Cantuatiensis Provinciae in hac Synodo more nostro solito dum Regni Parliamentum celebratur Congregati (†) Stat. 1. Phil. Mary c. 8. in the Petition to K K. Phillip and Mary about the confirmation of the Abby Lands to the Patentees So that though many Statutes have been made in these latter times Excluso Clero the Clergy that is to say the inferiour Clergy who antiently had their place in Parliaments being quite shut out and utterly excluded from those publique Councils Yet this proves nothing to the point that any Act of Parliament hath been counted good to which the Bishops were not called or at the making of which Act they either were shut out by Force or excluded by Cunning. But then besides the so much celebrated Argument of Excluso Clero the Author of the Pamphlet before remembred hath told us somewhat on the credit of Kilbancies book In which the Justices are made to say 7 Hen. 8. That our Soveraign Lord the King may well hold his Parliament by him and his Temporal Lords and by the Commons also without the Spiritual Lords for that the Spiritual Lords have not any place in the Parliament Chamber by reason of their Spiritualties but by reason of their Temporal possessions But first this is but the opinion of a private man of no Authority or Esteem for ought we can find in the Realm of England and therefore not concluding in so great a businesse And 2ly admitting him to be a man of more note and credit than perhaps he was yet he must needs fall short in all respects both for abilities and reputation of Chief Justice Coke whose Judgment to the contrary we have seen before But 3ly it runs crosse to the antient practice of the Saxon times in which the Bishops sate in Parliament as Spiritual persons without relation to their Temporal possessions or their Barons Fees as afterwards in the raign of the Norman Kings And finally admitting that Kilbancies plea were of weight enough to keep the Bishops down from rising to their place in Parliament it must be strong enough to exclude all the Temporal Lords The Temporal Lords being called to Parliament on no other ground than for the Temporal possessions which they hold by Barony Adeo argumenta ab absurdo petita ineptos habent exitus said Lactantius truly It is the Fate said he of ill chosen Premises that they produce ridiculous and absurd Conclusions There remains one Objection more and indeed the greatest not extant in the Pamphlet before remembred though possibly promoted and occasioned by it that is to say that the Bishops are excluded from their Place and Vote by Act of Parliament deliberately made and passed by the Kings consent For answer whereunto it will be necessary first to state this Question viz. Whether that any two of the three Estates confirming or agreeing together may conclude any thing which tends to the Subversion of the third Bodinus that renowned Statesman hath resolved it negatively and determined thus Nihil a duobus ordinibus discerni posse quo uni ex tribus incommodum inferatur c. (†) Bodin de Rep. l. 3. s. 7. That nothing can be done by two of the three Estates to the disprofit of the third in case the point proposed be such as concerns them severally And he resolved thus in favour of the Commons of the Realm of France who were upon the point of being excluded from the Parliament or Convention of the three Estates if he had not notably bestirred himself in their behalf he being then a Delegate or Commissioner for one of the Provinces and by his diligence and care preserved their Interests And to preserve their Interest he insisted chiefly on the antient customes of the Realm of France as also of the Realms of Spain and England and the Roman Empire In each of which it was received for a ruled Case Nihil a duobus ordinibus statui posse quo uni ex tribus prejudicium crearetur That nothing could be done by any of the two Estates unto the prejudice of the third And if it were a ruled Case then in the English Parliaments there is no reason why it should be otherwise in the present times the Equity and Justice of it being still the same and the same reasons for it now as forcible as they could be then Had it been otherwise resolved of in the former ages wherein the Clergy were so prevalent in all publique Counsels how easie a matter had it been for them either by joyning with all the Nobility to exclude the Commons or by joyning with the Comonalty to exclude the Nobles Or having too much Conscience to venture in so great a change and alteration so Incompatible Inconsistent with the Constitution of a Parliament how easily might they have suppressed the Potency and impair the Priveleges of either of the other two by working on the humours or affections of the one to keep down the other Nor doth it help the matter in the least degree to say that the Exclusion of the Bishops from the House of Peers was not done meerly by the procurement of some of the other two Estates but by the Assent of the King of whom the Laws say He can do no wrong And by an Act of Parliament whereof our Lawyers say que nul doit imaginer chose dishonourable (†) Plowden in Commentar that no man is to think dishonourable For we know well in what condition the King was when he passed that Act to what extremities he was reduced on what terms he stood how he was forced to withdraw from his City of London to part with his dear Wife and Children and in a word so over-powred by the prevailing Party in the two Houses of Parliament that it was not safe for him as his Case then was to deny them any thing And for the Act of Parliament thus insisted on besides that the Bill had been rejected when it was first brought unto the Lords and that the greater part of the Lords were frighted out of the House when contrary unto the course of Parliament it was brought again it is a point resolved both in Law and Reason that the Parliament can do nothing to the distruction of it self and that such Acts as are under a constraint are not good and valid whereof we have a fair example in the book of Statutes (†) 15 Ed. 3. For whereas the King had granted certain Articles pretended to be granted in the Form of a Statute expresly contrary to the Laws of the Realm and his own Prerogative and Rights Royal mark it for this is just the case which he had yielded to escue the dangers which by denying of the same were like to follow in the same Parliament it was repealed in these following words It seemed good to the said Earls Barons and other wise men that since the Statute did not proceed of our free Will the same be void and ought not to have the name nor strength of a Statute and therefore by their Counsell and Assent we have decreed the said Statute to be void c. Or if it should not be repealed in a Formal manner yet is this Act however gotten void in effect already by a former Statute in which it was enacted in full Parliament and at the self same place where this Act was gained That the Great Charter by which and many other Titles the Bishops held their place in Parliament should be kept in all points and if any Statute be made to the contrary it shall be holden for none (†) 42 Ed. 3. c. 1. More Arguments than these against the Bishops Place and Vote in Parliament I have no where found And these being answered and refelled I hope the point in question hath been fairly proved viz. That the Bishops make a Fundamental and Essential part of our English Parliaments FINIS