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
to the Encroachment of the Papal Power and in this matter to declare how far the Bishops might if they pleased observe the Canon Law or rather themselves and what was thought then decent to their Order So according to the Print in Gervasius and therein he differs from Matth. Paris it is Quousque judicio perveniatur ad mutilationem membrorum vel mortem which further clears the meaning of that Law to be that the Bishops were thereby excused not altogether from Capital Causes but onely when it was proceeded so far in such like Cause that Judgment was to be pronounced which when the Bishops had nothing to gainsay they might depart and leave Sentence to be pronounced by the House But we cannot after all this allow the Author of the Folio to have so little sense as with a good conscience to say that he who cannot perhaps by reason of his circumstance and some consideration of Indecency execute a thing in his own person therefore cannot do it by another no more than he can authorise one man to murther another Thus he saith fol. 20. when surely this Gentleman cannot think it as fit for a Judge to be a Hang-man as to sign a Kalendar for the Execution of the Condemned Prisoners But the Octavo is somewhat surprizing in this matter For he doth affirm That it is not lawful for Bishops to vote in any Question preliminary and preparatory to the Sentence of Condemnation when such Sentence follows and the matter preliminary is necessary to the Process This he proves by a Logick Rule Causa Causae est Causa Causati one of Sthalius his Axioms hath turn'd round the Head of this Gentleman I find few men can bear Axioms Maxims and Sentences There are none speak so much unnatural Non-sence as they that use them most May not several men I pray do several parts of an affair and yet he that doth the first part is no ways the Cause of what another man doth in the second and third place Is the acting the first part of the Play the cause of acting the last Or is the laying the Foundation the Cause that lays on the Roof Is the Jury the Cause of any more than their Verdict And doth not the Court give Judgment by their own Authority and Causality If men would speak by Nature and according to first Notions and were not so full of second Notions and Universals we should not have so many Errors Mistakes and Confounding Opinions in the Work But this we complain of as too severe in the Octavo that when he had confounded us with his Causa Causae Causati he would render us ridiculous with a Story of a Friar out of Chaucer That would of a Capon the Liver of a Pig the Head But would that nothing for him should be dead This indeed was a fine piece of Wit in the Poet but translated hither by our Author is an insipid piece of Malice His Design sure in this was to enter the Bishops amongst Chaucer's Friars and then the Learned Readers of Chaucer would be very conceited upon them and apply all his pleasant Satyrs against the Friars to the Bishops But for the farther Evidence of the Bishops Baronage and their Jus paritatis it would not be impertinent here to add That the Names of Barons Peers Seniors Grants have been attributed to the Lords Spiritual in all times in Authentick Histories and Records Forasmuch as a Nominal Argument is not a very inartificial Topick in such a Cause as this Besides that this will destroy the very strength of our Adversaries which lies in this that they will not allow Prelates to be comprehended in the Name of Peers Grants and Barons And that where the Records doth not expresly mention Prelates they will conclude they were not meant or intended to be present But the Collection which was made for this purpose shall not trouble the Reader because in two Books since Printed in Defence of the Bishops Right in question this is abundantly performed Besides that it is a very precarious Conclusion that our Adversaries make and without argument For they ground themselves herein upon a most unreasonable Postulatum viz. That Titles do not belong to persons for whom they were made and to whose Character they agree and that Words do not design the things which they were made and imposed to signifie CHAP. XIV NOw we shall proceed to perform a necessary piece of Justice to the Prelates as well as a Right to the Government to recover its true Constitution from the Prejudice of Modern Ignorance to declare and manifest that our Gvernment doth consist of three States the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons of England These do make the Great Council of the Kingdom and minister to the King Council and Auxiliaries over which the King doth preside as the Great Superintendent and mover of this mighty Machin The consequence of which is that the Bishops cannot be detruded from that place they bear in the Constitution of the Government for that no Government can be legally or by any lawful power changed but must remain for ever once established And it cannot be no less than Treason of State to attempt a change no Authority in the world is competent to make any alteration The Princes of Christendom after they took to themselves the Election of Bishops which is a natural right of the Sovereign Power become Christian they soon observed the advantage that they might make by advancing them to the greatest Secular Dignities Governments and Trusts and did accordingly advance them to an equality if not to a superiority to the highest of the Secular Nobility gave them Dutchies Marquisates Baronies and rich Endowments and erected that Order into a successive Nobility Another sort of Nobility from that of the Lay Princes concluding that they should be better served by men of their own choice and approved worthiness who had also other advantages over the People than those that the Temporal Princes and Lords had by that Reverence they paid to their Bishops and the Authority and Power that they had over them in the virtue of Religion than by the Hereditary Princes and Nobility who did not always answer to the virtue of the original Ancestors and the first stock Besides that Religious Kings and Sovereign Princes did by advancing Bishops intend to do great advantages and honour to Religion but withall they did not divide the Bishops thus advanced from the Secular Princes and Noblemen in Councils for then they had lost their design The Bishops could not have had any direct influence upon the Councils of the Nobles and Secular Princes nor have tempered their Debates with an excellent Charity and firm Loyalty and other Vertues which belong to their Character It would have made trouble distraction and impediment in the Affairs of Princes and emulation and strife and faction between the Ecclesiastical and Secular Orders and several mischiefs and great inconveniencies would have
AN ARGUMENT FOR THE Bishops Right In Judging in CAPITAL CAUSES IN PARLIAMENT For their RIGHT unalterable to that Place in the GOVERNMENT that they now enjoy With several Observations upon the Change of our English Government since the Conquest To which is added a Postscript being a Letter to a Friend for Vindicating the Clergy and rectifying some mistakes that are mischievous and dangerous to our Government and Religion By THO. HUNT Esquire In Turbas Discordias pessimo cuique plurima vis Pax quies bonis artibus indigent Tacit. Hist l. 4. LONDON Printed for Thomas Fox at the Angel and Star in Westminster-Hall 1682. THE PREFACE THis Argument for the Bishops Right of judging in Capital Causes in Parliament for their being one of the three States of the Realm and that their Right is unalterable by Law was written above two years since and prepared for the Press time enough to be made publick against an expected Session of Parliament in October 1679. But the Parliament being prorogued from that time until January the Author was willing to respite the Publication to advise with his second thoughts and again to review what he had written in a case of this weight and moment and the rather for that he had but a short time allowed him for its composure Since that there has been published by an excellent person a Book in vindication of their Right of judging called The Grand Question sufficient to give satisfaction if the world were just and impartial and disposed to make right Judgment in the Cause It may well be reasonably expected that Christian People should not be only just but favourable to any pretence of a Christian Bishop to any secular trust that does not lessen the dignity of the Office and seems unworthy of his Character which as it exempts him from mean and sordid offices and affairs of an inferior and more private concernment so it commends him to the Government of matters of a more publick and universal influence such as require the most improved wisdom and learning and a noble virtue It seems to me most unreasonable that those that are the great and principal Expounders of the Christian Law which gives Law to all Laws and instructs men to discharge their several Offices both publick and private that those who are the great Guides of our Consciences and by whose Directions and Institutions we form our Judgments in the greatest intricacies and doubts that perplex humane affairs that the Guides of a Religion which is formed all to life and practice for the making Governments equal and private men good and obedient which is little else but an Obligation to Justice and Charity and principally pursues that which is the end design and whole business of Government I say it seems to me most absurd and incongruous that this Order of men at any time ought to be shut out of that Council and Court where Laws are made and Rules given for the Government of a Christian Common-wealth where the most difficult and intricate causes are to be heard and determined and where an unlimited power remains of censuring the Actions of the greatest men and the administration of publick affairs and the safety of the Nation are consulted which cannot be long preserved but by pursuing the dictates of a wise Religion Such is the Christian Religion if any other we should dishonour it by comparing it to the best Paganism became despicable and abandoned soon after its publication Yet Tully in his Oration ad Pontifices magnifies the wisdom of the Romans as Divine in advancing the Pagan Priests to the highest places in their Common-wealth by which the Common-wealth he saith was preserved Cum multa Divinitùs Pontifices à Majoribus nostris inventa atque instituta sunt tum nihil praeclarius quam quod vos eosdem Religionibus Deorum immortalium summae Reipublicae praeesse voluerunt Vt amplissimi clarissimi Cives Rempublicam bene gerendo Religiones sapientèr interpretando Rempublicam conservarent Such an Opinion more duly and with better reason our Ancestors conceived of the advantage that might accrue to the Nation by advancing the Prelates of the Church into the Civil Government Thereupon they have made them necessary to it and framed the Government in a sort to depend upon them and left it scarce able to maintain it self without them in its present constitution The Temporal Barons will soon find themselves unable to maintain their own dignity and to sustain that province that is allotted to them in the Government unassisted with the Interest and authority of the Prelates the Spiritual Barons a mighty Power if they be as they ought to be of venerable esteem with the people If the present Bishops are not all so happy as to possess such an esteem we know what cause to assign for the same viz. the unhappy Schism that hath too long continued in our Church hath for its own Justification after they are almost sham'd out of the scruples which first caused the separation sought occasions against the Persons of the Bishops and rather than they will want faults to complain of the Order it self must be loaded with all the faults of all the Bishops in all Countries and Ages and they adventure now to disparage their persons for the sake of their office But sure it is a folly that can fall upon no people but such who by the evils they feel or fear are vext out of their understanding to suppress any Office that is necessary to any Common-wealth in any form of Government for the faults of the Officers for the time being But too true it is that a form of Government while established may be so utterly misunderstood by the most when it is not or not duly administred that a true and exact description of it and a discourse of the Offices and Functions of the several parts of the Government would be taken by them for some Vtopian Common wealth or no better please them than a description of the strength of an impregnable Fort once the Security of the Nation when invested by the Enemy A Lecture of a learned Physician of the Vsus Partium will not give sight to a blind Eye nor motion to a withered hand and no body is warmed or comforted by a painted fire But God be thanked we are not yet destitute of the benefits of a good Government Another cause I apprehend may much lessen the Bishops in the esteem of the People and make them want that Reputation that is necessary to every Governour in proportion to his Charge is their manner of promotion The Ministers of State whose business it ought to be to understand the true Characters of men that are preferred to that Office are often mistaken however in this Course they seem not to be promoted for their own Merit but at the pleasure of the great Courtiers and at best the Ministers of State can do no more than recommend to
Peer in Parliament Of what consideration decency can be Chap. XII Their Sitting in Judgment not so much against the reason of the Canon as their assent to Bills of Attainder which was never condemned And the Nature of an Act of Attainder Chap. XIII Over-ruling a Plea of pardon doth not condemn the Criminal and therefore they may judge of such Plea Though they are not to be present at the making of a Judgment of Condemnation Quousque perveniatur in Judicio further explain'd And that which follows upon another thing is not always caus'd by it XIV Bishops one of the three Estates of all the Realms of Christian Europe And how they came to be advanc't to that dignity and trust The convenience of their not being divided in a distinct house from Lay Peers They cannot be detruded from that dignity no more than the Government can be chang'd which no Law can do Six Bishops of the twelve Peers of France and their Aristocratical power That all Governments are lawful that are lawfully establish't Chap. XV. William the Conqueror agreeable to all the Princes of that time put Bishops under Tenure by Baronies and all Baronies at that time feudal with the reason of his Policy and the inconvenience it produced Of the Curia Regis which consisted of the Baronage in which the Capitalis Justitiarius Angliae did preside Of the administration of Justice in that time And that the Baronage of England upon special Writs of Summons became a Parliament An account how all our present Courts derived out of it Of the Court of the High Steward and of the Court of Chancery and the reasons of its rise and growth and how inconvenient it is And how we recovered out of the inconveniencies of that Constitution of Parliament by representatives in the time of H. 3. And that this it being allowed can give no countenance to those that are desirous to change our present and better Constitution That in all this Change the Bishops suffered no diminuion But when the ancient reason of Baronage failed they are after to be considered under the new reason of Baronage Chap. XVI The remembrance of the old reason of Baronage became a prejudice in the Judges upon which T. Furnival Plea allowed that he held not per Baroniam An Entail of Baronies with lands after allowed The reason of Nobility changed and no man now Noble by his Acres Many men Summoned to Parliament and yet not Noble No prejudice to the immovable Right of Bishops to have Summons to Parliament and that objection answered Kings may erect new successive Nobility in Clergy-men That Bishops are of a distinct sort of Nobility and under that and other reasons they are considered as a distinct State Chap. XVII Of the three States which make the Government under the King that he is none of them The Objections against this answered And the reasons of their being distinct and the several Offices and Expectances in the Government that make them so That the several Orders of Peers make but one Baronage and in that there is a great trust and honour greater belongs to Bishops than Lay Barons in our present constitution Their Character and qualifications commend them to the highest trust and render them fittest Judges Chap. XVIII The Reason of Tryals per Pares and that the Bishops are competent upon that reason in Parliament though not so fit to be of the High Stewards Court The Law of M. Charta not Lex scripta Bishops ought to be tryed by their Peers How that Right came to be discontinued and that in Parliament they ought still to be Tryed by their Peers Chap. XIX The unreasonableness of maintaining an Opinion upon a single Objection against a matter evidently proved that Questions of this nature should be considered with candor and not opposed with meer possibilities Chap. XX. Several alterations in the Government since the Conquest that the Alteration in what concerns the Baronage the Bishops Right is to be considered in analogy to the Change That changes of Government for the better cannot again be altered but our zeal is required to defend the Government made better and they deserve ill that go about to reduce us to our old mischiefs by their Antiquity Chap. XXI The advantage of the Change in the constitution of our Parliament in the change of granting Subsidies And how the Lords are bound by a Bill of Aids Chap. XXII The beneficial Change that hath been made by the clause praemunientes in the Bishops Writs of Summons to Parliament which gives Authority for the Convocation By this we are discharged of Provincial Councils and Canons of the Church kept distinct from Laws of the State The Church kept in peace from rending Questions and Religion is conducted not by Laws but by Canons not force but perswasion which commends our Episcopal Government Chap. XXIII The danger we avoided of having our Baronage of England ambulatory and fixing of it in Families and an indefectible Succession in which the Right of the Peer-age of Bishops is established Chap. XXIV The advantages the Adversaries seek to their cause by aspersing the Bishops Remembrance of all the faults in all times committed by any of the Order that many of those faults are principally due to the Papal Vsurpation and the neglect of Kings to defend the Rights of their own Bishops and are all the Vitia Temporum the times of Popery Chap. XXV How inculpably our Bishops have been in administration of their Ecclesiastical Authority how faithful in their Temporal Trust and Asserters of the Rights of the people They have not been irreverent to Kings nor have they encroached any power in Civil matters in ordine ad spiritualia That the power that they challenge is meerly spiritual and they challenge nothing of Divine Right but the exercise of their Ministry which they cannot lay aside Mr. Selden's Arguments for Erastianism answered The Church of England doth not tye her self always to think and enjoyn as she doth at present The moderation of the Church in opinions her apprehensions of Schism just and great They are not answerable for the ejectment of the Nonconformists nor for the scandalous Lives of their Clerks nor their Chancellors nor abuse of Excommunications Why matters of Incontinency are committed to their censures They have exercised the power of the Keys against the Infractors of M. Charta and how it hath been guarded with the denunciations of the Church we have reason to expect as much from our Bishops to support the Government of Laws Chap. XXVI We have as much reason that the Protestant Bishops should be as constant to the Reformed Religion as Popish Bishops obstinate for Popery An Apology for their Vnanimity in Voting Their dependance not so great upon the Crown as to oblige them to disserve their Prince The King bestows nothing upon them but what is the Churches the great expectation the Government hath of their fidelity and performances That which advanced them must
and by gave the first occasion to this Question which was the true causa suasoria of their denyal to the Bishops a Right of Succession and judgment in that noble question Whether a Treason of State can be pardoned And that put them upon the search of Precedents an Oracle that will alwayes give a Response agreeable to the Enquirrer and Consulter For I am sure there is nothing so absurd and irregular that rude Antiquity and the miscarriages in humane Affairs in length of time will not furnish a Precedent for And these Precedents such as they were reported which we are hereafter to consider by their diligent Members became a causa justifica and the matter in pretence to warrant their proceedings that a great reason of State did seem to them to require And now whether the Lords Spiritual can be Judges in Capital Causes in Parliament is become a Question Though the Bishops Right to judge in capital Causes in Parliament seem to be clear and materially demonstrated from what is visible and obvious to the most vulgar observation of the constitution of the Government every body knows how the Lords Spiritual and Lords Temporal are placed in the stile of Acts of Parliament and in the Heralds order in the House of Lords The Arch-Bishops give first their Votes even before Dukes The Suffragan Diocesans after the Viscounts and before the Barons And in the same order did the Bishops stand in the publick Census in the times of the Saxons as may be seen in Sir Henry Spelman his Glossary in the word Alderman The great Authority Power and Rule that was intended the Prelates should have in all the great concernments of the Kingdom that were to make the business of the House of Lords may be best understood from the high place that hath been alwayes alotted to their Order in that House for Publick and civil honours are alwayes appointed and adjusted to the dignity of the Ministers offices and Services that are to be performed to the Government Such a solecism was never enacted by an Order of State That those persons that were less in power and under abatement and restraint of Authority should be preferred to those in place that had plenary power in the same Courts It is well known too That the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury was originally honoured with the first Writ of Summons to Parliament Since the Conquest there never was an English Bishop that had not his several Writ of Summons to Parliament Though the number of Temporal Barons have been reduced and many of the Regular Barons dismist of that honour for that their office was nothing in the Church and nothing but the possessions of the Abbots preferred them to that State Nothing seems too big or too high for so great and publick a character of the Bishops or out of the intendment of their trust that can ever be the business of a Parliament The greater the matters are that are agitated there the more necessary is the assistance of the Bishops for he that in any affair is most trusted is to be most concerned and by how much the affairs are of greatest moment in the same proportion they are more strictly obliged and required to assist in the management thereof We all know what sort of criminal prosecutions those are that are made in Parliament and what great consideration they are of that they are alwayes the symptoms of a very sickly State and the results of very great disorders in the Common-Wealth In these Cases if in any the Lords Spiritual cannot be wanted The neglecting to interpose in any one single prosecution that is Parliamentary hath proved the occasion That their Right of Session is now brought into Question For to speak the truth it is not very consistent with the Reverence that is naturally due to the Prelates to think that a Trust and Authority of so high a nature should be committed to them and they should at any time find reasons to neglect it But for what omissions they have been guilty of though upon a general consideration without examining the particular Causes and Reasons men not friendly to their Order may thus censure them we shall make a fair Apology as we shall meet with them and as they fall in to be considered in this Discourse We are now to give you some account how this comes now to be a question for the very questioning thereof makes some prejudice against the Right and there is scarce any thing so certain and true in Nature but if once put under dispute that can recover again into a general certainty and assurance It hath scarce escaped any mans observation that hath been acquainted with the business of the Courts of Law That the greatness of the pretender and the value of the Interest and Right in pretence doth cause a point of Law to be contended which would never else have been stirred especially if the Right be invidiously possessed by another Besides these three considerations which are foreign to the true Right I protest there is nothing to my apprehension of any moment offered in Print to continue it a Question I find Two Books Printed upon this Question both of them tending to disgrace the Bishops Right of judging in capital Causes in Parliament One in Octavo called A Letter of a Gentleman to his Friend shewing the Bishops are not to be Judges in Parliament in Cases Capital He begins with a Preface containing some matters and reasons against Bishops intermedling at all in secular affairs and after that he tells us That the Law of Parliament is best declared by usage gives us several precedents wherein he supposes the Bishops absent and concludes they were so for want of Right and Authority to be there And to give some Authority to his Precedents of omission as he would have them He tells us of the Assize of Clarendon an Act of Parliament made 10 Hen. 2 that excluded the Bishops in such Causes and of a Protestation made by all the Bishops in the 11 R. 2. whereby they renounce all Judgement of Right in such Causes upon the obligation they were under to the Canon Law and to render it impossible they should have any such Right and to make them incompetent Judges he adventures to say and prove after his manner That the Bishops are not Peers and to prepare the way for their remove out of that House he adventures to broach an opinion That the Bishops are not one of the three States nor an essential part of the Government There is another Book in Folio called A discourse of the Peerage and Jurisdiction of the Lords Spiritual in Parliament This Author pursues the same design upon the same grounds with some peculiar reasonings of his own If therein I give him satisfaction in what he hath peculiar without mentioning distinctly of them I am sure he will thank me for it But we will consider the Octavo's Preface examine his Precedents and shew that they are
the Jurisdiction of Bishops Novel 83. he decrees the like for Clerks as well for matters Civil as for Ecclesiastical Crimes reserving others to his officers and furthermore in case the Bishops cannot or will not take cognisance of them he refers them to his Magistrates Nay the Emperours proceeded further and did give Jurisdiction to Bishops not only over Clerks but also over Laymen Constantine the Great whose Law the Canonists ascribe to Theodosius made a very favourable constitution in behalf of Bishops whereupon he gives them the Cognisance of all civil Causes betwixt Lay-men upon the bare demand of one of the Parties albeit the other did not consent unto it in such sort as the Magistrates are bound to desist from the Cognisance of it as soon as one of the parties shall require to be dismist and sent thither whether it be at the beginning or middle or end of the suit Arcadius and Honorius derogating from this Law will have it to be by the joint consent of both parties and that by way of Arbitrement The same Emperours together with Theodosius do ordain That there shall be no appeal from the Episcopal Judgment and that their sentence shall be put in execution by the Serjeants and Officers of the Judges The two last Justinian would have to be observed for as for that of Constantine he did not insert it in his Books which Gratian hath confest in his decrees and whereas in the Code of Theodosius the inscription of the Title runs thus De Episcopali Judicio Justinian instead of it hath put De Episcopali audientia to shew that it is not properly any Jurisdiction that is bestowed upon them but a friendly and arbitrary composition to abridge process After this the Emperor Charles the Great in his Capitulary renewed the Law of Constantine and gave the same jurisdiction therein contained unto all the Bishops repeating the same Law word for word which the Popes have not forgot in their Decrees where they have inserted the Constitution of Constantine under the name of Theodosius just as Justinian did in his Books the Responses and Commentaries of Lawyers to give them the strength of a Law But I know there is a Question made by very Learned men Whether that Law of Constantine is not supposititious But whether it be or be not we have alledged enough without it to prove that Christian Emperors and the ancient Christian Church was not of the opinion of this Author and that his Citations so much as they are true are nothing to his purpose The cause or reason of those two Laws expressed in the Laws are For that the authority of Sacred Religion invents and finds out many means of allaying Suits which the Tyes and Forms of captious Pleadings will not admit of That the judgments of Bishops are true and uncorrupted That this is the choaking of those malicious seeds of Suits To the intent that poor men intangled in the long and lasting snares of tedious Actions may see how to put a speedy end to those unjust demands which were proposed to them But the Pope his Decretals the Court of Rome and other Ecclesiastical Courts are of old complained of as the source of Iniquity and injustice and of all the shufflings and tricks that ever could be invented in matter of pleading and that all Papal Christendome hath groaned miserably under them and I wish that we may never hear duly of any such complaints of our Ecclesiastical Courts It is worth observing how the Church and Common-wealth did Actions contrary to each other in pursuance of their several interests The Common-wealth endeavour'd to engage Bishops in the highest secular affairs and in their supream Judicatures and so the people would have it not doubting of such administrations as they might fairly expect from the Bishops ability Authority and Religion But on the other side the Church did as much decline them as she could and so far as she might she used her Restraint only in prohibiting them from medling for their own private gain in Temporal affairs Can. 14. Arles clericus turpis lucri gratia aliquid genus negotii non admittat but they did not take from them all opportunities both of doing good to their people and securing the Secular power of which they became part to their own assistance and without refusing their services to the Prince when required from which practice of the Church the Pope took advantage to put his peremptory restraints upon the Bishops and Clergy from intermedling in Secular affairs to make them the more submitted and dependent upon himself the better to arrive to his Ecclesiastical Monarchy The Dignities and favours that Bishops received at the Courts of Princes was the envy of the Pope and matter of quarrel against them and Petrus Blissensis upon such an occasion makes an Apologie to Pope Alexander the Third in an Epistle writ in the Name of the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury in defence of the Bishops of Ely Worcester and Norwich who attended then at Court upon the service of the King which because he hath been an Author produced by the other side in this Cause and because what he says for their being admitted into the Councels of Princes contains so many advantages to the Church and State I shall here transcribe Non est novum quod Regum Conciliis intersint Episcopi sicut enim honestate sapientia caeteros antecedunt sic expeditiores efficaciores in Reipub. administratione censentur quia sicut scriptum est minus salubriter disponitur regnum quod non regitur consilio Sapientum in quo notatur eos consiliis regum debere assistere qui sciant velint possint patientibus compati terrae ac populi saluti prospicere erudire adjustitiam Reges imminentibus occursare periculis vitaeque maturioris exemplis informare subditos quadam Authoritate potestativa praesumptionem malignantium cohibere He proceeds in his discourse and brings the examples of Samuel Isaiah Elisha Jehojada Zachary who were Priests and Prophets respectively and yet imployed in Princes Courts and Councels of Kings and adds Vnum noveritis quia nisi familiares Consiliarii Regis essent Episcopi supra dorsum Ecclesiae hodie fabricarent peccatores immaniter intolerabiliter opprimeret Clerum praesumptio laicalis then he adds advantages to Religion and policy hereby Istis mediantibus mansuescit circa simplices judicarius rigor admittitur clamor pauperum Ecclesiarum Dignitas erigitu relevatur pauperum indigentia firmatur in Clero libertas pax in populis justitia libere exercetur superbia opprimitur augetur laicorum devotio religio fovetur diriguntur judicia It is well known and I will not be so impertinent as to go about to prove that the chief Ministers of Religion have been the greatest men in Civil Government in all Nations and in all Religions as well as in ours and as certain it is this Author will never find reason or precedent of
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
Regni definitum est quod Comes Johannes disseiseretur de omnibus Tenementis suis in Anglia Castella sua obsiderentur This is a Cause of Treason for that Richard the First immediately upon the demise of the Crown was King It can be no objection that this was not a formal Parliament for whether it was or no it seems the Bishops power in that Cause was allowed That it was Commune Concilium Regni and had the Nature of a Parliament And that the Bishops therein had a parity of Authority with the Temporal Lords But soon after his return King Richard held a Parliament at Notingham Hoveden mentions the Bishops that were present by Name In which Parliament our Historian tells us That the King Petiit sibi Judicium fieri de Comite Johanne fratre suo qui contra fidelitatem quam ei juraverat Castella sua occupaverat terras suas transmarinas destruxerat foedus contra eum cum inimico suo Rege Franciae contra eum inierat And the like Justice he required against the Bishop of Coventry for that he had adher'd Regi Franciae Comiti Johanni inimicis suis and it was thereupon adjudged Judicatum saith Hoveden quod Comes Johannes Episcopus Coventrensis peremptoriè citarentur si intra quadraginta dies non venerint nec Juri steterint Judicaverunt Comitem demeruisse regnum Episcopum Coventrensem subjacere judicio Episcoporum in eo quod Episcopus erat Judicio Laicorum in eo quod ipse Vicecomes Regis extiterat You see here the Bishops zeal and Loyalty that they adjoyn'd the censure of the Church which they had power of as Bishops to a Civil punishment which they with the Temporal Barons had Authority to pronounce against One of their own Order who was guilty of a design to engage a Nation in a War by opposing the lawful Successour to the Crown and this being so great a Cause We hear nothing here of any scruple the Canon gave them nor mention of any Priviledge of an Ecclesiastick to be exempt from the Judgment of the secular Court In the same Parliament Giraldus de Canavilla was accus'd of harbouring of Pirats and Praeterea saith Hoveden appellaverunt eum de Laesurâ Regiae Majestatis in eo quod ipse ad vocationem Justitiariorum Regis venire noluit nec juri stare de praedictâ receptatione raptorum neque eos ad Justitiam Regis producere sed respondet se esse hominem Comitis Johannis velle in Curiâ suâ Juri stare Hoveden tells us all that were present at this great Council Hubert Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Galfridus Arch-Bishop of York Hugh Bishop of Durham Hugh Bishop of Lincoln William Bishop of Ely William Bishop of Hereford Henry Bishop of Worcester Henry Bishop of Exeter and John Bishop of Carlisle Earl David Brother of the King of Scots Hamelinus Earl de Warrenna Ranulfus Earl of Chester William Earl of Feriers William Earl of Salisbury and Roger Bigot Let any one judge if it was likely that the Bishops did withdraw in the Case of Earl John or the said Bishop when besides them there were but six Barons present at that Parliament What manner of great Council would this Parliament have been that had consisted but of six Barons of what Authority would such a Parliament have been in the absence of the King and a troubled Estate of the Kingdom CHAP. VII IN the time of Edward the Second in the two Judgments against the Spencers the Right of the Bishops to judge in capital Causes in Parliament was carried so high in opinion that their presence was thought necessary to give Authority and validity to the Judgment of the House of Lords in such Cases and their absence was assigned for Error for Reversal of those Judgments for an Error that appears in the irregularity of the Proceedings is an allowable Cause for vacating the Judgment by the same Court that gave it And so far did that Opinion prevail that the presence of the Lords Spiritual was necessary to give Authority to a Judgment of that House that for this Cause because the Prelates were absent that Judgment was reversed Which opinion did arise upon this mistake that because the Lords Spiritual was one of the two States that made the House of Lords nothing could be done without their concurrence But though they are a distinct State from the Temporal Lords they make but one House and they are both there under one Notion and Reason viz. as they are both Lords Spiritual and Temporal the Baronage of England But let any man tell me that can whether if the Lords Spiritual had not been understood Judges in Parliament in Capital Causes it could have been a question whether their absence could avoid the Judgment in the Case of the Spencers much less that such an opinion should prevail that the Judgment should be as it was for that reason reversed And tho' the Reversal of that Judgment was set aside and the Judgment affirmed in 1 E. 3. Yet the publick Recognition of the Bishops Right in the Reversal remains an undeniable Testimony to their Right of sitting Tho' the Reversal of that Judgment was not warrantable for the reason of the Bishops absence as it could not have been reversed by reason of the absence of as many Temporal Barons if there remained enough besides to make a House to give the Judgment And yet we find the Reversal of the Reversal reversed in 21 R. 2. and the Family of the Spencers restored in the person of the Earl of Glocester So prevalent was the opinion that the Bishops Concurrence was necessary in all capital Judgments in Parliament at that time For this see Sir Robert Cottons Abridgment fol. 373. Yet it is observable that the consequence from the Bishops being a third State and an Essential constituent part of that House to a necessity of their presence in all judicial matters even of Capital Offences and Treason did so stick with that Age for they then in that Age did no more know what three States served for or that they both made but one House than some in our time can tell how to find them For that very Reason in 21 R. 2. the first Petition that the Commons made in that Parliament to the King was for that diverse Judgments were heretofore undone for that the Clergy were not present The Commons prayed the King that the Clergy would appoint some to be their Common Proctor with sufficient Authority thereunto The Prelates therefore being severally examined appointed Sir Thomas de la Piercy to assent The words of which Petition and the procuratory Letters for greater Authority and more satisfaction I have thought fit to transcribe Nos Thomas Cantuar. Robertus Eborac Archiepiscopi ac Praelati Clerus utriusque Provinciae Cantuar. Ebor. jure Ecclesiarum nostrarum Temporalium earundem habentes jus interessendi in singulis Parliamentis Domini nostri Regis
accomodet This may be a Canon for all that I know but I suspect it had never the Royal Assent to make it so it not being likely that the Conqueror would discharge the Bishops from those Services of the Crown which he had so lately obliged them to by his tenure but surely it was never intended by this Canon that the Prelates and great Abbots should or that they did depart from their Royal Franchises and not make their Officers for administring Justice according to their Authorities in their Charters of Liberties and Priviledges For the words of the Canon Vel judicantibus tuae authoritatis favorem accomodet if they signifie any thing more than what weallow must sound to that purpose But I suppose the Gentlemen that appear'd against the Bishops had rather than affirm so against the known practice of all Ages be content to agree that this Canon did only intend to prohibit their pronouncing or encouraging or promoting the Sentence of Death or Mutilation and indeed this was all that truly could be pretended to from them in comporting themselves decently with respect as the Opinion of those times was to their Function which is expressed to be the Inducement to that Canon of Toledo as it was the only avowed Reason of all others that is that it did not become as they thought those that administred the Sacraments which were the Seals of God's Pardon to pronounce an exterminating Sentence of Life and Member though they might have a farther Secret purpose therein of carrying on the Design of a Church-Sovereignty by imbodying the Clergy and dividing them from all Secular Dependencies but this was nor always to be owned neither is it an agreable Employment to any person who pretends himself a Protestant to urge these ill-designing Canons as a pretence to divest the Bishops of those their Legal Rights which were so prejudicial to the high Growth of the Papal Power upon any pretence whatsoever or to go about to deprave the Reformation as if the true Christian Religion would not allow to the Bishops Honors and Trusts as great as they now enjoy by the Constitution of the Government who are the Chief Ministers of it which is a Religion that makes men wise and good the Religion of the State and is the greatest Support of it and reciprocally this Religion it self is honored assisted and greatly advantaged for obtaining its ends by those Honors and the place at present appointed to them in the Government But it is deplorable to find any man so madly set upon so bad a Design that he should be thereby transported from Common Sence and think to displace them and degrade them by Popish Canons that when they were made did not oblige were never observed and can no more bind our present Church to observe them than the Fathers of Toledo or Lanfrank and his Suffragans and Clerks can be blam'd for not being agreable to the Canons that have been made since the Reformation or hereafter shall be made by our Church in any after Age of the World But there are two Canons yet behind which have been mentioned in this Controversie which we will likewise take notice of or we shall have said nothing though I almost despair that any thing will be a Satisfaction to such Opposers as this Right hath met withall The first whereof was made by Richard Archbishop of Canterbury Anno Domini 1175. in 21 H. 2. about Eleven Years after the Assize of Clarendon in these Words as Hoveden p. 310. ac Gervase Dorob relates them His qui in sacris Ordinibus constituti sunt judicium sanguinis agitare non licet unde prohibemus ne aut per se membrorum truncationes faciant aut inferendas judicent quod si quis tale fecerit concessi Ordinis privetur officio loco inhibemus etiam sub interminatione Anathematis ne quis Sacerdos habeat Vicecomitum aut praepositi secularis officium The other was made Anno 1222 about 47 years after the first which is to be found in Linwood p. 146. among the Constitutions of Stephen Arch-bishop of Canterbury as follows Praesenti Decreto statuimus ne Clerici beneficiati aut in sacris ordinibus constituti villarum procuratores admittantur viz. ut sint Seneschalli aut Ballivi talium administrationum occasione quarum laicis in reddendis ratiociniis obligentur veljurisdictiones exerceant seculares presertim illas quibus sanguinis judicium in locis sacris tractetur in Ecclesia viz. aut in Coemiterio Authoritate quoque Concilii districtiùs inhibemus ne quis Clericus beneficiatus vel in Sacris Ordinibus constitutus literas pro poena sanguinis infligenda scribere vel dictare presumat vel ubi judicium sanguinis tractatur vel exercetur intersit Noverint enim hujusmodi se Ecclesiastica indignos protectione cum per eos in Ecclesia Dei per talia presumpta scandalum generetur Upon both these Canons we observe first that the Pope's Canon-Law had not obtained in England For then there had been no need of these Canons or however their Denunciations and Censures would have been the same That the Inhibition is repeated by a Second Council but in milder Terms signifies to me the Continuance of the thing prohibited and that it was so much in use after the first Canon that the second Council thought fit rather to direct and admonish by their Canon than to pronounce either Anathema's or Privation against those that break that Canon Secondly That neither of these Canons extend to Bishops not the first not only for that I question whether Bishops can be intended in such general words In Sacris Ordinibus constituti But because the Denunciation of the Canon cannot have effect as to them no Ecclesiastical Authority can depose a Metropolitan and also because the Second cannot by any Construction extend to them for Clerici beneficiali does not mean them and that which comes after aut in Sacris Ordinibus constituti cannot ascend in meaning and intend the Bishops especially in a Canon Law which we must suppose penn'd with special Care and Observance of Decency and Reverence to that Order Now to consider them apart I find the first agreable to and to prohibit no more than what the Bishops if here meant are licenced and priviledged from in the Assize of Clarendon And to intend more is unreasonable when it was made in time so near to Thomas of Becket that his Fate could not be forgotten And farther we must distinguish between the Preamble which contains the Reason and Inducement of a Law and what is for that reason prohibited For let the Reason be as large as it will yet the Law is no other than what is enjoyned Reason makes no Law but the Legislators for Reasons which they may tell us if they please though the Nature of Canons requires that they should The Preamble of this Canon was an opinion taken up amongst some of the Clergy viz Non licet
it to the Son and his Descendents and to the Family he should derive from himself and when this was alienated in Fee the descent of it was directed agreeably to the manner and direction of the first Collation If the Father gave the Son the Estate there was a Tenure created of the Father as there was in all Feofments of the Feoffer before the Statute of Quia emptores terrarum and it is a Rule in Law that a man cannot be haeres dominus Stamford's Exposition of the Prerogative chap. 5. fol. 23. B. If before the Statute of Quia emptores the eldest Son had enfeoffed the middlemost to hold of him and had taken his Homage the middlemost dieth without Issue the youngest should have had the Land and not the eldest Howbeit if there were no youngest Son or any other Heir than the Feoffor might claim the Land again by Escheat and not otherwise Another is this for a reason in our Law why the Children of several venters shall not inherit each others Lands it is told us it is so because they are but of the half blood to one another and therefore the Brother of the first venter shall not succeed to the State of the Brother by a second venter which dies without Issue But the Land must descend to the Uncle But this Uncle can be but of the half blood to the Nephew and the very reason that is given for the Law makes the Law unreasonable But the true reason why the Brothers of different venters cannot inherit each other is a disallowance that our Ancestors the Saxons had of second Marriages they as most of the Germane Nations esteeming them as concubinat and at best but as permitted Fornication So Tacitus tells us in his Book de moribus Germanorum that they did not allow of Second Marriages Ne non maritum sed matrimonium ament non nuptam sed nuptias and agreable to this Opinion are descents governed in several Countries in Germany at this day This tho' it is apt to excite all Gentlemen of the Robe never to acquiesce in any reason of the Law that is not sence which if they do they will forfeit their Reason and Judgment I should not have been so impertinent as to have mentioned in this Discourse but that this dealing in Causes without the exercise of clear reason about them hath brought it to pass that much of our Law will not sort to Natural Reason and Justice and this gave one great occasion to the Rise and Growth of the Court of Chancery Since it came in my way to shew the Original of the other Courts and the Reader may wonder that there is nothing in Antiquity that gives Authority to so celebrated and so busie a Court as this is at this day I will here offer an account of the Rise and Growth of it which will prepare the way for taking of it down which is no less a Reproach than it is a Grievance to the Nation There is nothing so great a Reproach to a Nation than to have Laws that are confessedly not good and equal to continue them and yet to allow of an Authority to reproach them with Iniquity that our Courts of Law should be under Rules and Obligations to pronounce Judgments which a single Gentleman shall authoritatively controul and condemn as unrighteous that Law and Equity should be Opposites That a Judgment must be made up and formd in a Case and what is equal just and fit therein must not be considered though it can be and will in another Court have a judicial Consideration Our Judges at Law take themselves bound not to hear or regard the Allegations of the Defendants against the Plaintiffs pretence which ought in good reason to bar them therein or at least qualifie the Judgments when the same matter shall be heard in Chancery and prevail either wholly to set aside or to qualifie the same Judgments This is not only to be complain'd of as derogatory to the Reputation of the Wisdom of the Nation but is insufferably oppressive to the Subject by the multiplicity of Suits tedious and vexatious Delays Nay by this ill Contrivance the Expences sometimes equal sometimes exceed the Value of the Right which is litigated and which is worse the Event of the Suit is very uncertain and fortuitous But this is not all our Law it seems is not a Rule that extends it self to all Causes and we have Rights confessedly such and which can be judicially remedied to which the Common Law extends no Relief For a thousand Causes in a year are for that reason heard in the Court of Chancery Two such Reproaches no Nation but ours hath ever yet incurr'd or suffer'd For Law and Equity is no where else opposed and every Right hath his Remedy by the Law of the Country but ours The first great occasion to the rise of the Chancery was Feoffments made upon Trust to uses in the time of our Warring about the Title of the Crown to avoid Forfeitures The Judges in tenderness to the Condition and necessity of those times did judge that an Use was no Right though most certainly it is For it is jus ad rem that nothing might be forfeited when it depended upon chance whether a man should be a good Subject or a Traitor And the same consideration easily admitted of any Authority that would interpose to relieve against those who would abuse or deny such Trusts and no body brought into question that authority by which a piece of justice so necessary to the Nation was administred Another great reason of the business of the Court of Chancery is that which we before-mentioned that we have not improv'd the Statute of Westm 2 C. 24. And a third is the ill conducting of our Laws our Ancient Judges were infected with the Monkery of that time men of no Learning and of a vain Subtilty The Theology of those times was insipid and most trifling and the Administration of Justice agreably turned into a vain art of disputing the apices juris and a subtilty was used too fine for business and to govern the affairs of Men that governed themselves by none of those Superfineries They argued without Discourse or discoursed from positive Rules or Presidents which were almost the same with them as Rules of Law and not from the true Merits of the Cause and its own particular reasons of Right And the Common Law which is Lex non scripta i. e. that which a wise Judicature should declare upon the consideration of the present Case was by the Proceedings of our Courts turn'd into a Lex scripta positive and inflexible and the Rule of Justice could not accomodate it self to every Case according to the Exigency of Right and Justice But if it were consider'd that there can be no Prescription against Justice that no Presidents where a Right hath not been relieved can be pretended why it should not be assisted hereafter And if a matter
Summons to Parliament and the Stile of Barons it was less difficult for those Great Barons to procure a Law to exclude the rest wholly from having any Right to sit in the Parliaments under the name of Tenant in Chief only And to this purpose doubtless saith Mr. Selden some Law was afterwards made that none should come to Parliament as a Baron that is by vertue of his Tenure but such as should have several Writs of Summons directed to them in which number not only all those of the Ancient and Greater Barons were comprehended but others to whom Writs should be directed which is in effect that no Tenure should any longer make a Baron of the Kingdom but that the Writ of Summons only should make a Baron It is not improbable for the reasons aforementioned that such Law was made the 49 H. 3. and farther for that we find that the Abbot of Leicester in the 26 E. 3. was discharged from being summoned to Parliament amongst other reasons that he was not summoned to Parliament before 49th year of H. 3. and after that Interpotalis vicibus as if part of the Constitution had been that those of the Ecclesiasticks who at that time were accounted the Barones Majores so declared by having Writs of Summons to Parliament should have Writs of Summons to Parliament thence after in Succession And herewith agreeth Mr. Cambden Brit. fo Henricus tertius ex tantâ multitudine quae seditiosa turbulenta fuit optimos quosque rescripto ad Comitia Parliamentaria evocaverit ille enim ex satis antiquo scriptore loquor post magnas perturbationes enormes vexationes inter ipsum Regem Simonem de Montfort alios Barones motas sopitas statuit ordinavit quod omnes illi Comites Barones Regni Angliae quibus ipse Rex dignatus est brevia summonitionum dirigere venierent ad Parliamentum CHAP. XVI SO that it appears clearly that the Feudal Baronies about this time were quite discharged so far that no man by a feudal Barony had any Right to sit in Parliament and those that were feudal Barons before this time by the Alienation of their Baronies afterwards did not cease to be Barons But for that the Majores Barones and such as had then Writs of Summons and were appointed to make the House of Lords for after time were then Barons by Tenure It continued an Opinion some time that no man was bound to answer such Writs of Summons but those that were bound thereto by their Tenures thence it was that after this Constitution many that were feudal Barons before have taken a Liberty to entail their Baronies with the Lands that were held per Baroniam upon the Heirs Males whereby the Heirs general or next Heir Female were excluded and an Heir of the half Blood hath enjoyed the Honor with the Lands by vertue of the Entail We will trouble the Reader with one Instance of this kind and that is as late as Q. E. William Lord Paget of Beaudesert entailed the Baronies of Longdon and Haywood by Fine which descended to Henry his Son and Heir who had Elizabeth his Daughter and Heir died 11 Eliz. after whose Death Thomas Brother and Heir Male of Henry entered into the Baronies aforesaid and was summoned to Parliament This was allowable because the Honor of the Name and Family was thereby better supported and the Office of a Baron continued in the Family and the Duty of it better performed by such direction of the Descent And we do also observe that after the reason of being a Baron from Tenure did cease the following times kept the Old Form of Speech tenere per Baroniam was used commonly to denote a man a Baron That the Law is as we have said appears for that an Issue at Law whether Baron or not ought to be tried by the Parliament Records of his Summons and Session there as a Baron and not by the Records of the Exchequer to prove the Tenure I will not therefore trouble the Reader with what is reported to us in our Year-books nor my self in reconciling the seeming disagreements there about this matter onely thus that the Judges have sometimes spoken cum vulgo and not agreeable to the true notion of the Law and that they did not judge according to Law in the case of Thomas de Furnival But the Barons being anciently first so by Tenure did so stick with the Judges that they allowed Thomas de Furnivals Plea that he did not hold per Baroniam to discharge him from being a Baron though he had been summoned as a Baron and sate in several Parliaments as such But of this more hereafter For that which now made Parliamentary Barons was the receiving of a Writ of Summons to Parliament Before the 49 H. 3. The Bishops were of the number of those that were majores Barones and had Writs of Summons to Parliament among the rest of the great men before the making of the Law aforesaid and they by this new Constitution became Barons for them and their Successors not by Tenure any longer no more than the great Lay Barons but by virtue of the Writ of Summons and by the afore remember'd Constitution and Law made some time about the 49 H. 3. And though the Lands of the Bishops in the time of the Conquerour which were put under that Tenure be alienated or exchanged as they might have been I am sure if they are not before the Statute of Queen Elizabeth put a restraint upon them yet the Succession of the Bishops to their Baronies remains It is a question I know whether a Bishop can demand his Writ to Parliament before the restitution of the Temporalities upon his Consecration there are valuable Opinions on both sides but if the restitution of the Temporalities must be first made it is I conceive upon no other reason than that he is not completely Bishop before that is done no more than a Rector is a complete Rector after Institution before Induction be made though he ought I conceive to have his Writ upon Consecration because upon vacancy of the See the Guardian of the Spiritualities used anciently to have a Writ of Summons to Parliaments as Diocesans themselves And now the Baronage Secular is affixed to Families and the Spiritual Baronage to the Office and Succession And now Birth designs the Temporal Baron and Consecration of the Bishop designs the Spiritual Baron nay single Election without Confirmation or Consecration If elected onely they were summoned to Parliament by the addition of Electi if confirmed and not consecrated then they are in the Writ of Summons styled Electi Confirmati And Mr. Selden further tells us that there never was any that had the Title of a Bishop in England and of the Kings Creation since the Normans but was a Baron of Parliament and though the Regular Barons and such of them who had Writs were discharged upon their Prayer and omitted to be
to Persons or Territories by the Civil Authority Their Convocations are convened by the King 's Writ they debate nothing without his Leave Their Results become Canons and receive Sanction by the Royal Authority and do not pretend to infringe any Temporal or Civil Right or Law And besides their Convocations are always to be held sittting Parliaments and no longer not at any other times And whatever they debate or resolve is under the Observation of Parliament Nequid detrimenti capiat Respublica The Bishops make no Laws about Religion apart by themselves neither have they any Negative against any that are propounded and therefore are not answerable for any that are made or not made They have not the definition of Heresie but the Law hath declared it since the Reformation And the Writ De Heretico comburendo is since abrogated by the Christian Temper of a Parliament principally consisting of such Members that were conformable to the Institutions of the Church of England that is the legal Establishments of this our Christian Commonwealth The Church of England is no more her own present Establishments than the present thoughts of any man is the man himself as the thoughts of a man are more refined and unreprovable as the man grows wiser so do the Laws and Constitutions the Orders and Rules of a Church or Christian Republick alter amend and improve as the Wisdom and Virtue Religion and Devotion of the Government and the principal parts thereof in Church or State increaseth or advanceth Our Bishops have had and that with the greatest reason greater apprehensions of Schism and Separation than of Errors in Opinion which occasioned it as of worse importance to the Christian Faith than the Errors themselves Besides that a man cannot help being mistaken in many things but it is in every mans power to be modest and peaceable and wise to sobriety and hold the unity of the faith in the bond of peace and charity and not to revile and deprave that which hath the publick approbation though he cannot thereto fully assent It is great iniquity and unrighteousness to pretend to Liberty of Conscience as their right and in the mean time not to tolerate the publick appointments and what is authoritatively allowed and approved If Controvertible Opinions are allowed a Warrant for making a Sect and separate Communion and Churches are denominated and distinguished by them and consequently such Opinions are advanced unduly unto the same necessity of belief as Articles of Faith what will become of the Christian Verity where will it be recognized and purely professed how distinguished how understood how ascertained amidst the number of Opinions contended for by the several dogmatizing Sectaries with more zele than the undoubted and uncontrovertible Articles of Faith Nay I will adventure to say further on their behalf that Schismatical Separations would not offend them so little do they affect to be Magisterial but for that if this Disease should grow Epidemical there would be no such thing as a Christian Church and the Christian Religion would perish from the earth without a miracle It is onely designed by our Church that those whose Subscriptions are required should thereby onely signifie their allowance of the Liturgy and Articles as fit to be used and allowable What Plea then can our Separatists have for a Toleration for themselves who by their Separation seem unwilling to tolerate the publick Establishment either from our Governours Civil or Ecclesiastical or from one another in their divided ways To reform or change to these mens pleasures is impossible for that they cannot they positively differing from each other be all pleased in any one possible Establishment Besides that untill we cease to be Schismaticks and to be of separate and divided Communions upon the score of any dislike or but probable exception to what is publickly received or allowed the altering any thing for our satisfaction will be but applying the Cure to the Symptoms a cutting off one head of the Hydra By this way to effect an union is as impossible as it would be to empty the Ocean without stopping the cur-of the Rivers The Bishops are as all men by how much they are better learned are of the greatest Moderation in Opinions and can tell how duely to rate and value them according to the Prejudice or Advantage they do to the Ends of our Religon those several Opinions that have been contended with furious and rending Zeal in the several Ages of the Church to the Scandal of that peaceable Institution They can have a better Opinion of that man who hath unhappily entertained the less probable side of the Questions controverted if he opines with Modesty than they have of him that holds the most probable part thereof with a Sectary-Zeal Seperation from Contempt and Disdain of those of a different persuasion Their Moderation is known unto all men of it their Opposers have had very sensible Experience the several Dissenters cannot disown it but must confess that they have had severally kinder Usage from the Episcopal Men than their several Parties have from one another By their Learning Wisdom and Moderation which is most eminently known and observed in many of them and hath recommended them to the highest Esteem they must be allowed their Enemies being Judges to be the fittest Arbiters of the Controversies and the most likely and probable Procurers of the Peace of Christendome All the Dissenting Parties have reason to look upon them as their Common Sanctuary and Defence against the Outrages of each other But in this they must be pardoned if they being under a Law or Rule of their Superiors made as they think in a matter lawful act accordingly and do not disobey for their sake who think otherwise though in the mean time they pity their Scruples Indeed the Terms of the Nonconforming Ministers have been made hard upon them But that hath been from Reasons of State which the late unhappy Wars occasioned and they were ejected out of their Livings by Statute-Law And on the other side it is true that many men not to fit for that Holy Function have enjoyed Church Benefices but neither this can the Bishops help For they cannot reject a Clerk presented to a Benefice or eject him but as the Law will so sacred is the Right of Patronage and so fixed by the Law are Ministers in their Livings which is not Nice in the manners of Clerks and the Bishops cannot be severer than the Laws So that if some men not of the most unblamable conversations have kept their Livings and some of very unexceptionable Lives have been ejected The unhappy Nonconformists are directed where to make their Complaint But as there is little Cause of complaint on this part of the Episcopal Authority and function viz. Their Superintendency over the Pastors of their Dioceses So we shall observe how they have behaved themselves in the Exercise of the Power of the Keys For what is done therein by their Chancellors
concesserunt in sententiam Excommunicationis generaliter latam apud Westm decimo tertio die Maii Anno Regni Regis praedicti 37 in hac forma viz. Quòd vinculo praefatae sententiae ligentur omnes venientes contra Libertates contentas in Chartis communium Libertatum Angliae de Foresta omnes qui Libertates Ecclesiae Angliae temporibus Domini Regis praedecessorum suorum Regni Angliae obtentas usitatas scienter malitiosè violaverint aut infringere praesumpserint And the Record concludes In hujus rei memoriam in posterum veritatis testimonium tam Dominus Rex quà m praedicti Comites ad instantiam aliorum populi praesentium which at that time was the style of a Parliament and the manner of passing such Acts scripto sigilla sua apposuerunt Rot. Pat. 37 H. 3. M. 12. dorso And whereas it was provided by the Confirmat Chart. c. 4.25 E. 1. and by the Statute De Tallagio non concedendo c. 4.34 E. 1. That Excommunication should twice a year be denounced against the Infringers of Magna Charta At a Synod held for the Province of Canterbury in that Kings time John Peckam Archbishop of Canterbury enjoyned the like Denunciations near four times every year Constit Provinc tit De Sententia Excom And in the Province of York it obtained three times in a year Manuale juxta usum Ecclesiae Eboracensis By which the exemplary zele of the Bishops in those times against Oppression and the violation of the common Rights and the attempts of absolute and unlimited power appears for that they prevented the Temporal Baronage and outdid the Parliament it self in defending and guarding the Government of Laws By the way we cannot but take notice of Mr. Selden his mistake in his book De Synedriis which he fell into by inserving to his beloved Erastian Hypothesis viz. That that Excommunication before mentioned in 37 H. 3. was enacted by Parliament whereas it was onely confirmed but pronounced by the Bishops though with the seeming good liking of that King so that the Power of the Keys was not usurp'd but the exercise thereof approved by Parliament according to what hath been usual as Grotius observes Vsum Clavium Divino Juri congruum poenarum injunctionem Canonibus Legibus consentaneum summae potestates solent approbare atque hoc est Imperiale Anathema Quòd non una Justiniani lege comprehensum est Which together with what hath been said by us here will serve for an Answer to what Mr. Selden hath aggested in his book De Synedriis for wresting the Keys out of the hands of the Bishops They pretend to a Jus Divinum only for that which merely concerns their Spiritual Office and I cannot for my part suspect them of holding any Opinion of a Jus divinum in Civil Offices which are of a Humane Original because I can imagine no reason for such an Opinion though I know it is by some imputed to them By a Thomas of Becket a Sibthorp and Manwaring and a few less-considering Clergy-men in an Age we are not to conclude the Judgment of the Body of our Learned Clergy They assuredly know as all men in their Wits do believe that the Government is de jure such as it is and can be no other nor rightfully admit any Alteration That God never made any Commonwealth but one by his directive Will and that only for one Nation for in these things he hath left men ordinarily in the Hands of their own Councils and to their own Prudence in which he had no regard to the absolute rightful Sovereignty of Adam's right Heir the wildest certainly of all the Paradoxes that this giddy phantastick Age hath produced The Kentish Knight should have kept his Dream to himself until he had found him out and then have brought him and his Book called Patriarcha together to the King Then I doubt not but his Majesty would have provided him his due Reward But his Book and the Publishers thereof deserve his Majesty's utmost Displeasute For we are in fear that the Government is about to be changed when Books are licensed to prove any thing Lawful in that kind And besides it makes a Charge upon our Divines that they have a good liking to the Design for that they who best understand by their Profession the jura divina have not answered it But to speak the Truth the Book is not to be answered For it is but a fine Essay how near Non-sence may be made to look like Sence and it is truly worth no man 's Undertaking But whatsoever sinister thoughts some ill affected Men to the Bishops may conceive of them we expect and with reason too that they will with equal Courage to that recorded of their Predecessors stand up for the Preservation of the Government in its true and rightful Constitution And the rather for that the true Religion their Principal Care and their Temporal Rights and Dignities will inevitably perish in the Change Nay perhaps in consequence of the very Attempt of a Change except they strenuously for their parts oppose it However their Order will certainly by their Silence and Indifferency be rendred despicable They will lose all opinion with the People of their Sincerity perform their Functions with no advantage and lose that share in the Honors and Affections of the People that will establish them bespeak them useful and necessary to the Church and state in their several Capacities in all after times That they answer their Trust and perform that Duty which they owe to the Publick in their several Offices is that we may justly expect And this they will certainly do though they should be censured as they were in K. John's days or in the Language of the Folio Author charged to be clamorous and over-busie Medlers in Matters of State and Government But to return Is it not a course Artifice in the Octavo pag. 96. that he will so willfully mistake the Question'd of the Bishops being one of the three States and representing the Matter as if the Bishops should have a Negative by themselves to stop the passing of any Bill if they are admitted to be a distinct State CHAP. XXVI WHen it is not disputed or brought into Question whether they are divided in their Voting from the Temporal Barons most certainly they never were nor was it ever disputed Though an obstinate Opinion was maintained from the Time of E. 2. in the Case of the Spencers until the Time of E. 5. in the Case of the Earl of Salisbury that the Bishops Presence was necessary in Judgments even in Capital Causes which must be allowed a clear Argument for their Right of Judgment in such Causes For the Spiritual and Temporal Lords though two States make but one House upon the Reasons afore-mentioned according to the general Understanding and Usage of former Ages But upon this Supposition he tells us of several Bills that gave furtherance to
the Reformation to which the Bishops did not assent and would never have passed if they had had a Negative upon them But by his Favor these Instances of his are great Arguments of those Bishops their Sincerity For they must needs be under great and violent Prejudices Besides every great man as the Author of the Letter well knows is apt to value himself and cares not to be accounted a light man and the higher in place the more unwilling to be found in a Mistake and they are not content if Old Men Quae juvenes dedicere senes perdenda fateri There is good Hopes therefore that our Rightfully Reformed Bishops will be the last that will give up the Cause of Reformed Christianity and will not be out-done by the Popish Bishops in Constancy when they have a better Cause I must likewise take notice to do the Spiritual Lords Justice of the Behavior of the Gentleman in Folio towards the Bishops He takes notice and that dutifully of the Satyrical so he calls it Language of the Pamphleteers against the Court and the greatest Scurrilities with which the House of Commons are aspersed but has not heard sure of any against the Bishops and the whole Ecclesiastical Order For he makes not the least mention of any such But because they shall not escape besides that in his Book he declaims 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against the Order and seems so fond of this Office that he forbids all other the use of the Cart he tells the Story of Hephestion and Craterus the one of which loved Alexander and the other the King By this Apologue I doubt not but he intended a Slander and to signifie thereby supprestly a lewd Reproach viz. that the Bishops are not true Servants of the King and Government but of themselves than which a falser thing I hope cannot be said nor a more malitious thing imagined if not true For he may know that they are better men in their true Character than his Loyal Patriots that are true to the King and House of Commons For they have I doubt not I am sure they ought to have a care of the whole Government in the Integrity of its Constitution The Bishops well know how much the People are concerned in the Greatness of the House of Lords which establisheth the Throne and makes and supports the King Great and by their Power and Interest make his Government equal to which they contribute no small Share for to them is entrusted by the Authothority of our Lord Christ the Conduct of Religion and that mighty and momentous Office hath commended them and advanced them to the State of Peerage and will continue them in great Authority with the People as long as the Nation continues in any degree Religious The Temporal Baronage cannot want them in the Support of that mighty Province that belongs to that House In them the People will find their Interest as long as they can value Wisdom and Religion that is as long as they are Christian Men and by them the Kingly Office will find it self served as long as true Religion and Wisdom can minister to the Support of Government and wise and good men under the greatest Trust and in the highest Dignity in the Government can be fit Councellors and Ministers of State The Octavo hath also a hint to this purpose for pag. 30. where he brings in the Case of Thomas Arundel Arch-bishop of Canterbury when all the Bishops made Sir Thomas Piercy their Procurator he says That uniting in one man argued a great Unanimity in the Voting of the Prelates which seems saith he hath ever been The meaning of this is a sly Disparagement of the Bishops in their Voting viz. that have one Common Tie and Dependency upon the Crown that determines them to their Interest and produces the Unanimity of Voting But are the Bishops more depending because they once for all received their Temporalities from the King than the Temporal Lords who are commoly Officers of State and otherwise depend upon their Prince's Favor Is not the Bishops Advancement rather a Reward to their Eminent Services performed in the matter of Religon of the greatest Importance certainly to the State and a Recognition of the excellent Character of those men that are preferred to that Office than a Bribe upon their Actings after they have that Favor irrevocable Do not we know that the Services of Church-men are rewardable upon the Churches Stock and that the King need not impair the Royal Treasure to pay Thanks to Episcopal Men whose Worth doth bespeak the Royal Favor to that Preferment and Advancement Are not the Temporalities of the Church the King 's only to give but not to retain What evil Prejudice or Obligation can this be to any man to serve the King unfaithfully who hath chosen him perhaps though there were others but as equally fit for that Office For we ought to suppose no other disposition of those Dignities than what is just and fit in our general Discourses however things are administred in particular Cases Is not this an Office together with its maintenance of the Provision of the Law and not of the King But to remove that Scandal of their Unanimity in voting which some have reproached with a scoffing Term of a dead Weight it may be considered that Men of the best Judgments and Honesty mostly agree That Variety of Judgments proceeds oftner from Passion and Interest than from Difficulty of the matter debated It mostly grows either from want of Integrity or want of Judgment Agreement in Votes is an Argument therefore of true Judgment and unbiassed Integrity As it is also farther of a good Correspondence amongst themselves of previous Debates and more mature Deliberation Besides that it is no unusual thing in difficult and lubricous Affairs for many to compromise the matters to a few or to the Majority of their own Numbers and abide the Result of the major part But because this matter of Exception to the Integrity of my Lords the Bishops in the great Affair now in Agitation is argumentum ad hominem and gives Prejudice to the true Right and Merits of the Cause and is the most prevalent and hopeful Argument if not the only one that our Adversaries can rely upon For whatever the Causa justifica or Pretence be for the espousing of any Opinion or part of any Controversie if the Causa suasoria the Inducement and true moving cause thereto be strong and persuasive the slightest Reasons will be a pretence for Confidence and the smallest Color of Right shall prevail finally and in the last Issue especially where the Parties concerned must judge or by their Power can make their Will and determinate Resolves to obtain to the biggest purposes I will therefore farther add that we well know what a high Esteem their true Character doth deserve That they are intended the Light of the World the Salt of the Earth If the Salt hath lost its Savor
him the Imperial Crown of England For Robert Steward first King of Scotland of that Family lived in concubinate with Elizabeth Mure and by her had three Sons John Robert and Alexander afterwards he Married Eufame Daughter to the Earl of Ross and after was Crowned King of Scotland He had by her Walter Earl of Athol and David Earl of Straherne When Eufame his Wife dyed he Married Elizabeth Mure. After that by one Act of Parliament he made them first Noble that is to say John Earl of Carrick Robert Earl of Menteith and Alexander Earl of Buchquhane And shortly after by another Parliament he limited the Crown in Tail Successively to John Robert and Alexander his Children by Elizabeth Mure in Concubinate and after to the Children of Elizabeth Ross his Legitimate Children who are to this day in their issue by this limitation by authority of an Act of Parliament in Scotland barr'd from the Crown and we hope ever will be by the continuance of the Line of our most Gracious King For note that though a subsequent Marriage by the civil Law which is the Law of Scotland in such cases doth Legitimate the Children born before Marriage of a Concubine yet it is with this exception that they shall not be Legitimated to the prejudice of Children born afterwards in Marriage and before the Marriage of the Concubine Besides the reason of the Civil Law in Legitimating the Children upon a subsequent Marriage is this viz. a presumption that they were begotten affectu maritali which presumption fails where the man proceeds to Marry another woman and abandons or neglects his Concubine But I desire these Gentlemen that are so unwilling to be safe in their Religion which I believe is most dear unto them That if any Law should exceed the declared measures of the Legislative authority though in such Case they may have leave to doubt of the lawfulness of such a Law yet if it be not against any express Law of God they will upon a little consideration determin it lawful if it be necessary to the Common-weal for that nothing can be the concerns of men united in any Polity but may be govern'd and ordered by the Laws of their Legislature for publick good for by the reason of all political societies For further satisfaction of the lawfulness of the bill of exclusion See a Book called The great and weighty Consideration considered there is a submission made of all Rights especially of the Common Rights of that community to the Government of its own Laws But all this and a hundred times as much will not satisfy some Gentlemen of the lawfulness of our Government the extent of the Legislative power of Parliaments since they have entertained a Notion that Monarchy is jure divino unalterable in its descent by any Law of man for that it is subject to none That all Kings are alike absolute that their Will is a Law to all their Subjects That Parliaments the states of the Realm in their Conventions can be no more than the Monarcks Ministers acting under and by his appointment which he may exauctorate and turn out of Office when he pleaseth For there can be say they under the Sun no obliging Authority but that of Kings to whom God hath given a plenitude of power and what is derived from them That this Divine Absoluteness may Govern and exercise Royal power immensely and that it is subject to nor to be abated or restrained by any humane inventions or contrivances of men however necessary and convenient Kings have thought them in former Ages by such methods and such offices and Officers of which number the States of the Realm may be or not be as Kings shall please as they shall by their absolute Will order or appoint Our Parliaments say they are Rebellious and an Usurpation upon the unbounded Power of Kings which belongs to every King as such jure ordinario and by Divine institution That a mixt Monarchy as ours is is an Anarchy and that we are at present without a Government at least such as we ought to have and which God hath appointed and ordained for us That we by adhering to the present Government are Rebels to God Almighty and the Kings unlimited Power and Authority under him which no humane constitution no not the Will and Pleasure of Kings themselves can limit or restrain For that jura ordinaria divina non recipiunt modum That the Legislative Power is solely in the King and that the business of a Parliament if they would think of being only what they ought to be is only to declare on the behalf of themselves and the people that send them for that purpose certainly the obedience that is due from them to such Laws as the K. shall make and that they may be laid aside wholly when he pleaseth And after all this what matter 's it with them what we say our Government is hath been or where the Legislative Authority of the Nation is placed or how used But I desire these Gentlemen to consider how they come to these Notions upon what reason they are grounded How a Government established by God and Nature for all Mankind should remain a secret to all the wise good just and peaceable men of all Ages That Kings should not before this have understood their Authority when no pretences are omitted for encrease of power and enlargement of Empire I desire them to consider that this secret was not discovered to the World before the last Age and was a forerunner of our late unnatural War and is now again revived by the republishing of Sir Robert Filmers Books since the Discovery of the Popish Plot. I wish they would consider that the reasons ought to be as clear and evident as Demonstration that will warrant them to discost from the sense of all Mankind in a matter of such weight and moment That to mistake with confidence and overweening in this matter will be an unpardonable affront to the Common sense of Mankind and the greatest Violation of the Laws of modesty I desire that they would consider and rate the mischiefs that will certainly ensue upon this opinion and whether a probable reason can therefore support it That they would throughly weigh ponder and examine the Reasons of these bold and new Dogmata For their enquiries ought to be in proportion diligent and strict as the matter is of moment and if they are not their error and mistake will be very culpable and the sin of the error aggravated to the measure of the mischief which it produceth and occasioneth Where is the Charter of Kings from God Almighty to be read or found for nothing but the declared Will of God can warrant us to destroy our Government or to give up the Rights and Liberties of our people If they are lawful I am sure it is villany to betray them since all political Societies are framed that all may assist the Common Rights of
all I cannot imagine they can pretend an umbrage from the Holy Scriptures for such unheard of opinions The Jews indeed had a Government and Laws of Gods framing and appointment and a King of their own choosing and such a King as they desired by God's permission they had But their form of Government ought with less reason to be the Rule of all kingly Governors because it was a Government chosen by themselves then the Laws of the Jews ought to be the Laws of all Nations which they are not though made and enacted by God himself Christ would not make himself a Judge in a private Right submitted to him He determined the right of the Roman Empire by the possession of Soveraign Authority and such as the whole world had made it his Disciples were obliged to acknowledge it by their Obedience and Submissions which is the summ of the Apostles Doctrin in this matter The Christian Religion instituted no form of Governments but enjoyns us to be obedient to those we have not only by express command in the case but by its general Rules of a most refined improved and extensive morality But though I said the Scriptures have not prescribed or directed any universal Form of Government yet the Scripture hath declared the falshood of this new Hypothesis of Kingly Government to be Jure Divino or by Divine Right For St. Peter 1 Peter 2.13 and 14. stiles Kings as well as the Governors under him the ordinance of man which cannot have any other sense but that men make them and give them their powers By St. Paul the power of Government indeed is called Gods Ordnance Rom. 13.2 but that is for this reason because in general God approves of Governments as necessary to the well being of Mankind for the improvement of humane nature for the punishing of Vice Encouragement and security of virtue without them it being impossible to live honestly and in peace And he hath made them the under Ministers of his providence and care over Mankind and expects of them that they should promote his true Honor and Worship in the World which will be always accompanied with the exercise of all civil Virtues These two different places must be so understood that they may be both true and by no other interpretation can they be reconciled and made consistent It is impossible that any thing can be of mans appointment which is of Gods Ordination there can be no such thing as a Co-legislative power of Men with their Maker Government therefore is from God as he hath made Governments necessary in the general order of things but the specification thereof is from Men and the best definition that can be made of Government is in the words of both the Apostles put together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and such Governments which men make God approves and requires our obedience to them upon all those reasons which make Governments necessary The natural and easie consequence and result of these Scriptures is this which I desire those Gentlemen to observe That whatsoever is not lawfully established by men no Law of God not the Christian Law doth oblige us to obey The Christian Religion doth equally condemn in the reason of its Institutions Usurpation and Contumacy Where the Apostle admonisheth us that if we be free we should not become servants he hath by virtue of that Admonition made it commendable not to suffer the Encroachments of power over us Most certainly therefore as the Christian Religion doth not prejudice the Soveraign Rights of Princes such as they are in the several forms and Modells of Monarchical Governments non eripit terrestria qui regna dat coelestia as Sedulius so doth it not enlarge them when by the Gospel God made us free from his own positive Laws to the Jews he did not intend thereby de Jure to render us slaves to the Arbitrary pleasure of Men. No Man intends by any thing in the Scripture that all mankind is obliged to any one form of Government and therefore all Men are left to their own It hath not therefore altered the terms of Government and Obedience that every Nation hath Established for themselves but hath confirmed and strictly obliged the observance of them To Obedience to Government we are obliged by as many ties as there are Christian Virtues and he must disown his Christianity that departs from his due Allegiance And since our Saviour is declared King of Kings and Lord of Lords all Kings Christian Kings especially are to govern in Imitation of his mercy and goodness and in subserviency to the Interest of his Religion and Kingdom Regum timendorum in proprios greges Reges in ipsos imperium est Javis cuncta supercilio moventis Whence then is this absolute Authority of Kings if it come neither from God nor Man Give me leave now to inform you that these opinions render you all Traytors guilty of Treason of State perduellionis rei obnoxious to be punished as Traytors by an Authority lodged in Parliament In the Constitution of the Government You your selves must needs condemn your selves to have forfeited all your own who hold such Principles that tend to destroy every Mans Right by resolving all things into the absolute pleasure of a Monarch in which you mostly disserve the King and are contrary to His Majesties late Declaration The Men of these Principles the less of the Government they are entrusted with the better for the less they have to give up and betray I confess if I could believe that this Doctrin was become Orthodox among them and the prevailing opinion of the Clergy I should conclude us to be the most unhappy people under the Sun This is an Hypothesis indeed that will bring on new Heavens and a new Earth but such wherein no peace or Righteousness can ever dwell But I deem all such as are Defenders and Promoters of it do deserve a civil Excommunication more smarting then their Ecclesiastical and to be condemned to live upon and only feed themselves with their thin speculations and to be excluded from any share of that Government that they professedly in their Principles betray to be punished as seditious persons and most mischievous Schismaticks far more intolerable in this matter than the scrupulous brother-hood for their boglings at an indifferent and insignificant Ceremony For that to the ruin of our Religion and destruction of the publick peace they divide from that polity to which by drawing here their first breath they made Faith and to which the condition of their birth doth oblige them they falsify that which Arrian in his Epictetus calls the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than which nothing is more sacred and inviolable By creating themselves a new Allegiance and obtruding it upon their fellow Citizens and Members of the same Kingdom they set up a Kingdom within a Kingdom more dangerous and mischievous than the Papal Imperium in Imperio which certainly will be introduced if this Modern and
the King for that office the best of those they know which are many times most unfit But this may be remedied when his Majesty shall please to give leave to the Clergy of the Diocess to choose their own Diocesan their Choice notwithstanding submitted to the Kings approbation and Confirmation which was permitted by Justinian the Emperor and was in use in several of the best Ages of the Church or by some other method which may be advised by his great Council whereby the greatest assurance may be given that the best and fittest persons be preferred to Bishopricks for the Common people are envious and suspicious and what ever may be done by bad means they always think is so But if Bishops were promoted to their Sees with the gratulations and applauses of the whole body of the Clergy of the respective Diocesses all that passeth under their advice and consent would likely meet with the general satisfactions of the people as it would well deserve as long as the Clergy can have any Authority with them That is as long as the Nation continues Christian But the general Corruption of Manners and decay of Piety is the great and truest cause why the Bishops unenvied enjoy no part of that honour that our Ancestors Wisdome and Piety conferred upon their order conformably to all other the Ancient Christian Governments But when Virtue and Piety shall recover their esteem the reverence of the Clergy will return We are not like long to expect this happy Change for Vice is now arrived to a Plethora and like to burst by its own excesses And we well hope that the mischiefs which we suffer will cure that evil from whence they spring and prevent the greater Calamities that it further threatens However it becomes all good men to assist to support the present Government which is the cheapest the surest and the next way to arrive at a happy constitution of things This was the design of the Author of the Grand Question After the publication of that Book I laid by all thoughts of publishing this Treatise But perceiving that notwithstanding what he hath said the Right yet remains controverted and a Book is since printed wherein several things are objected in prejudice of this Right and more is expected I did review these Papers wherein I found I had prevented those objections and with a little application they would appear insignificant I did resolve to make this publick And besides that I apprehended some things material to the Question were omitted by the Grand Question that a several way of speaking things to the same purpose hath its advantage Our great Courts affect to have several arguments on the same side in great Causes and our Reporters publish them Besides herein several things are occasionally discourst of which makes it of further usefulness to the publick Our adversaries also were treated too kindly by him and had deserved sharper reflections than he makes upon them for their false and perverse Reasonings and ought to lose that reputation which they abuse to the hurt of the Government And further I thought it not for the honour of our faculty that never fails to supply the worst cause with Advocates That a question of this Nature wherein both Church and State Religion and our Civil Policy is concerned and the Right thereof not only clear and evident in it self but also useful to the State should have not one of the Robe to plead for it The friends of the Cause will not grudge to read two Books for the Right as well as several against it and the Adversaries of our Cause ought to suffer the like trouble themselves which they occasion to others These Considerations did induce me to publish this Treatise I am well pleased that I am ingaged in a good Cause that was suited to one of my slender Abilities Right is so strong an Argument for it self that it wants only light to discover it Whereas an unrighteous cause stands in need of disguisings and shadowings and all the Artifices and fetches of the Wit of abler men to give that a Colour at least which is destitute of Law and Right THE CONTENTS CHAP. I. THe Nature of the Right the obligation to use it the obvious indications of it and the benefit which may be reasonably expected in the exercise of it How it came to be drawn into question and how it can be fairly determined how it hath been opposed and upon what Reasons and Evidence the Right doth rely Chap. II. The general prejudice against this Right from an Opinion conceived that the Clergy ought not to intermeddle in Secular Affairs remov'd That Bishops have been employed in the greatest trusts by Emperors not hindred by the Church but this hath been envy'd to them by the Pope Chap. III. The Precedents that are produc'd from the Parliament Rolls against this Right are considered They prove not pertinent at most but bare Neglects not Argumentative or concluding against the Right Chap. IV. This Right cannot be prejudic'd by non user The Nature of Prescription that the Right in question is not prescriptible The Original of this Right that it is incident to Baronage The Bishops when made Barons and for what reason That all Offices whether by Tenure or Creation are Indivisable Chap. V. Bishops never pretended the Assise of Clarendon when said to be absent Bishops sat in Judgment upon Becket and his Crime and Charge Treason by which it is demonstrated that the Assise of Clarendon only put them at liberty but not under restraint from using their Right of Judging in Capital Causes Chap. VI. Bishops sat in Judgment upon John Earl of Moreton after King John the Bishop of Coventry c. for Treason Chap. VII An Opinion prevail'd and continued long that no Judgment in Parliament where the Bishops were absent was good and their absence assigned for Error to reverse Judgment in Treason in Parliament prov'd by the Petition of the Commons 21 R. 2. upon their protestation made 11 R. 2. And by that protestation it is evident they had a Right and that they saved it by that protestation They pretended they could not attend the matters then treated of by reason of the Canon But alledged no Law for their absence Chap. VIII Of Canons Canon law What effect Canons can have upon a Civil Right The Canons prohibiting the use proves the Right Chap. IX Bishops made their Proxies in Capital Causes which proves their Right and their thereby being virtually present and the lawfulness of making Proxies and such as they made Chap. X. A Repeal of the Parliament 21 R. 2. No prejudice to what the Bishops did in making their Proxies The Opinion of Bishops presence being necessary in Parliament continued in time of H. 5. Chap. XI Bishops actually exercised this Authority in 28 H. 6. in the Case of William de la Pool Duke of Suffolk Opinion of the Judges that Bishops ought to make Proxies in the Tryal of a