Doctrine Heresie but Justice Stamford leaves it out because when Heresie was a Crime it was a Plea of the Mitre I see also in this Catalogue of Causes Criminal he inserteth costly Feeding costly Apparel and costly Building though they were contrary to no Statute 'T is true that by evil Circumstances they become sins but these sins belong to the Judgment of the Pastors Spiritual A Justice of the Temporal Law seeing the Intention only makes them sins cannot judge whether they be sins or no unless he have power to take Confessions Also he makes flattery of the King to be a Crime How could he know when one Man had flattered another He meant therefore that it was a Crime to please the King And accordingly he citeth divers Calamities of such as had been in times past in great favour of the Kings they serv'd as the Favourites of Hen. 3. Ed. 2. Rich. 2. Hen. 6. which Favourites were some imprisoned some banished and some put to death by the same Rebels that imprisoned banished and put to death the same King upon no better ground than the Earl of Strafford the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and King Charles the first by the Rebels of that time Empson and Dudley were no Favourites of Hen. the 7th but Spunges which King Hen. the 8th did well Squeeze Cardinal Woolsey was indeed for divers years a favourite of Hen. the 8th but fell into disgrace not for flattering the King but for not flattering him in the business of Divorce from Queen Katharine You see his Reasoning here see also his Passion in the words following We will for some Causes descend no lower Qui eorum vestigiis insistunt eorum exitus perhorrescant this is put in for the Favourite that then was of King James But let us give over this and speak of the legal Punishments to these Crimes belonging Of Punishments ANd in the first place I desire to know who it is that hath the power for an Offence committed to define and appoint the special manner of Punishment for suppose you are not of the Opinion of the Stoicks in old time that all faults are equal and that there ought to be the same Punishment for killing a Man and for killing a Hen. La. The manner of Punishment in all Crimes whatsoever is to be determined by the Common-Law That is to say if it be a Statute that determins it then the Judgment must be according to the Statute if it be not specified by the Statute then the Custome in such Cases is to be followed But if the Case be new I know not why the Judge may not determine it according to Reason Ph. But according to whose reason If you mean the natural Reason of this or that Judge authorized by the King to have cognisance of the Cause there being as many several Reasons as there are several Men the punishment of all Crimes will be uncertain and none of them ever grow up to make a Custome Therefore a Punishment certain can never be assigned if it have its beginning from the natural Reasons of deputed Judges no nor from the natural of the Supream Judge For if the Law of Reason did determine Punishments then for the same Offences there should be through all the World and in all times the same Punishments because the Law of Reason is Immutable and Eternal La. If the natural Reason neither of the King nor of any else be able to prescribe a Punishment how can there be any lawful Punishment at all Ph. Why not For I think that in this very difference between the rational Faculties of particular Men lyeth the true and perfect reason that maketh every Punishment certain For but give the authority of defining punishments to any Man whatsoever and let that Man define them and right Reason has defin'd them Suppose the Definition be both made and made known before the Offence committed For such authority is to trump in Card-playing save that in matter of Government when nothing else is turn'd up Clubs are Trump Therefore seeing every Man knoweth by his own Reason what Actions are against the Law of Reason and knoweth what Punishments are by this authority for every evil action ordained it is manifest Reason that for breaking the known Laws he should suffer the known Punishments Now the person to whom this authority of defining Punishments is given can be no other in any place of the World but the same Person that hath the Soveraign Power be it one Man or one assembly of Men For it were in vain to give it to any Person that had not the power of the Militia to cause it to be executed for no less power can do it when many Offenders be united and combin'd to defend one another There was a Case put to King David by Nathan of a rich Man that had many Sheep and of a poor Man that had but one which was a tame Lamb The rich Man had a stranger in his House for whose entertainment to spare his own Sheep he took away the poor Mans Lamb. Upon this Case the King gave Judgment surely the Man that hath done this shall die What think you of this Was it a Royal or Tyrannical Judgment La. I will not contradict the Canons of the Church of England which acknowledgeth the King of England within his own Dominions hath the same Rights which the good Kings of Israel had in theirs nor deny King David to have been one of those good Kings But to punish with death without a precedent Law will seem but a harsh proceeding with us who unwillingly hear of Arbitrary Laws much less of Arbitrary Punishments unless we were sure that all our Kings would be as good as David I will only ask you by what Authority the Clergy may take upon them to determine or make a Canon concerning the power of their own King or to distinguish between the Right of a good and an evil King Ph. It is not the Clergy that maketh their Canons to be Law but it is the King that doth it by the Great Seal of England and it is the King that giveth them power to teach their Doctrines in that that he authoriseth them publickly to teach and preach the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles according to the Scriptures wherein this Doctrine is perspicuously contained But if they had derogated from the Royal Power in any of their Doctrines published then certainly they had been too blame nay I believe that had been more within the Statute of premunire of 16 Rich. 2. c. 5. than any Judge of a Court of Equity for holding Pleas of Common Law I cite not this Precedent of King David as approving the breach of the great Charter or justifying the Punishment with loss of Life or Member of every Man that shall offend the King but to shew you that before the Charter was granted in all Cases where the Punishments were not prescribed it was the King only that could prescribe them
the sustaining of his Soveraign power is to destroy the Propriety he pretends to The next thing I will ask you is how you distinguish between Law and Right or Lex and Jus. La. Sir Ed. Coke in divers places makes Lex and Jus to be the same and so Lex Communis and Jus Communis to be all one nor do I find that he does in any places distinguish them Ph. Then will I distinguish them and make you judge whether my distinction be not necessary to be known by every Author of the Common Law for Law obligeth me to do or forbear the doing of something and therefore it lies upon me an Obligation but my Right is a Liberty left me by the Law to do any thing which the Law forbids me not and to leave undone any thing which the Law commands me not Did Sir Ed. Coke see no difference between being bound and being free La. I know not what he was but he has not mention'd it though a man may dispense with his own Liberty that cannot do so with the Law Ph. But what are you better for your Right if a rebellious Company at home or an Enemy from abroad take away the Goods or dispossess you of the Lands you have a right to Can you be defended or repair'd but by the strength and authority of the King What reason therefore can be given by a man that endeavours to preserve his Propriety why he should deny or malignly contribute to the Strength that should defend him or repair him Let us see now what your Books say to this point and other points of the Right of Soveraignty Bracton the most authentick Author of the Common Law fol. 55. saith thus Ipse Dominus Rex habet omnia Jura in manu suâ est Dei Vicarius habet ea quae sunt Pacis habet etiam coercionem ut Delinquentes puniat habet in potestate suâ Leges nihil enim prodest Jura condere nisi sit qui Jura tueatur That is to say our Lord the King hath all Right in his own Hands is Gods Vicar he has all that concerns the Peace he has the power to punish Delinquents all the Laws are in his power To make Laws is to no purpose unless there be some-body to make them obeyed If Bracton's Law be Reason as I and you think it is what temporal power is there which the King hath not Seeing that at this day all the power Spiritual which Bracton allows the Pope is restored to the Crown what is there that the King cannot do excepting sin against the Law of God The same Bracton Lib. 21. c. 8. saith thus Si autem a Rege petitur cum Breve non curret contra ipsum locus erit supplicationi quod factum suum corrigat emendet quod quidem si non fecerit satis sufficit ad poenam quod Dominum expectet Vltorem nemo quidem de factis ejus praesumat disputare multo fortius contra factum ejus venire That is to say if any thing be demanded of the King seeing a Writ lyeth not against him he is put to his Petition praying him to Correct and Amend his own Fact which if he will not do it is a sufficient Penalty for him that he is to expect a punishment from the Lord No Man may presume to dispute of what he does much less to resist him You see by this that this Doctrine concerning the Rights of Soveraignty so much Cryed down by the long Parliament is the Antient Common-Law and that the only Bridle of the Kings of England ought to be the fear of God And again Bracton c. 24. of the second Book sayes That the Rights of the Crown cannot be granted away Ea vero quae Jurisdictionis Pacis ea quae sunt Justitiae Paci annexa ad nullum pertinent nisi ad Coronam Dignitatem Regiam nec a Corona separari possunt nec a privata persona possideri That is to say those things which belong to Jurisdiction and Peace and those things that are annexed to Justice and Peace appertain to none but to the Crown and Dignity of the King nor can be separated from the Crown nor be possest by a private Person Again you 'l find in Fleta a Law-Book written in the time of Edw. 2. That Liberties though granted by the King if they tend to the hinderance of Justice or subversion of the Regal Power were not to be used nor allowed For in that Book c. 20. concerning Articles of the Crown which the Justices Itinerant are to enquire of the 54th Article is this you shall inquire De Libertatibus concessis quae impediunt Communem Jâ—stitiam Regiam Potestatem subvertunt Now what is a greater hindrance to Common Justice or a greater subversion of the Regal Power than a Liberty in Subjects to hinder the King from raising Money necessary to suppress or prevent Rebellions which doth destroy Justice and subvert the power of the Soveraignty Moreover when a Charter is granted by a King in these words Dedita coram pro me Haeredibus meis The grantor by the Common-Law as Sir Edw. Coke sayes in his Commentaries on Littleton is to warrant his Gift and I think it Reason especially if the Gift be upon Consideration of a price Paid Suppose a Forraign State should say claim to this Kingdom 't is no Matter as to the Question I am putting whether the Claim be unjust how would you have the King to warrant to every Free-holder in England the Lands they hold of him by such a Charter If he cannot Levy Money their Estates are lost and so is the Kings Estate and if the Kings Estate be gone how can he repair the Value due upon the Warranty I know that the Kings Charters are not so meerly Grants as that they are not also Laws but they are such Laws as speak not to all the Kings Subjects in general but only to his Officers implicitly forbidding them to Judge or Execute any thing contrary to the said Grants There be many Men that are able Judges of what is right Reason and what not when any of these shall know that a Man has no Superiour nor Peer in the Kingdom he will hardly be perswaded he can be bound by any Law of the Kingdom or that he who is Subject to none but God can make a Law upon himself which he cannot also as easily abrogate as he made it The main Argument and that which so much taketh with the throng of People proceedeth from a needless fear put into their minds by such Men as mean to make use of their Hands to their own ends for if say they the King may notwithstanding the Law do what he please and nothing to restrain him but the fear of punishment in the World to come then in case there come a King that fears no such punishment he may take away from us not only our Lands Goods and Liberties but our Lives
whatsoever was repugnant to those 4 General Councils For if they had I believe the Anabaptists of which there was great plenty in those times would one time or other have been question'd upon this Article of the Nicene Creed I believe one Baptism for the Remission of sins nor was the Commission it self for a long time after Registred that Men might in such uncertainty take heed and abstain for their better safety from speaking of Religion any thing at all But by what Law was this Heretick Legat burnt I grant he was an Arian and his Heresie contrary to the Determination of the Church of England in the Highest Points of Christianity but seeing there was no Statute-Law to burn him and no Penalty forbidden by what Law by what Authority was he burn't La. That this Legat was accused of Heresie was no fault of the High Commissioners but when he was accused it had been a fault in them not to have examin'd him or having examin'd him and found him an Arian not to have judged him so or not to have certified him so All this they did and this was all that belonged unto them they medled not with his Burning but left him to the Secular Power to do with him what they pleased Ph. Your Justification of the Commissioners is nothing to the Question the Question is by what Law he was burn't the Spiritual-Law gives no Sentence of Temporal Punishment and Sir Edw. Coke confesseth that he could not be burned and Burning forbidden by Statute-Law By what Law then was he burned La. By the Common-Law Ph. What 's that It is not Custom for before the time of Henry the 4th there was no such Custom in England for if there had yet those Laws that came after were but Confirmations of the Customs and therefore the Repealing of those Laws was a Repealing of the Custom For when King Ed. the 6th and Queen Eliz. abolished those Statutes they abolished all Pains and consequently Burning or else they had abolished nothing And if you will say he was burn't by the Law of Reason you must tell me how there can be Proportion between Doctrine and Burning there can be no Equality nor Majority nor Minority Assigned between them The Proportion that is between them is the Proportion of the Mischief which the Doctrine maketh to the Mischief to be Inflicted on the Doctor and this is to be measur'd only by him that hath the charge of Governing the People and consequently the Punishing of Offences can be determined by none but by the King and that if it extend to life or member with the Assent of Parliament La. He does not draw any Argument for it from Reason but alledgeth for it this Judgment executed upon Legat and a story out of Hollingshed and Stow But I know that neither History nor Precedent will pass with you for Law And though there be a Writ de haeretico comburendo in the Register as you may Read in Fitzherbert grounded upon the Statutes of 2 H. 4. cap. 15. and 2 H. 5. cap. 7. yet seeing those Statutes are void you will say the VVrit is also void Ph. Yes indeed will I. Besides this I understand not how that is true that he saith that the Diocesan hath Jurisdiction of Heresie and that so it was put in ure in all Queen Elizabeths Reign whereas by the Statute it is manifest that all Jurisdiction spiritual was given under the Queen to the High Commissioners how then could any one Diocesan have any part thereof without deputation from them which by their Letters Patents they could not grant nor was it reasonable they should For the Trust was not committed to the Bishops only but also to divers Lay-Persons who might have an Eye upon their Proceedings lest they should Incroach upon the power Temporal But at this day there is neither Statute nor any Law to Punish Doctrine but the ordinary Power Ecclesiastical and that according to the Canons of the Church of England only Authorized by the King the High Commission being long since abolished Therefore let us come now to such Causes Criminal as are not Capital Of Praemunire La. THe greatest Offence not Capital is that which is done against the Statute of Provisoes Ph. You have need to expound this La. This Crime is not unlike to that for which a Man is outlawed when he will not come in and submit himself to the Law saving that in Outlawries there is a long Process to precede it and he that is outlawed is put out of the Protection of the Law But for the Offence against the Statute of Provisors which is called Praemunire facias from the words in the Original VVrit if the Offender submit not himself to the Law within the space of 2 Months after notice he is presently an Outlaw And this Punishment if not Capital is equivalent to Capital For he lives secretly at the Mercy of those that know where he is and cannot without the like Peril to themselves but discover him And it has been much disputed before the time of Queen Elizabeth whether he might not be lawfully killed by any Man that would as one might kill a VVolf It is like the Punishment amongst the old Romans of being barred the use of Fire and VVater and like the great Excommunication in the Papacy when a Man might not eat or drink with the Offender without incurring the like Penalty Ph. Certainly the Offence for which this Punishment was first Ordained was some abominable Crime or of extraordinary Mischief La. So it was For the Pope you know from long before the Conquest incroached every day upon the Power Temporal VVhatsoever could be made to seem to be in ordine ad Spiritualia was in every Common-wealth claimed and haled to the Jurisdiction of the Pope And for that end in every Country he had his Court Ecclesiastical and there was scarce any cause Temporal which he could not by one shift or other hook into his Jurisdiction in such sort as to have it tryed in his own Courts at Rome or in France or in England it self By which means the Kings Laws were not regarded Judgments given in the Kings Courts were avoided and presentations to Bishopricks Abbies and other Benefices founded and endowed by the Kings and Nobility of England were bestowed by the Pope upon Strangers or such as with Money in their Purses could travel to Rome to provide themselves of such Benefices And suitably hereunto when there was a Question about a Tythe or a VVill though the point were meerly Temporal yet the Popes Court here would fetch them in or else one of the Parties would appeal to Rome Against these Injuries of the Roman Church and to maintain the Right and Dignity of the Crown of England Ed. 1. made a Statute concerning Provisors that is such as provide themselves with Benefices here from Rome for in the 25th year of his Reign he ordained in a full Parliament that the Right of Election of