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
Jus Paritatis pray mark it what then did they in effect depart from nothing They provided only that they might do nothing indecent or rather against their good liking and at the same time consulted likewise the safety of their Estate and Order and preservation of all their Rights But had they no care of the Authority of the Parliament in their absence yes for they very well knew that it was a probable opinion that nothing acted in their absence and during a recess of their whole Order could be rate and valid and therefore they provide propter hujusmodi absentiam non intendimus nec volumus nec eorum aliquis intendit vel vult quod processus habiti habendi in praesenti Parliamento super materiis auditis quantum ad nos eorum quemlibet attinet futuris temporibus quomodolibet impugnentur infirmentur seu etiam revocentur Let the Impartial Reader Judge whether this be not a famous recognition of the Bishops Right of sitting what a solemn leave they had to be absent what provisions made that the proceedings in that Parliament should not be avoided and made null by their absence which implies a great probability that that time allowed to the opinion of their being necessary in all proceedings in Parliament Was there ever such a protestation entred on the behalf of the Absentees of Temporal Barons This leave given them to be absent is an allowance of Right to sit The proceedings they liked not and the Canon was pretended Admitting this protestation to be an Act of Parliament It is an Act of Parliament to give the Bishops leave to be absent pro hac vice and to make Laws good that should pass in their absence I appeal to the world whether there can be a more Solemn and Authentick Recognition of their Right than this protestation imports CHAP. VIII IT does appear by the whole tenor of this their protestation that the Canons of the Church which they pretend had not passed into Laws if they had what need of such a warm protestation only for the sake of decency and the honesty of their order to be rid of a troublesome business what means the saving of their right if by Law it had been discharged what means their further protestation that the validity of the proceedings in those Causes in which they withdrew should not be impeach't by their absence if their Right did not remain entire notwithstanding the Canon besides that they do not alledge the Law but the Canons of the Church for their excuse They well knew the nature of Canons the force and obligation of them and also that they were not under any obligation to the Canon Law that it was only a Law in the Popes Temporal principality and had no Controul upon the Laws of this Kingdom For the clearing this question it will not be unnecessary here to speak to the nature of Canons what they effect and how oblige Canons therefore are no more Laws than the authority of the Church is Empire no not in matters that are proper for their Canons But most certainly they can neither make nor annul a Civil Right nor do they pretend to alter or change Governments they exceed their proper bounds when they intermeddle in any matters of this nature But when they do extend themselves beyond their bounds and order and appoint in any matter of a Civil Government they intend only to counsel and direct the man how he shall behave himself in the use of his Right which every man may observe if he please Their Subjects are Populus voluntarius the Ecclesiastical Courts are Courts of audience in matters that belong to their cognisance and the Church's word is He that will hear let him hear The Canons of foreign Councils tho' General tho' we send thither our Delegates and Proxies authorized by publick Instruments and by consent of Parliament as has been sometimes done have not the consideration of Canons except received here and allowed by the same Authority that makes the Canons of our Church Canons here must have the Royal assent at least to make them Canons but with the Kings assent they are void if they alter or meddle with any Civil Right or Constitution If any man is proceeded against in the Ecclesiastical Courts for being contrary in any thing to such a Canon our Courts will grant him a prohibition if Excommunicate thereupon award Writs to assoil him to the Bishop and seise his Temporalties if he do not conform Nothing can alter Civil Rights or Civil Constitutions but Law and such never were any Canons or so reputed except the Decrees of Councils confirmed by the Imperial Rescripts of the Roman Emperors who by their Rescripts made Laws by the Authority of the Lex regia by which the people devolved their Right of Legislation to the Emperors but when such Canons were confirmed by the Emperor they remained but Canons still the Canons were to be exacted by the measures of the Church and by the Church-men the matters of such Canons did not employ the Forum no alteration was made in any Civil Right but the Church had Authority to require observance of them under the Censures of the Church About the 11th Century the Pope meditating the increase of his new Ecclesiastical Empire the Roman Empire being now extinct did design to give Laws to the World and to that purpose in imitation of the Imperial Roman Law Gratian was appointed to compile a body of Laws accomodated to that design out of the General Councils the sayings of the Fathers and some decrees of former Popes which made that part of the Canon Law which they call the Decreta to answer to the Digest which was made up of the Senatus consulta Responsa prudentum and the Edicta Praetorum to which another Book was added of Decretals and Clementines made up of the Popes Decretal Epistles which answered to the Codes and Novels which was made up of the Edicts Epistles and Decrees of the Emperors For by the Constitution of the Senate of Rome called Lex Regia by which they gave the power of making Laws to Augustus it was established that quicquid per Epistolam statuit cognoscens decrevit aut per edictum propalavit lex esto And now there was such a thing as a body of Canon Law The Pope had Power indeed to make these Decreta and Decretalia Laws in the Domains of the Church and the patrimony of St. Peter in which he was a Temporal Prince but it was further endeavoured by him to make them the Laws of the Christian World and thereby to advance his pretended Oecumencial Empire and he did so far prevail and advance in his design that it was thought that Rome had again recovered the Empire of the World and it was said with too much truth of her upon the growth of the Papal power Quicquid non possidet armis Religione tenet But tho' the Pontificial as well as the Justinian
resolved what to do desired of the Earls of Leicester and Cornwall that he might have time untill the morrow And the morrow being Sunday time was given until the Munday and then the Bishops came to Becket and advised him for avoiding danger and scandal to submit himself to the Kings Will which if he should do jam audierint in Curiâ Regis perjurii Crimen sibi imponi tanquam proditorem judicandum eò quod terreno Domino honorem terrenum non servaret cum avitas consuetudines Regni observaturum firmasset ad quas specialiter observare jurisjurandi nova se illos astrixerat Religione And now sure it will be believed that Becket was accused in this Parliament of Treason for Treason was his Crime not allowing the King with the consent of his States to make any Laws but such as he should approve aggravated with perjury for he had sworn himself to observe them After Becket had given the Bishops an obstinate and resolute Answer to adhere to his Treasonable Practices to disallow the Authority of the King and States in the Laws called the Assise of Clarendon and to oppose the observance of them Observe what Gervasius saith discesserunt Episcopi ad Curiam properantes By and by Becket comes too but the Bishops were there before him carrying the Cross himself which the King as well as the Bishops took to be a coming armed Upon which saith Gervasius vocatis Episcopis proceribus gravem grandem Rex deponit querimoniam quod Archiepiscopus sic armatus in Curiam veniens ipsum suos omnes inauditâ saeculis formâ naevo notaverit proditoris Whereupon the Bishops by the Mouth of Hilaris Cicestrensis a Bishop more eloquent than the rest thus said to Becket Quandoque ait fuisti Archiepiscopus tenebamur tibi obedire sed quia Domino Regi fidelitatem jurasti hoc est vitam membra terrenam dignitatem sibi per te salvam fore consuetudines quas ipse repetit conservandas tu niteris eas destruere cum praecipue spectant ad terrenam sui degnitatem honorem idcirco te reum perjurii dicimus perjuro Archiepiscopo de caetero obedire non habemus This I take to be a judging in Treason But this the Bishops did for their part as Bishops and Suffragans they did withdraw their obedience from their Metropolitan which was as much as in them lay to deprive him a conviction it was of the Guilt not indeed judicium sanguinis But this is not all for observe what our said Author saith further they going away the King saith to them discernite quid perjurus contumax proditor debeat sustinere Itur judicatur à quo vel qualiter judicium pronuntiandum esset informatur In which matter Stephanides as he is cited by Mr. Selden in his Titles of Honour in the Folio Edition fol. 705. tells us how it was consulted and debated between the Bishops the Spiritual Barons and the Temporal Barons for saith he de proferendo judicio distantia fuit inter Episcopos Barones utrisque alteri illud imponentibus utrisque se excusantibus Aiunt Barones vos Episcopi pronuntiare debetis sententiam ad nos non pertinet nos Laici sumus vos personae Ecclesiasticae sicut ille Consacerdotes ejus Coepiscopi ejus Ad haec aliquis Episcoporum Imo vestri potius est hoc officii non nostri non enim est hoc judicium Ecclesiasticum sed Seculare non sedemus hic Episcopi sed Barones Nos Barones vos Barones pares hic sumus Ordinis autem Nostri rationi frustra innitimini quia si in nobis ordinationem attenditis in ipso similiter attendere debetis eo autem ipso quod Episcopi sumus non possumus Archiepiscopum dominum nostrum judicare By which dispute by the way it doth appear that both the Bishops and Temporal Lords did take themselves to be equally constituted Judges and Peers by reason of their common Baronage in this Case of Becket a Cause of Treason the Bishops owned and avowed a Right of judging him as Barons They did not excuse themselves upon the score of the Canon alledged but from the indecency in respect of the relation that they stood in to the Criminal he being their Superiour and Metropolitan they seem'd willing to decline the making of the Sentence Whether any Judgment was pronounced by whom or what the Judgment was is not certain the Historians differing thereupon But when he went out of the Court he was call'd by the people as he past Traytor and perjured Traytor as the King before had called him And if this be not the clearest proof of Beckets being accused of Treason and the Bishops judging in a capital Cause in Parliament there can be nothing proved to satisfaction Besides that all that writ of his story are unwilling Witnesses they magnify excuse and justify the man all along extolling his virtues They call him Saint Pater Patriae so Gervasius does Coll. 1393. and Martyr Let the Reader consider what is here faithfully recited and then let him tell what Opinion he hath of the Candor of the Octavo Gentleman who could find no fault in Thomas Becket for he saith Folio 62. That Gervasius Dorobernensis saith that Becket was charged with two things Injustice to John Marshall and his own contempt in not appearing to the Kings Summons This Author had nothing of his own knowledge to charge upon him and saith that Stephanides is not to be regarded because he was Beckets friend and an obscure Author it may be not yet come into his Study The Author had reason to see no faults in Becket or to forget them all for the good service the insolencies of that man hath done towards the Scandal of the Order But we have not mispent our own time neither will the Reader regret our length in this matter for this single Case consider'd gives a Resolution to the Question and puts the Right of the Bishops to sit in capital Causes out of all doubt This Case will let in light for the true understanding of the Assise of Clarendon For it must be noted that the Great Parliament of Clarendon was held by Henry the 2. about the latter end of January in the tenth year of his Reign the Bishops and Lords were all Sworn to observe the Statutes there made called the Assise of Clarendon called the Avitae consuetudines Regni of which the Law aforementioned was one This Law therefore must be interpreted in such a sense for that the words will bear it and can be intended in no other than that which may consist with the proceedings in the Case of Arch-Bishop Becket and with the Oaths of all the Bishops and Peers and the great men taken but a short time before to observe the Statutes of Clarendon Now if the whole Order of capital Causes had been intended to be excepted by that Statute above
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
yet when the business of the Parliament was extraordinary the Writs of Summons both to the Prelates and Barons had a Premonition that a Proxy should not be allowed unless they could not possibly be present dors claus 6 E. 3. m. 36. claus 1 R. 2. m. 37. 2 R. 2. m. 29. Nor was it unusual with the Prelates to make such their Procurators who were no Members of that House In that Parliament of Carlisle under E. 1. the Bishop of Exeter sends to the Parliament Henry de Pinkney Parson of Haughton as his Proxy The Bishop of Bath and Wells sends William of Charleton a Canon of his Church In the Parliament 17 R. 2. the Bishop of Norwich made Michael Cergeaux Dean of the Arches and others his Procurators In the same year the Bishop of Durham his Proxies are John of Burton Canon of Beudly and others In the Statute of Praemunire 16 R. 2. cap. 5. it is said that the advice of the Lords Spiritual being present and of the Procurators of them that were absent was demanded This making of others then Barons of Parliament Proxies is not without President likewise in the case of Temporal Lords Lit. Procurator Parl. 4 H. 5. Thomas de la War gave his Procuratory Letters to John Frank and Richard Hulme Clerks So that it appears that by the Law of Parliament the Proxies of the Bishops in the 21th of R. 2. were legal Proxies and consequently the Bishops there virtually Besides that the lawfulness thereof doth appear for that it was required of them by the Parliament that they should make their Proxies and be present by their Procurators for this reason lest otherwise the Proceedings in that Parliament should be void CHAP. X. IT is true that the Parliament 21 R. 2. was wholly repealed by 1 H. 4. but that was for a good reason indeed because that Parliament of 21 R. 2. had delegated their whole power to a few of their number who finally without any resort back to the House made and past Laws But did ever any man before the Octavo argue at this rate that because there is one error in a case for which the Judgment is reversed that therefore there was nothing in the case legal and well considered And therefore how unreasonable and false this way of arguing is and that it is disputing against fact we shall further shew and prove For a probable Opinion still continued of the necessity of the Bishops sitting which implies a clear Recognition of a Right for in the 2 H. 5 the Earl of Salisbury petitioned the House to reverse a Judgment given against the Earl his Father Anno 2 H. 4. the Error assigned was the Absence of the Spiritual Lords The Case was much debated but the Judgment affirmed as we allow it ought to be but we produce it as an irrefragable Testimony of the Bishops Right to sit for if that had not been allowed there could not have been the least colour in the case nor matter of debate CHHP. XI BUt tho' the Actual Exercise of the Bishops Right in their own Persons though whatsoever is done by a Deputy is done in the Right of him that makes the Deputation as every body knows was for some time discontinued tho' their Right in that time was most solemnly owned and recognized yet in 28 H. 6. we find them re-continuing the Exercise of that Right and Authority and in their own Persons sitting in Judgment upon William de la Pool Duke of Suffolk who was impeach'd of Treason by the Commons for that he had sold the Realm to the French King and had fortified Wallingford Castle for a place of Refuge The Impeachment of High Treason was brought from the House of Commons by several Lords Spiritual and Temporal sent thither by the King's Command the Ninth of March the Duke was brought from the Tower into the Presence of the King the Lords Spiritual and Temporal The Impeachment was read unto him The Thirteenth of March he was sent for to come before the King the Lords Spiritual and Temporal to answer to his Charge which he did On Tuesday the Seventeenth of March the King sent for all the Lords Spiritual and Temporal who were in Town They are named two Arch-Bishops and thirteen Bishops besides the Temporal Lords who being assembled the King sent for the Duke There was no Judgment given by the Parliament but he submitted to the King and the King gave him Penance which was that he should be absent for Five Years out of England The Lords Spiritual and Temporal by Viscount Beaumont declared to the King that this that was so decreed and done against the Person of the Duke proceeded not by their Advice and Council with this Protestation that it should not be nor turn in Prejudice nor Derogation of them their Heirs ne of their Successors in time coming but that they may have and enjoy their Liberty and Freedom as largely as ever their Ancestors or Predecessors had and enjoyed before this time Observe here that the Lords Spiritual were present at every Motion of this Cause This Cause was thrice before them no Exception taken to the Bishops being Judges They could not sit by Permission without Right if the Bishops had no Right to sit the Proceedings had been certainly erroneous For though one Judge's Absence if there be a Quorum will not vacate a Judgment yet if one sit in Judgment that is not an Authorized Judge the Proceeding is certainly erroneous and void Can any man believe that the Government should lose it self forget it s own Establishments in the highest concerns We may as soon believe that a man may forget his own name One positive Act of Session signifies more than 100 Omissions for if it had not been well understood that the Bishops had a Right to sit in Judgment in Capital Causes in Parliament they could never have been admitted they would never have presumed to endeavour it But with false Logick and absurd Reasonings and dislike to the Order it is become an Opinion in this Age because sometimes the Bishops absented that they have no Right But we have one thing further to add that declares an inherent Right in the Lords Spiritual to the Authority in question and that is an Opinion of the Judges 10 E. 4. 35. which says that the Lords Spiritual in case of a Tryal of a Temporal Peer in Parliament shall make a Procurator for then it seems an Opinion was received which was error temporis That it was indecent for Bishops to sit in their own persons in Judgment in such cases But they themselves are best Judges of what is indecent and unbecoming their Order for no man is obliged to any man but himself in the matters of Decency and the measures that make things decent or indecent is very mutable as changable and mutable as Customs Fashions and Opinions Besides that there is nothing that is very valuable and is of great concernment but can and
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
form'd His great Knowledge in Records and that he is known not to be partial for the Bishops make him of great Authority pages 10 11 12 13 14 17 329 384 325 281 392 567 607 710 712 713 714. And farther in the Time of Queen Elizabeth in an Act of Parliament in the first Year of her Reign made for the Recognition of Her Queen of England which was an Act of State and of the whole Community and therefore most requisite it was that that Parliament should give themselves their right Stile It is said We your said the Lords Spiritual Temporal and Commons in Parliament assembled was said before to which this doth relate most loving Subjects representing the three States of your Realm of England The Nature of the Government came directly at their Times under Consideration of the Parliament which is an Assembly that cannot be mistaken in the Constitution of the Kingdom in any Question of such a Nature when they will deliberate and consider This mighty Affair required them to consider who they were and what was their Constitution Now if at any time they are to use that Stile that denotes their Power and declares the Government The Stile of the three Estates of the Realm it seems is so sacred and great and not for ordinary use but that it is used upon such occasions as the Recognition of the Sovereign Princes and in declaring Kings This Stile is most certain declarative of the true Constitution and the great Stile and Title of the Lords Spiritual Lords Temporal and Commons of England A Misnomer now would be as great a Solecism as to see the Nobles and Prelates without their Robes and proper Cognizances at the Solemnities of a Coronation By the due comparing the Statutes aforementiond wherein the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons are called the States and also the Representatives of all the Estates of the Kingdom We may be enlightened into a great Mistery of State for that the Lords Spiritual and the Lords Temporal and Commons are called the three States and also the Representatives of the States give us to understand that every one of them is entrusted for the other and with the Conservancy of the whole Community and are all in their proper Ministries designed to the Common Good and each of them have Dependencies and Expectancies from the other in the due Discharge of their proper and distinct Offices And that the Lords Spiritual and the Lords Temporal are Representatives and Trustees for the Peoples Good and the Common-weal as well as their own In like manner as every Parliament man for a particular Borough is a Representative of all the Commons of England To which we will adjoyn another great Authority and that is of Sir Edward Coke 4 Inst fol. 2. who tells us that the King and three Estates viz. Lords Spiritual and Lords Temporal and Commons are the great Corporation and Body Politick of this Nation This was the Opinion of his Old Age when he was most improved in Knowledge and when he did not flatter the Prerogative Besides to clear this point we may observe that the Stile of Acts of Parliament that hath mostly obtained is this viz Be it enacted c. and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Lords Spiritual and Lords Temporal and Commons This distinct mention of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal is Cognizance of their being distinct States For observe there is no particular mention of Knights Citizens and Burgesses in Acts of Parliament because they are all of the Commonalty which is but one State They are all involved under the general Name of Commons And so would certainly the Lords both Spiritual and Temporal have been in the general Name of Lords if they had not been distinct States and so accounted The Stile of Acts of Parliament would have been by the Advice and Assent of the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament And the ancient Stile of Parliament before the House of Commons was divided and constituted apart from the Lords House was Clerus Populus Clerus Magnates as may be seen by Eadmerus and Matth. Paris and the Writers of those Times So that the Clerus or Bishops were always a distinct State in Parliament For the letting in Light upon all that hath been said in this matter and for farther clearing it and to reconcile the Differences in the Stiles of the Parliament and that they may unite in their Evidence and not seem to thwart one another It must be remembred that that which is most express and particular is most scientifical and more exactly instructive most distinct and true and intends to inform us exactly in the very Nature of the thing and therefore cannot be derogated from nor prejudiced by what is more general or less distinct It is hence therefore evident that the Lords Spiritual and Temporal are taken for distinct States as they are For they have their distinct Interests and for several ends and purposes became parts in the Government They have their several Ministries and Advantages to the Government apart and come into that House by several ways of Designation and Appointment The Prelates care besides that which is common between them and the Temporal Lords is that of Religion and the Affairs of the Church and the whole Order Ecclesiastical by which the People are to be ministred to in their highest Concernments which are Reasons very sufficient to reckon and account them a distinct State And now we have asserted to the Prelates a Jus Paritatis in the House of Lords for that they are complete Barons as we have likewise proved them a distinct State The Baronage of England is the House of Lords Additions of Title give Precedency but no Superiority or addition of Power The Baronage is one Order and Rank and the highest in the Census of the Government the manner of the Promotion the Ends and Interests of the Government in the advancement of the Bishops though several from those that advanced the Temporal Lords to their State and Honour yet to the same degree they are promoted they are both Members of the same great Council of the same great Judicature and are therefore by their long continuance most duely styled Pares Regni And moreover the Bishops are considered as to their Order and Office Ecclesiastical and another care incumbent upon them besides that of the Baronage and the Orders that belong to the consideration of Heralds do signifie that their Office of a Bishop doth not lessen the Dignity of their Peerage What is it then that makes this present Question The Bishops have the reason and nature of the Government of their side they have used such a power when they have pleased it was never denied to them and their right hath had the most solemn Recognition that can be made The Canon could not abridge and restrain their right and their true Character qualifies them not onely to the degree of an
to depend upon the Will of the Prince nor of Single Persons that bore a part in the Government for their time nor be prejudiced in Succession by their Lachesse The same Priviledge doth belong to the Spiritual Baronage the successive Nobility of this Realm and a Writ of Summons to Parliament can be no more refused any of them or any of their Successors than it can to any of the Temporal Baronage I cannot but upon a review of our Government applaud our happiness that we enjoy and were born to so excellent a Government without our Sweat and Contrivance which was arrived to by several slow Steps and beaten out by the long experience of former Ages But it is a portentous thing and of ill very ill Omen that a Government so Venerable and August so Wise Beneficial and desireable should be assaulted with peevish Dotages froward Petulances and childish Cavillations And that some Brain-sick foolish Antiquaries Rakers in the Rubbish of Time should imagine that they can barter away our Government for mouldy Bread and clouted Shoes But these we have before obviated Another sort we have before engaged to consider in their ill Treatment of the Bishops in their handling this Question of their Right we now defend To which I will now proceed CHAP. XXIV FOr I am not now insensible of the great Prejudices that lie against the Right of the question from those Calumnies that are thrown upon the Order And that no reason not the clearest Demonstration will be admitted to any Degree of satisfaction until this be removed Men's understandings are mingled with their interests and Passions It is a hard matter not to see the person in the Cause and if the person is dis-esteemed his Right cannot be equally favour'd Nay which is more if our Adversaries can persuade the World that the Bishops will abuse this their Right nothing will be able to keep off this Conclusion that they have none We most duly therefore here complain of the dishonest Artifice used by the Gentlemen that we have undertaken in this Cause viz. That they seek all occasions of lessening the esteem of the Bishops and of them they speak what they will He that can believe what he will is an Infidel and he that does what he will is a man of no Conscience and he that can speak what he will wants Truth and Candor But of a culpable sort of Wilfulness we finde these two Authors very blameable We must complain of these fierce disputants that they strive unlawfully they contend with passion and a keen Animosity they strike as well as argue they lay about them right or wrong to assault and wound the Persons whose Right they oppose A wound and Dishonour do they give to their own hurt Animosque in Vulnere ponunt The first and greatest Injustice they do to the Cause against all Right and Reason of which sure they must be self-condemned is an odious Remembrance of any thing culpable in the whole Succession of Bishops in the times of the lowest Degeneracy of the Christian Religion and of the heighth of Papal Usurpation and Tyranny which was more heavy in those times upon the Rights of the Bishops than upon those of the Crown When Princes thorough their own Weakness or to serve their Interest or to support their defective Titles to their Crowns or for obtaining dispensations from his Holiness for an unwarrantable Marriage or for other Ends and Reasons could not or would not defend the Bishops and their Rights The very order of Bishops in those times was attempted upon to be annulled by that Oecumecall Usurper It was disputed and boldly maintained in the Council of Trent that the Bishops were only jure Pontificio and had no Authority in the Church but such as his Holiness would vouchsafe them It was endeavoured to make them but his Substitutes He pretended Powers to create and translate them diminish or enlarge their Dioceses gave them more or less Authority did suspend them also and deprive them and pretended that they had only a vicarious and precarious Authority from him and in such Measures as he should think fit to limit and appoint Were not Provisions and Reservations first made by the Pope upon Benefices belonging to Churchmen The Statute of the 25 E. 3. gave their Presentations to the King when the Pope usurped upon them as a Fortification against his Usurpation and Invasion Did he not urge his Canon upon them that they should not agitare judicium sanguinis so much talk'd of in this Question that he might strip them out of their Secular Greatness that he might the better go over them and tread upon them and their Ecclesiastical Rights Is there no Consideration to be had by those Gentlemen in this Case of the Error temporis or Vitia Temporum They will snatch at this unduely when it seems for their turn but can they think that any Bishop under a Protestant Sovereign will ever return under the old Yoak And yet the business of Provisions Reservations and Dispensations and of Pluralties must be laid at the Bishops Door yea though Dispensation of Pluralties is now established by Statute Law with all the Usurpations exercised by the Pope the First-born of the Children of Pride to which they willingly-unwillingly were forced to submit But how unrighteous a thing is it to load the Order it self with all the Miscarriages of a long Course of Succession as if the Faults of the Bishops in all Ages did stick to their respective Chairs and had passed into the Office it self But it is no wonder that they remember the Faults of those Bishops unduely to the Disparagement and Dishonor of the Order and Succession When the Folio turns matter of Commendation into Reproach and calls their contending for due Administration of Justice and Laws Clamors for the Breach of Magna Charta Invisos seu bene seu male facta premunt By this he sems to argue them guilty of affecting Temporal Power and intermedling unduely in Secular Affairs CHAP. XXV BUT to discharge this Imputation we will shortly remember how modest they have always been in the exercise of their Ecclesiastical Office and how faithful they have always been in former Ages to that Temporal Trust which the Laws and Constitutions of this Government hath annexed to the Spiritual Office of a Bishop The Bishops challenge nothing to belong to them of Divine Right but the Exercise of their Ministry in the Cure of Souls They do not assume the Office of themselves but are appointed thereto by the Sovereign Power and therefore the Bench of Bishops are not answerable for every one of their Order They rightfully acknowledge the Right of Investiture and Collation of Bishopricks to be in the King subject to Royal Exemptions and Priviledges from their ordinary Right From which Exemptions Mr. Selden is too forward to conclude his Doctrine of Erastianism for that the Exercise of their Function may be restrained as well in reference
and Officials to whom Custom hath given some Powers and Authoririty which cannot be check'd and controul'd by the Bishops themselves they are not to account neither are they answerable for the Lay-Zeal that hath made the Condition of Excommunicants so very afflictive For whatever some men please to think the Laity have out-done the Ecclesiasticks in the Excesses of intemperate Zeal as they are most apt and prone by their Ignorance to Superstition No man can pass under the Admonitions of the Church and be suspended from the Holy Mysteries until he hath made Satisfaction for his disorderly walking or Spiritual Pride in breaking Order but he is presently given up by the Laity to Satan I mean he suffers beyond the first Intention of the Church in her Discipline Severities enacted by the Law of the State which if reversed by that Authority that established them and a civil Process were enacted for the Ecclesiastical Courts in Causes of a Temporal Nature which are appointed by Law to their cognizance I persuade my self we should hear of no more Complaints against them in the Exercise of the Power of the Keys For we observe that they exercise the Power of the Keys with deference to the Secular Magistrates They never presume to excommunicate the Prince least they should thereby lessen his Authority and shock the Government For that all Government is established by the Honor and Reverence of the Governor according to that Saying of Aristotle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dissolution of Government doth easily follow the Contempt of the Governor As Kings are not subject to Penal Laws nor to be coerced by Penalties So true it is also what Balsamo hath noted ad 12 Canonem Synod Ancyranae Imperatoriâ unctione penitentiam tolli Neither do they presume in Reverence to the King to excommunicate his Counsellors and Ministers of State and Justice For so it was declared amongst other of the Avitae consuetudines of this Realm by the Assize of Clarendon Nullus qui de Rege teneat in Capite nec aliquis dominicorum ministrorum ejus excommunicetur nisi prius Dominus Rex conveniatur In which our Bishops are agreable to the Ancients Hildebert Cenoman after Bishop of Tours who lived about the eleventh Century says he Apud Serenissimum Regem opus est exhortatione potius quam increpatione Concilio quam praeceptis doctrinâ quam virgâ Ivo Bishop of Chartres in his Apology for communicating Gervasius saith thus Quos culpatorum Regia Potestas aut in gratiam benignitatis receperit aut mensae suae participes fecerit eos etiam Sacerdotum populorum conventus suscipere in Ecclesiastica Communione debebit ut quod principalis pietas recipit nec à Sacerdotibus Dei alienum habeatur Thus while the Bishops are not guilty of mean and unfaithful flatteries they do not participate of the pride of the Bishops of Rome or the irreverence and sawciness of a Presbyterian Consistory against their Princes and Governours Neither do they call up any criminal cause originally to their examination but pronounce the sentence of Excommunication on such onely as first are civilly convict of a crime save that matters of Incontinency are by the Common Law submitted to their Censure for that by the venerable gravity of the Judge and by the more private examination of such offences the modesty of the Nation is best preserved which is a surer defensative against the rifeness of such crimes perhaps than the sharpest punishments If they do excommunicate any man without a just cause or do not absolve the Excommunicate when he hath made his satisfactions the Bishop is compellable by the Authority of the Kings Courts to assoil the man under the pain of having his Temporalities seized into the Kings hands though he is not restored without the Episcopal Absolution For it is fit they should finally judge in their own proper Province and they must not they cannot relax the Laws of Christ nor administer the power of the Keys of binding and losing by any other measures for any power on earth But against this power of the Kings Courts they do not dispute or declare but have recognized it by their submission and they can submit to the penalties without complaining of this civil constitution Nay in the general order they approve it though in a particular case perhaps they do not because they cannot obey Our Bishops do not encroach any Temporal Authority in ordine ad spiritualia that stale pretence by which the Bishop of Rome hath arrived to his exorbitant power and by which the Scotch Presbyters would have acquired the like over Kings and Governours Their Authority always administers to and assists but never thwarts or contradicts the Temporal They have accommodated their power of the Keys to the vindication of our established Government against the attempts of Arbitrary Power to which their Allegeance to the King and the regard of the publick Peace did oblige them For such Attempts are mostly the ruin of those that make them always bring the Government it self into the greatest danger and sometimes prove the ruin both of the Government and the Nation This was required of them as an indispensible duty they being a principal part of the Government and the present Bishops Successours to all their Rights have no reason to decline their example if they have the like cause The Bishops anciently were sturdy opposers of King John when he designed to put this Kingdom into vassallage to the Pope and thereupon he writes to the Pope thus as followeth In conspectu paternitatis vestrae humiliamus ad gratias multiplices prout meliùs scimus possumus exhibendas pro cura sollicitudine quam ad desensionem nostram Regni nostri Angliae paterna vestra benevolentia indesinenter apponit licèt duritia Praelatorum Angliae inobedientia impediant vestrae provesionis effectum Pat. 17 Joannis R. M. 15. as I find it related by Mr. Petit in his book entituled The ancient Right of the Commons of England asserted About the 24 H. 3. Edmund then Archbishop of Canterbury at a Synod held at Westminster the King being present Candelis acceptis projectis ac extinctis Chartam Libertatum violantes vel sinistrè interpretantes excommunicantur Mat. Paris p. 151. About 13 years after viz. in 37 H. 3. Boniface then Archbishop of Canterbury the sentence of Excommunication is again repeated against those Qui Ecclesiasticas Libertates vel antiquas Regni Consuetudines in Chartis communium Libertatum de Foresta concessas quascunque arte vel ingenio violaverunt Fleta l. 2. c. 42. Dors Claus 37 H. 3. membr 9. Additament ad Mat. Paris p. 117. Which Sentence of Excommunication was ratified and confirmed in a Parliament held that year as followeth Noverint universi quòd Dominus Rex Angliae illustris Comes Norfolk Mareschallus Angliae H. Comes Hereford Essex J. Comes de Warewico Petrus à Sabaudia ceterÃque magnates Angliae
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
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
either not against us or for us And all along observe the candor and integrity of the Author We shall further shew how absurd his Reasonings are to make those Precedents to conclude any thing for his purpose We will also with the clearest demonstration prove That the Assize of Clarendon establisheth the Bishops Authority and right to judge in capital Causes in Parliament And likewise that the protestation made by the Bishops 11. R. 2. is a most solemn Recognition of their Right that the Bishops have sate in Judgment in the greatest capital Causes in Parliament that ever happened that this their Authority hath been exercised in their own Persons and by their Proxies and recognized by Parliaments and other great Courts of Judicature but never before this time brought into Question That no Canon could lessen the Right at most it is but a Councel for their guidance in the exercise of their Authority which they might observe as they please That the Popes Canon Law was never received into England that prohibits Bishops to judge in capital Causes That the Bishops have declined to assist in pronounceing the Sentence of death sometimes as undecent for their Order but notwithstanding and without being contrary to the example and practice of their Predecessors the Bishops may judge upon the Plea of the Earl of Danby's Pardon For that if they do judge the Pardon not good the Earl is not therefore to be condemned And for the better clearing the Bishops Right and for the establishing the Government we shall prove that the Spiritual Lords are Peers of the Realm and one of the three States and an essential part of the Government which no legal power can charge or alter Lastly we shall repel the calumnies of the Adversaries in this cause by which they indeavour to render the Prelates unworthy of their Right and to put them amongst the prodigi furiosi that are scarce allowed to be Proprietors of their own And conclude our Discourse with a just Apology for the Lords the Bishops CHAP. II. ANd First I begin with the Octavo which in the Introduction to his Precedents saith That he will not meddle with the General Question How far forth Clergy-men in Orders are forbidden having any thing to do with secular matters nor what in that particular the Imperial Law requires as that Rescript of the Emperor Honorous and Theodosius which Enacts that Clergy-men shall have no communion with publick Functions or things appertaining to the Court or the Decree of Justinian That Bishops should not take upon them so much as the Oversight of an Orphan nor the proving of Wills saying It was a filthy thing crept in amongst them which appertained to the Master of his Revenue Nor what our common Law of England seems to allow or disallow having provided a special Writ in the Register upon occasion of a Master of an Hospital being it seems a Clergy-man and chosen an Officer in a Mannor to which that Hospital did belong saying it was Contra Legem consuetudinem Regni non consonum It was contrary to the Law and Custom of the Kingdom and not agreeable to reason That he who had cure of Souls and should spend his time in Prayer and Church duties should be made to attend upon Secular imployments I meddle not neither saith he with what seems to be the Divine Law as having been the practice of the Apostles and by them declared to be grounded upon reason and to be what in reason ought to be which was this That they should not leave the word of God and serve Tables though that was a Church Office and yet they say it is not reason we should do that for their work was the Ministry of the Word and Prayer much less then were they to be employed in secular affairs This with great skill he prefixes to his precedents which make the Law of Parliament which is the Law of the Land he saith and after he had said all that he could to make the very pretence it self unlawful and to perswade the shutting of the Bishops out of the House for altogether he subjoyns his Precedents he thought certainly that when he had placed the Precedents in such a light they must look all of that colour and have that appearance which he indeavours too by other arts to give them But we shall spoil his design in a very few words which the observant Reader will apprehend how pertinent it is and satisfactory to what is objected in the recited Preface though we do not for brevity sake apply our answer to every particular of his Discourse We say therefore we can't think the Clergy fit for Proctors Publick Notaries and Scriveners or Ushers of Court or other subservient offices nor fit to make Constables Tythingmen and Scavengers nor to keep watch and ward and to be a Hayward or Bayliff of his Worships Mannors and Townships Or that they should be Merchants or Farmers or interpose in a-any Secular affairs for gain That it was declined by the Pastors and Teachers of the Church as an indignity for them to administer to Tables i. e. to the Provisions of Charity in their Church-feast and they ought to keep far off from a suspition of filthy Lucre nay not to preach principally for gain or make a gain of Godliness By the Imperial Law accordingly they were discharged from the trouble of being Tutors and Curators of Orphans nay where the Law had designed them that care by their relation to the Orphans out of respect to their dignity they were discharged by the Law that they might not incur unkindness to the neglect of their relations nor yet be incumbred with such private attendances to divert them from their great Cure Though the Presbytery might be admitted ad Tutelam Legitimam by their own consent and this was made Law by Justinian Cod. L. 1. By which Law it appears not a Judgment of Incompetency in Clergy-men to intermedle in Secular affairs but an honourable exemption of the Bishops from such private concernments was the reason of that Law It was further provided by a Law of Justinian Cod. L. 1. That Priests should not be made of Court-Officers but those that were so made might continue the reason of the Law is contained in it because that such a man was Enutritus in Executionibus vehementibus seu asperis his quae ex ea re accidunt peccatis Non utique aequum fuerit modo quidem illico esse Taxeatam Buleatam facere omnium acerbissima mox autem Sacerdotem ordinari humanitate innocentia exponentem dogmata In all this the honour of the Church was consulted But business of weight and trust was committed to them Valent. Valens appointed Bishops to set the price of goods sold with this reason Negotiatores ne modum mercandi videantur excedere Episcopi Christiani quibus verus cultus est adjuvare pauperes provideant Justin 79. Novel submits Monks to
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
Authority or weight enough to perswade the contrary or an alteration therein notwithstanding that complaint which he tells us was made in the 45 of E. 3. fol. by the two Houses Counts Barons and Commons to the King how the Government of the Kingdom had been a long time in the hands of the Clergy Per cet grant mischiefs dammages sont avenuz en temps passe pluis purroit eschire en temps avenir al disherison de la Coronne grant prejudice du Royalme Whereby great mischiefs and damages have happened in times past and more may fall out in time to come to the disherison of the Crown and great prejudice to the Realm And therefore they humbly pray the King that he would imploy Laymen This they had too much reason to desire then when the Pope had advanced his Authority over them and put them under Oaths of Canonical obedience which rendred them less fit to be intrusted in the Government of this Kingdom who were become Subjects of another Empire usurping continually upon us which will never be our Case again if the Bishops can help it CHAP. III. ANd now we proceed to the Precedents of which the Octavo Book principally consists which seem as that Author and the other in Folio would have it to be not only a discontinuance of the Right of the Bishops to judge in Capital Causes but an argumentative proof that they never had any because it can as they say be never proved to be otherwise Immemorial time I confess is a great evidence of the right whether In non user or user and a fair reason to allow or deny the pretence and therefore we will now consider the Precedents As for the argumentative and discoursive parts of those books they will fall in to be answered by way of Objection when we are discoursing and proving the affirmative part of the Question and will best be reproved by being placed near the light of our reasons for establishing the Right of the Prelates If we do not give some satisfaction to these Precedents whatever we shall say I know can signifie no more than an Argument to prove a thing not true which is possible de facto testified by unexceptionable witnesses for such the Precedents will be taken until exceptions are made to their Testimony The Precedents produced by the two Authors are mostly the same only the Octavo hath more than what the Folio Book hath recited The first case that the Octavo produceth against the Lords Spiritual their Right of being Judges in Parliament in Capital Causes is that of Roger Mortimer Earl of March Simon Beresford and others who were no Peers and yet tryed in Parliament and no Bishops present and we agree it probable for his reason because there is mention made of Counts Barons and Peers and Peers being named after Barons could not comprehend the Bishops And because we think it reasonable when the orders of that House are particularly enumerated that the order omitted should be intended absent but we will not allow but that Peers is and so is Grants comprehensive of Bishops Nor will we when the entry is General intend the Bishops absent except he cannot otherwise prove them absent which we mention in the entry once for all as just and common measures between us in this dispute It will appear true what we affirm of the words Peers and Grants by what follows And if we should not insist upon their being present when nothing appears to the contrary we should do wrong to the Cause But to come to the consideration of this Precedent Is this a just Precedent Is not Magna Charta hereby violated Are not the proceedings altogether illegal Here are Commoners tryed by Peers in Parliament It is well known that the high displeasure of the King was concerned and that he did interpose with a plenitude of Power in this particular case against the fundamental constitutions of the Government the greatest crime of this Earl was too much familiarity with the Kings Mother Indignation and Revenge and not Justice formed the Process It was proceeded to condemn him Judicio Zeli upon pretence of the Notoriety of the fact Sir Robert Cotton in his abridgment tells us Anno 4. Ed. 3. That the King charged the Peers who as Judges of the Land by the Kings assent adjudged that the said Roger as a Traytor should be drawn and hanged The Bishops were not present certainly they were none of the Judges that gave Judgment as the King pronounced without Cognisance of the Cause The King had more Honour for their Order than to call then to such Drudgery and service of the Crown The iniquity of the sentence appears by the reversal thereof in Parliament 25 Ed. 3. in which the Original Record is recited Sir Robert Cotton in his Abridgment tells us That this Earl being condemned of certain points whereof he deserved commendation and for other altogether untrue surmises there was a Bill brought into the Lords House for the reversal of the Judgment and it was reverst by Act of Parliament indeed it could not be otherways reverst for no Court can judicially reverse their own Judgment for Error in Law and Judgment in the Lords House being the dernier Resort cannot be repealed but undone it may be by themselves in their legislative Capacity Here saith the Octavo the Bishops were not present at the passing of that Bill but yet the Octavo Gentleman will not pretend that the Bishops are to be excluded in any Acts of Legislation Why therefore was he so willing to impose upon the people so falsely and unrighteously and to produce this as a Precedent against the Bishops Right of Session in matters of that Nature by himself recognized There is nothing can excuse him herein for he is certainly self-condemned of undue Art in thiâ— matter In 20 R. 2. the Case of Sir Thomas Haxey happen'd which the Octavo book page 20 produceth against us He was forsooth condemned in Parliament for that he had preferred a Bill in the House of Commons for regulating the outragious Expences of the Kings House particularly of Bishops and Ladies Haxey was for this tryed and condemned to death for it in Parliament And here appears to be no Bishops and there ought not to have been any for these reasons First that the Bishops were the parties wronged and therefore could not in any fitness give sentence But Secondly if that was not in the Case that that caus'd the process was Royall anger upon a great faction of State in which I believe the Bishops were not engaged made for deposing of Rich. the 2d that was understood by the King to be in acting and promoted by Sir Thomas Haxey by his Bill It was this made the sentence altogether abhorrent from legal justice in matter and form Here was a Tryall of a Commoner by Peers a matter made Treason that did participate nothing of the nature of Treason But the discreet Gentleman
will take notice of nothing that is faulty in this Case but that this proceeding tends to abridge freedom of speech in Parliament which he loved from his youth which we do not blame in him As he did also to talk against Bishops which he cannot depart from when he is old But in the first of Hen. 4. this Judgment of Attainder was repealed and annull'd as he himself tells us Fol. 25. And here the Lords Spiritual were Judges which must be remark't for the honour of their Order that though they were the pars laesa by that fault such as it was yet notwithstanding they concurred readily to the repealing the Judgment But by this it appears that the Bishops did agreeable to their rightful Authority sit in Judgment in Parliament in capital Causes and therefore in consequence because it is a Case of his own production he ought to allow that the Bishops might have had Session in the Repeal of the Attainder of Roger Earl of March if it had been or could have been repealed by Judgment or a judicial Act of the Lords House For will this renownedly wise-man for avoiding of this his own testimony which he hath justly produced though it proves to testify against himself say that the Bishops can be present at repealing of a Judgment of Condemnation but not present at confirming any Doth not it in this proceeding come before them in Judgment and consideration Whether the sentence shall be repealed or affirmed and is not this with a witness a question of blood The Judgment being upon an appeal or review must be final peremptory and decretory and is more a question of blood than the Cause can be reckoned and deem'd to be upon the first Instance Or doth he think fit that there should be two sorts of Judges appointed a hanging Judge and a saving Judge if he doth I am sure he will not be able to find an employment for a just Judge So that I think to all men that can consider we have sufficiently vacated that testimony that the Cases of the Earl March and Haxey's seem'd to give against us and they are fairly come over to our side And we have provided herein sufficiently for the recovering of all men into an indifferency against the Prejudices this Octavo by its great Esteem hath done to their Judgments The Third Precedent is 15 E. 3. That Parliament was declared to be called for the Redress of the breach of the Laws and of the Peace of the Kingdom and as the Octavo hath it Fol. 8. because the Prelates were of opinion that it belonged not properly to them to give Councel about keeping the peace nor punishing such evils they went away by themselves and returned no more saith he but that is out of the Record so ready this Authour in Octavo is to shut them out of the House but I pray would not the Temporal Lords if the King had consulted the Parliament in matters Ecclesiastical have in like manner departed but would such departure of the Temporal Lords exclude them from having any thing to do in the Affairs of the Church Why then are the Bishops treated in their Right so unequally And this must serve for an Answer to the Folio p. 17. where he is very large in reciting Records of process and Proclamation against the Earl of Northumberland agreed only by Lords If a Liturgy or book of Canons were to be established by Law the Bishops certainly would have the forming of them The Octavo saith that Commissions were then framed by the Counts Barons and other Grants and brought into Parliament but no Bishop was present so much as to hear the Commissions read because they were to enquire into all Crimes as well Capital as others And for affirming this for all that can appear to us he only consulted his Will and pleasure like an honest man to the cause he defends for he hath not told us from any Record what the Nature of these Commissions were But we observe that though this Parliament was called for matters of the peace yet the Bishops had their Summons and it was not a Parliament excluso Clero The Bishops it seems upon the opening of the Parliament and the causes of convening modestly it seem'd declared that they were not competent as not perhaps studied in Pleas of the Crown or perhaps had not been so observant in fact of the matters of grievance What harm in all this they that cannot propound may judge of Expedients propounded and so did they for it doth appear by the Record 6 E. 3. N. 3. that the Results of the Temporal Lords were approved in full Parliament by the King Bishops Lords and Commons which the Folio agrees But it seems modesty is a dangerous thing and not to be forward to judge and determine though the matter be not understood may be a good Cause to turn a Judge out of his Office and forfeit his Judicature Besides the principal business of this Parliament was Legislation in which the Prelates have an undisputed Right of Session and may they not advise upon what they make into a Law May not they consider of the matter that is to pass into a Law in all the steps it makes But it is admirable what the Folio Book saith viz. that by this Record it is evident that the Prelates have no judicial power over any personal Crimes which are not Parliamentary I suppose he means Crimes not debated in Parliament This doth very much fortify the foundations and grounds of his discourse What are the grounds of his discourse I shall never be able to find out except it be an over-weening Opinion of himself to meddle with these matters which seem too high for him and to which the reading of my Lords Cooks Institutes and the broken Commentaries of the Law will never render any man competent It s true the Bishops have never any power and Cognizance of any Causes except they are commissionated thereto out of Parliament But as true it is of the Temporal Lords and therefore whatsoever advantage this will do his Cause with all my heart let him take it The next Case produced as a Precedent for them is the Case of Sir William de La Zouch and Sir John Gray for a quarrel in the Kings presence they were both committed to the Tower and after brought into Parliament no Bishops there It is a Case that could not be judged there neither was it but one of them was discharged because no probable matter of offence against him and the other remanded to the Tower I suppose to be proceeded against as the Law required Is this cause I pray to his purpose have not the Prelates judgment in causes of Trespass that properly come before that House by his own Confession And yet the Octavo remarks here that no Bishops were present to judge so much as of a Battery though the Record warrants him to say only an Assault But out of his great
to whom such Judgment doth of Right appertain did give their Judgment He concludes that the Bishops could not he said to be his Peers which shews they were not there But he must give us leave with much better Logick to conclude that they were present and We with reason presume because they are Peers of Parliament for so the Record is not his Peers for he fallaciously changeth the Terms they were there except he can prove them absent if common Right is not Reason of presumption no presumption can be reasonable But we can prove to him they were there And thereby in consequence we have another proof that they are Peers Sir Robert Cottons Abridgment tells us 5 H. 4. Fol. 426. that at the same time the Arch-Bishops and Bishops at their own request and therefore certainly then present were purged from suspicion of Treason by the said Earl And at the same time I pray observe Sir Henry Piercy his levying of War was adjudged Treason by the King and Lords in full Parliament Note that here is said to be a full Parliament and yet nothing in the Entry but the stile of Lords So various and contingent in respect of form are the Entries which ought to be observed But to review and consider again the Case of John Hall condemned in Parliament for Treason for murdering the Duke of Glocester And to this place I have reserved the Case of the two Merchants that killed John Imperial an Ambassadour of Genoua for both Cases are of the same nature and must receive the same answer and that is this The Statute of the 25 E. 3. was made to declare certain matters Treason and to be so judged in ordinary Judicatures but withall that Statute did provide that if any other Case supposed Treason do happen it shall be shewed to the King and Parliament whether it ought to be judged Treason Concerning which the King and Parliament do and are to declare by their Legislative power as it is agreed by all and as they did in the Case of John Imperial as appears by that Record expresly So that though the Bishops were not present at the Judgment of John Hall they might have been it must be confessed by our Adversary if the Judgment against John Hall was by the Legislative Power as it must be By this it appears how false an Argument this of his is To conclude no Right from absence for it is plain here it proves too much it proves a thing notoriously false a thing false by the confession of our Adversary and from what any falshood may be inferred is not it self true but stands reproved by the falshood and absurdity of what follows in consequence thereof But this is too Solemn Reproof of so frivolous an Argument for it is no more in effect than this That no man can have an Authority but what he is always in the exercise of The Octavo goes on and remembers that in the 2 H. 4. the first Writ de Haeretico comburendo was framed by the Lords Temporal only and without question it was so For the order of proceedings in Case of Hereticks Convict so required it The Bishops are upon the Matter the pars laesa in Heresy The authority of the Church is therein offended and it was not therefore proper for an Ecclesiastick to be an Actor therein The Author doth improve this as he doth all things that he can with any manner of colour to render the Order of Bishops hated and disesteemed which is the publick establishment the legal provision for the Government and guidance of Religion What mischief then is he a doing How great is his fault to deprave that provision to destroy their Reputation and Esteem with the people to destroy all their authority as much as in him lyeth His utmost endeavours are not thereto wanting to make their Ministries useless and to frustrate the provisions of the Law and the care of the Government in the highest concernment of the Nation Doth this become a great man I will not say a good man God rebuke him To lessen the Authority and disrepute and dishonour any Order of men or any Constitution that can be any ways useful to the publick is a great fault but this of his is a most enormous offence But what can be inferred from hence against the Order of the Bishops may be with like unworthiness inferred against the Christian Religion it self For it may be as well concluded that the Christian Religion is a bad Religion for that men of that denomination in the general Apostasie by pretence of Warranty from that Religion though it gave none murdered innocents As that the practices of the Bishops of that Religion so depraved do reflect any dishonour against the Bishops of reformed Christianity And this Answer will suffice too for the Case of Sir John Old-Castle As for the Earls of Kent Huntingdon and Salisbury the Lord le Despencer and Sir Ralph Lumley before that executed and declared Traytors in Parliament by the Lords Temporal only in the Parliament of the 2 H. 4. and the Earl of Northumberland and Lord Bardolph against whom it was proceeded in a Court of Chivalry after their death who were declared Traytors after they were dead in the Parliament in the 7 H. 4. I hope the Octavo Gentleman and all that are at present of his Opinion will take this for a sufficient Answer if we had no more to say that it was irregular very irregular indeed to condemn men after they were dead when he himself would set aside the Authority of the Case of William de la Poole in 28 H. 6. in Parliament where the Bishops were present which though he saith is the sole single precedent of Bishops acting in Capital Causes We shall therein convict him to be a man of Will to have lost himself in his passions and his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And enter that Case with a cloud of other testimonies and reasons that affirm I will not stick to say demonstrate so as such matters can be demonstrated with a moral demonstration such as shall leave no doubt with any man of the Bishops Right of judging in Capital causes in Parliament But We shall further add for Answer that the Temporal Lords did not herein exercise the Office of a Judge For it could be no Judgment they delivered It was only an officious declaration an avowing of the justness of the slaughter of these great men and to enter themselves of the other side But is it as reasonable for this Writer to fore-judge the Bishops of their Franchise and to have it seized because they would not be guilty of a misuser thereof and would not consent to so insolent a thing as to judge men unheard nay when dead and they could not be heard And to kill over again the murdered Lords for so they are in consideration of the Law who are not by legal process condemned and executed I cannot but observe in many of
the great convulsions of State and the simultates amongst the Great men and extravagant excesses of injustice to the glory and honour of the Bishops it must ever be remembred that they did preserve themselves from being ingaged in such violences as were committed against the last mentioned Lords But that the Author of the Octavo should produce the Case of Sir John Mortimer against us who was condemned upon a bare Indictment without Arraignment or due Tryal a good reason why the Bishops were not there when he immediately after produceth the Case of the Duke of Suffolk wherein the Bishops were present and will have it stand for nothing because in that it was irregularly proceeded is monstrous partiality and iniquity But in what I pray was the irregularity in the Case of the Duke of Suffolk Why because the Commons desired he might be committed upon a general Accusation But he was not And the second irregularity was that some Prelates and some Lords should be sent down to the House of Commons which is often done But it is not the Prelates that he is thus concerned for but that the Lords lessened their Estate This to excuse him might make him very angry with that Case and quarrelsome And yet after all there is a fallacy in the Case of Sir John Mortimer which he would put upon us for Sir John Mortimer was condemned by Act of Parliament and therefore the Bishops might have been there if they had pleased and that with his leave For it was by the Duke of Glocester who in the Kings absence was commissionated to call and hold that Parliament by the Advice of the Lords Temporal at the prayer of the whole Commonalty in this present Parliament and by the Authority thereof ordered and decreed that he should be led to the Tower and from thence drawn to Tyburn I cannot therefore but observe how by the pretence of the Canon a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes and by other prudent Arts and Recesses from tumultuations the Bishops kept themselves often from being engaged in the Animosities of Great men against one another A matter remarkable for the commendation of their Exemplary Wisdom and Justice and a Recommendation of the men of that Order to be continued in the greatest trusts that the Government hath committed to them But now shortly and summarily to review what we have offered in the matter of Precedents and together to consider what true value and weight they are of in the Cases of Roger Mortimer and Haxey and of Sir John Mortimer 2 H. 6. every body may see a reason why the Bishops should not act if they had Authority and therefore without wilfulness it cannot be concluded they had none Who sees not that these Cases are Precedents for us for that the Bishops judged in the Reversal of the sentence against Haxey which if they had reason for it they ought to have affirmed And the Bishops might have been present rightfully at the undoing the Attainder of Roger Mortimer by the Confessions of these Authors The Proceedings in the Parliament of 15 E. 3. is a true argument of the Bishops modesty But it proves more than he is willing to prove if true viz. that the Bishops cannot joyn in making Laws to punish publick Crimes and therefore logically concludes nothing besides that the matter is false in fact as it is alledged The Cases of Sir William Thorpe and Sir Ralph Ferrers taken at best for him are but militant and have as much to say for as against the Bishops being there present But to be true to the cause of the Bishops We have this advantage against him that the Bishops were always in the possession of their Right because never fore-judged and it was once theirs as we shall prove by and by And this makes a presumption that they always used it when there is nothing to the contrary The Bishops were not present in the Bishop of Norwich's Case but the Bishops may be at any time absent upon a sontica Causa The defendant was a Bishop which was a very allowable one in those times But this must be considered with the Case of Thomas Arundel Bishop of Canterbury in whose judgment they were present virtually by their Proxy and therefore had a Right to be there The Case of John de Gomets and William de Weston is unduely and against the faith of the Record produced against us for upon the truth of the Record the Bishops were present notwithstanding any thing that can be from thence deduced to the contrary The Case of Sir William Rikehil 1 H. 4. is for us so is the Case of the Earl of Northumberland 5 H. 4. The Case of John Hall who murdered the Duke of Glocester and of the two Merchants that killed John Imperial the Genoua Ambassadour 3 R. 2. are foreign to this question and so is the Case of Sir John Mortimer except Judicial Authority and Legislative Authority in Blood are of the same consideration as I think they are and shall hereafter make out to be probable and then those Cases are for our Right They confess that the Bishops might have been present if they pleased and their absence at the passing of those Bills doth not conclude against their Right themselves being Judges The Writ de haeretico comburendo is of another consideration and doth not fall in with the present question There was no Judgment given or to be given in the Cases of the Earl of Huntingdon Kent Salisbury Lord Le Despencer Sir Ralph Lumley the Earl of Northumberland and Lord Bardolph All these Precedents such as they are happened in no long Tract of time but very tumultuous Not one of them pretends to be an exclusion of the Bishops upon Judgment or positive declaration of State They pretend to be only instances of Omission or non user which may well consist with a Right And yet contrary to the true import of these Precedents and the true Nature of them being only of Omission and absence of the Prelates which as they are can make no induction or establish any proposition whereupon to frame an Argument or conclude a prescription Besides that a prescription is not possible in a meer negative and to and of nothing And where no body can use or possess that Authority in pretence in the defailance of the party to use it whose Right it was Besides that it is not a prescriptible matter which we shall further explain hereafter it being in a matter of the Government and a Right arising from its constitution Contrary I say to the whole nature of the matter He makes this Argument à saepe facto ad jus valet argumentum His Argument should have been if agreeable at all to the matter this That where a Right is sometimes not used there can be no Right But if this had been said in English every body would have condemned his reasoning and disallowed if not laughed at the Argument So that we have
left this Author neither reason or Argument We have stript the Cause of all the Precedents that pretend to favour it and have left it Rara Avis indeed but not nigro simillima Cygno as the learned Author in Octavo hath it with which he reproaches the Right of the Bishops as assisted only with a single Precedent But to a Bird of no colour at all the bird in the Fable I mean furtivis nudata coloribus to be exposed to laughter with its naked Rump CHAP. IV. BUt if these Precedents had been all such as they pretend to be and the Bishops not present in Judgment in any of those Cases which the Octavo and Folio have produced and if they had been all Capital Causes that came in Judgment in that House and all determined judicially and not by the Legislative power of Parliament and no reason was to be assigned for the Prelates absence from the Nature of the Cause If they had had no inducements to withdraw from any dissatisfaction they had in the prosecution and the pretended Right of the Church-men in those days much insisted upon to be exempted from the jurisdiction of secular Courts had not been the Cause of their absence which suppositions are not so in fact And tho' the Bishops had never used the Authority and power in question as they have yet if we can prove they had once a Right those Omissions of theirs can be no prejudice to the meer-Right Though then I confess we should labour a-the gainst invincible prejudice in the Opinions of most 1. For that no man can lose a Right by not using of it but where that right can be usurpt by another and is so And that usurpation having been for immemorable time when no body can tell when it was otherwise shall in a matter prescriptible be intended to be acquired by good Right and that with great reason in favour of possession and the quieting of them for that Estates and Rights can last longer than the Grants and Evidences or Records themselves that first created them But where the nature of the Right is such as this of the Bishops in pretence is which no body can use for them For the Temporal Lords sit in Judgment in their own Right which is a plenary and compleat right and cannot be made more or less Secondly for that no Franchise from the Power and Authority upward of a Court Leet which can be neither more nor less by usuage than the Law hath establisht can be prescribed to And a Quo Warranto will fore-close and extinguish an immemorial usuage of any irregular and illegal Franchise A Right that can never be prejudged and fore-closed by non user and such is every Right that grows from the constitution of the Government though it should be discontinued for a long tract of time may be at any time rightfully and legally continued The happiness of our Case is that we can point to the time when the Right of the Prelates to sit in Judgment in Capital Causes in Parliament was established And which is more imposed upon them and they put under a Compulsory and obliged by the Tenure of their Lands to serve the Crown in that capacity And that was in the beginning of the Reign of William the Conquerour Mr. Selden in his Titles of honour with great probability hath fixed it in the 4 year of his Reign when he made the Bishopricks and Abbies subject to Knight service in chief by creation of new Tenures upon them and so first turned their possessions into Baronies and thereby made them Barons of the Kingdom by Tenure This he saith is justified by Mat. Paris and Roger of Windover out of whom Mat. Paris took this Relation Anno 1070. so are their words Rex Willielmus pessimo usus consilio Episcopatus Abbatias omnes quae Baronias that is by Anticipation for the Lands made Baronies tenebant in purâ perpetuâ eatenus ab omni servitute seculari libertatem habuerunt sub servitute statuit militari c. This he makes further probable for that in a Manuscript Copy which he used in a very antient hand these words are noted in the upper Margin over the year 1070. hoc anno servitium baroniae imponitur Ramesiae It seems saith he the volumn belonged to the Abby of Ramsey And some Monk of the House noted that in the Margin touching his own Abby which equally concerned the rest of the Abbies that were mentioned in that Relation by their Lands being put under the Tenure by Barony and they made Barons they had a Right to sit with the rest of the Barons in Councellor Courts of Judgment For saith Mr. Selden tenere de Rege in capite habere possessiones sicut Baroniam and to be a Baron and to have Right to sit with the rest of the Barons in Council or Courts of Judgment according to the Laws of that time are Synonymies So that there were no distinctions of Barons as to power and Authority or Jurisdiction but the Right of a Baron was the same whether he was a Temporal or Spiritual Baron for the Tenure of both is one and the same and therefore the Services must be the same The office that is the result of this Tenure is the same in the House of Lords and indeed no office can be less than what the Law appoints it The King cannot make a Peer a Judge or a Bishop and put any Restraint upon the exercise of the powers and the jura ordinaria that belongs by the appointment of the Law to a Peer Bishop or Judge And that it is an office by Tenure can make no difference for the Law declares the Power and Authority So that the Powers of all Barons are and must be equal and what is allowed to one Baron cannot be denyed to another William the Conqueror made the Bishops Barons by putting them to hold as by Barony did not intend only the Bishops more honour but himself also more service and better assured He cannot be intended especially to abate them their service in punitive or vindictive Justice which a Conquerour of all other performances cannot want I do not doubt and if it were not unnecessary to this question likewise to shew that before the Conquest the Bishops or Spiritual Lords had a great share with the Thanes or Temporal Lords in the Government and were then one of the three States agreeable to all the Gothish Saxon for the Saxons were Goths which we must not here insist upon and Modern Governments that have been planted in Europe which we shall speak to more hereafter But we will resort no higher than this of their becoming Barons by Tenure in time of the Conquerour for the clearing of the Prelates Right now in question And therefore we are not concerned to say any thing to the Case of E. Godwin mentioned in the Octavo in Edward the Confessor's time For Brevity sake and because we will
not pass the Limits of our own Arguments otherwise we had much to say against the Authority of that Sory as it is by the Octavo mentioned But to this day neither in Record or History have we heard of any the least pretence of any special abatement made of any service due by the Tenures by Barony to any Bishops or other Spiritual Baron by the Conquerour at the time of the creating those Tenures neither did the Bishops when they would fain have been excused from judging in Blood ever pretend to it or make any such excuse that their Tenures did not oblige them thereto They have ever been esteemed to have power of Judgment in Capital Causes in Parliament and in a long tract of time it hath been several ways used and acknowledged Their Right is so far from being fore-judged that it never till of late was brought in question They have pretended sometimes that they ought not to use that Right in observation of the Canon Law and have made their protestation according whether of necessity or choice shall be considered They were upon the score of the Canon Law indulged in the Satute of Clarendon from being present and assisting in giving the Judgment of Death and mutilation of Limb yet their Right was not by that Statute destroyed or hurt it put them only at liberty to use it or not but put no obligation or legal restraint upon them not to use it That Law was in favour of their Liberty not a Restraint upon their Right The words of that Law that concern this question we shall here set down Archiepiscopi Episcopi universae personae Regni qui de Rege tenent in capite habeant possessiones suas de Rege sicut Baroniam inde respondeant Justiciariis ministris Regis sequantur faciant omnes consuetudines regias sicut caeteri Barones debent interesse judiciis Curiae quousque perveniatur ad diminutionem membrorum vel ad mortem Whether these words are words of Liberty or Restraint of prohibition or indulgence and favour as also how far this favour Liberty or Indulgence did extend will appear clearly by the occasion of the Law and the History of those times for whose sake it was made and upon what inducements and how far they did use their Liberty afterwards It is notorious that the design and endeavour of some Bishops of that age and before from the days of Gregory the seventh was to establish an Ecclesiastical Monarchy in the Pope to make themselves the Grandees of another Kingdom they endeavoured to exempt themselves from all Civil subjection as also from being any part of the Civil Government over which their Church Empire was to rule and domineer They looked upon their Baronies to be marks of Slavery and inconsistent with their designed Church-empire by which they were kept in subjection to the Government and made a part of it which was designed by the Conquerour but most sharply complained of as may be seen in Mat. Paris Rex Willielmus pessimo usus consilio Episcopatus sub servitute statuit militari rotulas hujus Ecclesiasticae servitutis ponens in Thesauris multos viros Ecclesiasticos huic constitutioni pessimae reluctantes à Regno fugavit If the Bishops then had been ambitious and desirous that they might be as the rest of the Barons were Judges in the Kings Court then it is true that the word quousque must be a word of Exclusion and that their pretence of judging was fore-closed to all matters under the quousque For if I ask a thing which is not my right that which is not granted is denyed and by such denyall in case of a Law declared the more unlawful But this cannot possibly be for they were already Barons and Judges as other Barons This they reckon'd a servitude and was matter of grievance and complaint But the Assise of Clarendon did proceed from the King for the asserting his Soveraign Power to resist the design of the Papal Monarchy and to oblige the Bishops to continue part of the Government and to tye them to the duty of their Tenures Gervasius tells us Col. 1386. that the Bishops did not know what the Consuetudines Ecclesiasticae in the Assise of Clarendon were but they imagined them to be evil because the King did so much insist upon them Nesciebant saith he speaking of the Bishops hujusque quae essent illae consuetudines sed pravas esse suspicabantur eo quod tantâ instantiâ peterentur But the King commanded as followeth sapientiâ provectiores ite disquirite Avi mei consuetudines ut in scriptum redactae deducantur in medium publice recenseantur quas cum seorsum veteres actus pravitates so he calls the Statutes of Clarendon in scripta reduxissent haec tandem scripta modo Chirographi protulerunt which the Arch-Bishop was required to seal as the custom then was in passing of Laws It is likewise evident in the very Assise of Clarendon that the Bishops were then Barons and ought to do the office of a Baron and were by being Barons Judges and ought interesse sicut caeteri Barones Judiciis Curiae Domini Regis But how far they should by that Statute be bound hereafter this Law was to determine In consequence the Quousque is but a Clause of Liberty at most and the matter under it left to choice A priviledge indeed the Bishops might hereby obtain to judge or not to judge in Causes of blood which they used in all after-times as they pleased as they did more or less regard the Canons as either they did or were thought to intend No right was hereby fore-closed of judging but establisht for the words are debent interesse Quousque is a Clause of exception and leaves them in that matter at large and savours not at all of a prohibition But though the Bishops might have such a Liberty by the Letter of the Assise of Clarendon to judge or not to judge at all in capital Causes which doth not at all impair their Right but that notwithstanding they may use their rightful authority when they please Yet the Bishops did not intend themselves further priviledged by this Law than that they should not be obliged to be present at the pronouncing of the sentence which appears by the Canons that have been made about this matter in England which we shall mention hereafter which would have been most peremptory in their prohibitions and very severe in their denouncing Curses in a matter of this nature as far as they had the Laws on their side As also by the Practice of the Bishops in those times which appears by Peter Blesensis whose words are Principes sacerdotum seniores populi by which he means the Bishops who from the dignity and worthiness of their Order are called Seniores a note of dignity in all Countries in all Ages which I observe because some are so ignorant as not to know it and think the
recited upon which our Adversaries do so much ground themselves from the Cognisance of the Lords Spiritual and they could not be present when any such Case was agitated or moved all the Grandees were Notoriously Willfully and Knowingly and in the face of the whole World perjured to the Eternal infamy of our Nation Could the whole Nation be ignorant of its own Laws and Constitutions made and sworn to but a few months before and neither the King Lords Spiritual or Temporal or Commons understand them 120 men at least for about that number were the Bishops and regular Barons in H. the 2ds time and not less now come into the highest Judicature in the greatest Cause that ever was agitated It was in the Case of Becket disputed whether we should have a Civil or Ecclesiastical Soveraignty and there sit Judges and no body except against them in October if excluded by the Statute made in February before though the King and the Nobles had reason to suspect them on Becket's side and they unwilling themselves to Judge and they under an Oath not to sit and the Temporal Lords under an Oath not to admit them or allow them to be there And yet not a word of this matter in all the Historians of that time Thomas of Canterbury his friends to a man who were forward enough to reproach the Judges sure when they condemned the Sentence and applauded the Criminal and made a Pater patriae a Martyr and Saint of this Notorious Church Rebel He therefore that can believe that the Bishops were not rightful and unexceptionable Judges in capital Causes in Parliament in the time of H. 2. may believe that a whole Nation may become of insane Memory at once go to bed a Monarchy and wake into a Common-wealth without any notice or observation of a Change And now that the Assise of Clarendon is of our side I hope will be admitted and that the Bishops not only may but ought to be present in capital Causes in Parliament for the words of the Statutes are That the Archiepiscopi Episcopi universi personae qui de Rege tenent in Capite habeant possessiones suas de Rege sicut Baroniam sicut caeteri Barones debent interesse Judiciis Curiae Domini Regis cum Baronibus So that now they were declared to be Judges as the other Barons in that they ought to be present in all Causes Only they were favoured so much in decent regard to their Order that they were not required to be present at the Sentence of Death and multilation of Member for as much as they are the Ministers of Gods pardon and the Publishers of the Doctrine of Faith and Repentance they ought to comport with their office and express their Commiseration to the greatest Sinner and to have some reluctancy against the Sentence of Condemnation and to that purpose is that Indulgence given them in the quousque perveniatur ad mutilationem membrorum vel mortem But the Assise of Clarendon having I will not say left them but required them to be Judges this exception of Quousque c. being only an Indulgence as aforesaid upon the Reasons aforesaid they remain entire Judges in Capital Causes and may depart from that Indulgence and ought so to do when Justice is necessary and the offences more than ordinarily Publick and will be pardoned and escape with impunity to the hazard of the Government except they interpose For if the Assise of Clarendon had not left them entire Judges of Right only at liberty as to the pronouncing of Sentence they had not remain'd Judges for the office of a Judge cannot be divided he that hath not an Authority to judge the Cause can be reckoned and accounted no other than a ministerial assistant to the process in such matters as the Court shall award Therefore Bishops in that they have intermedled as Judges in such Causes they have continued and avowed their Right of judging and in that they have withdrawn at the Sentence they have used that Liberty But to leave nothing for an after objection Evasion or Cavillation it shall be in our Adversary's choice Whether this Curia Regis mentioned in the Assise of Clarendon as also the Court that tryed Thomas Becket was the Curia Regis wherein the ordinary Justice of the Nation was at that time administred or the Parliament If it was the Curia Regis and not the Parliament was intended in the Assise of Clarendon in which the Priviledge and Indulgence under the Quousque was allowed to Bishops Then the Assise of Clarendon is unduly urged against the Bishops judging in Cases of blood in Parliament for that all Laws of Priviledge and exemption are stricti Juris and not to be extended beyond the Letter of the Law the single instance or the enumerated Cases and consequently by the Assise of Clarendon the Bishops have no leave to withdraw in Cases of blood in Parliament If the Court wherein Thomas Becket was tryed was the Curia Regis then the Bishops judging in that Court in that Cause doth most clearly declare that being a Case in point that the quousque in the Assise of Clarendon was an Indulgence and Priviledge which they might use or wave as they then did But this cannot be denyed that the Bishops are and were Barons ever since the Conqueror of which and of the Curia Regis we shall hereafter give an account and whatever was the business and office of Baron was consequently the office and business of a Bishop of Common Right and still is except any Legal restraint was put upon them by any Law which was not done by the Assise of Clarendon as we have proved by the reason of the making of that Law the Interpretation of that Law at that time Nor was that Law or any other Law hitherto pretended but only the Canons of the Church against the Right and Duty of Bishops in Capital Causes in Parliament or if they will have it in the Curia Regis CHAP. VI. AND now we proceed further to shew how this Right and Authority of the Prelates hath been used and acknowledged in after-times Roger de Hovedon hath remembred in the Life of Richard the First who succeeded Henry the 2. That before the arrival of Richard the First in England who had been in Captivity in the Empire that one Adam de St. Edmond Agent to John Earl of Morton returned into England being sent to fortifie the Castle of Earl John against the King his Brother and was apprehended by the Lord Mayor of London with several papers of instructions and Commissions of Earl Johns for that purpose Hoveden tells us That the Mayor cepit omnia brevia sua in quibus mandata Comitis Johannis continebantur tradidit ea Cantuariensi Episcopo qui in crastino convocatis coram eo Episcopis Comitibus Baronibus Regni ostendit eis literas Comitis Johannis earum tenorem statim per commune Concilium
Law was publickly professed in England before the end of the 12th Century for Mat. Paris tells us of a Monk of Evesham Anno Dom. 1196. that suo tempore eorum quos Decretistas Legistas appellant peritissimus habebatur earum etiam facultatum auditores quamplurimos instituerat and from that time the study of the Caesarean and Pontificial Law did flourish amongst us until the beginning of E. 3. But in all that time saith Mr. Selden in his Fleta gens ipsa Anglicana ac qui in judiciis praeerant morum patriorum viz. Juris Communis Angliae per intervallum illud tenacissimi fuere A remarkable instance we have of this Nations steady aversion from admitting here either the Civil or Canon Law in the Parliament of Merton which rejected a Bill for Legitimation of Children born before marriage in Concubinate in these Terms Nolumus leges Angliae mutari meaning that they would not make Laws conformable to the Civil or Canon Law The great Policy that the Popes used to effect their Ambitious design of making themselves Monarchs of the Christian World were The assuming to themselves the entire rule and Government of Religion and endeavouring to make every where the Bishops and the whole Clergy together with the Regulars dependant upon them by pretending them to be exempt from all Civil Authority and Jurisdiction and by interdicting to them the exercise of any Civil Authority and shutting them out from all intromissions into the Civil Government and from any interest or dependance thereupon So far as he prevailed in these designs he acquired an Imperium in Imperio and if besides these he could have fixt a Spiritual handle to the Temporal Sword and have got the Government of secular affairs in ordine ad spiritualia his design had been compleated and he had arrived to a more absolute and extensive Empire than that of the Roman Caesars To these purposes the Canon Law provided that the Ecclesiasticks were neither to exercise nor be subject to any Civil Authority But this policy of the Pope had no success in England the endeavours of the Papalins herein met with constant opposition and at last they were made desperate by the Assise of Clarendon where it was declared and enacted accordingly agreeable to the Avitae Consuetudines Regni that the Bishops should be retained and continue to be a part of the Government and exercise Jurisdiction in all Causes in the Kings Court as other Barons as is before observed and that the Clergy should stand submitted to the Jurisdiction of the Kings Courts For this purpose it was also in that Parliament enacted as followeth Si controversia emerserit inter Laicos vel Laicos Clericos in Curia Domini Regis tractetur determinetur and also quod clerici rectati accusati de quacunque re summoniti à Justitia Regis venient in Curiam Domini Regis responsuri ibidem c. And so far were the Bishops and Clergy from observing that part of the Canon Law that was to detrude them from all secular Authority and Jurisdiction that they were from time to time Chancellors Treasurers Keepers of the Privy Seal and Judges and while that Ancient Office continued of Capitalis Justiciarius Angliae to whom was committed the Justice of the Kingdom who were called Custodes Regni Vice-Domini Angliae and sometimes the abstract Justitia He did preside in the Curia Regis which Office was afterwards divided for there were Justitiarii Angliae Boreales Justitiarii Angliae Australes this Office was often executed by Bishops as you may see in Sir Hen. Spelmans Glossary in the word Justitiarius Bishops and Church-men administred the greatest Offices of State and Justice this was matter of Envy to the Temporal Lords and they complain'd in Parliament 45 E. 3. as is before observed That the Government of the Kingdom had been a long time in the hand of the Clergy Mr. Selden in his Fleta tells us that in the times before and after the Assise of Clarendon Mos fuit Judices Regios ex genere hieratico veluti Episcopis Abbatibus Decanis id genus aliis constituendi And it is provided by 28 E. 1. Cap. 3. That if a Clergy-man was a Judge of Assise another should be joyned in Commission with him to deliver the Goals which was to the end that the Ecclesiastical Judge might use that liberty which was indulged to him by the Assise of Clarendon of not pronouncing the Sentence for it must be observed that by that Statute a Clergy-man might be a Judge in a Goal-delivery for that a Laick was by the provision of that Statute to be join'd to him in Commission and Pleas of the Crown are to be found purporting them to be held before two Judges whereof one a Clerk after this Law which could not possibly have been if the Clerk had not been in Commission Besides for after Ages it is well known that all the great Officers and Ministers of State and Justice have been always intrusted with the conservancy of the peace are in Commissions of the peace and Commissioners of Oyer and Terminer for judging capital Causes so that the constant practice in all times as well as the express declaration of the Assise of Clarendon doth assure us that the Canon Law that prohibits Clergy-men being Judges in capital Causes was never received here or became the common Law of England Besides what regard our Clergy had of the Canon Law what opinion they had of the Right in question and how far the Laws did intend to prohibit the exercise of it And that such right was used and exercised will appear by the Canon of Toledo Concil Toletan 11. Cap. 6. fo 553. and the Canon of Lanfrank Spelmans Concil 2 vol. fol. 11. these were made before the Assise of Clarendon That of Toledo is this His à quibus Domini Sacramenta tractanda sunt judicium sanguinis agitare non licet ideo magnopere talium excessibus prohibendum est ne qui praesumptionis motibus agitati aut quod morte plectendum est sententia propria judicandi mant aut truncationes quaslibet membrorum quibuslibet personis aut per se inferant aut inferendas precipiant This being a Foreign Council this Canon carries not with it the Authority of a Canon with us only we may observe whatever the Opinion of that Council was that it was not convenient for licet can have no ocher sence here for Clergy-men agitare judicium Sanguinis Yet this Canon prohibits only the pronouncing the Sentence by themselves or others I am sure that by a positive Law as this Canon must be so far as it participates of the nature of a Law nothing becomes unlawful but what is forbidden whatever the reason be of that Prohibition That of Lanfrank follows thus Vt nullus Episcopus vel Abbas seu quilibet ex Clero hominem occidendum vel membris truncandam judicet vel judicantibus suae authoritatis favorem
his qui in sacris ordinibus constituti judicium sanguinis agitare unde saith the Canon Prolibemus ne aut per se membrorum truncationes faciant a very fitting Employment for a Bishop aut inferendas judicent and after all this we have still our old Answer upon which we will ever insist it is but a Canon and can make no Alteration in the Rights of Government For tho' Gervasius Dorob tells us In hoc Concilio ad emendationem Anglicanae Ecclesiae assensu Domini Regis primorum omnium Regni haec subscripta promulgata sunt Capitula yet the Canons of this Council are not Laws For that our Historian does not tell us of any Parliament then held or that they were confirmed in Parliament and the good liking of Great Men out of Parliament will not confirm nay not justifie the Canons if they cannot justifie themselves in Parliament Besides that these Canons were not made into Laws we will offer two Reasons 1st For that amongst these Canons there is one that disposeth of the Right of Patronage against the Law as it hath been before and since taken and that is this Nulli liceat Ecclesiam nomine dotalitii ad aliquem transferre vel pro presentatatione alicui personae pecuniam vel aliquod emolumentum pacto interveniente recipere quod si quis fecerit in jure convictus vel confessus fuerit ipsum tam Regia quam nostra freti autoritate patricinio ejusdem Ecclesiae in perpetuum privari statuimus which was never most certainly Law Secondly If this had been a Law the other Canon before-mentioned made by Stephen Arch-bishop of Canterbury was idle nay presumptuous for offering to derogate from a Canon made a Law about 47 years before But however Canons confirmed by Law remain but Canons still and the Breach of them not punished as the Breach of Laws nor no Innovation made thereby upon a civil Right of which before and after more As to the Second Canon we observe how dutiful this Canon in the Stile of it behaves it self towards the Civil Government in that Clerks should not exercise Jurisdiction where Judgment of Blood is to be given under the soft word Statuimus that they should not Literas pro poena sanguinis infligenda scribere that is sign an Order for the Execution of a Condemned Man or be present at the Sentence is under the districtiùs inhibemus but the doing of this is not declared to be a Sin he that is contravenient to the Canon is not thereby to become irregular to be punished by his Superior or to incurr Excommunication or any Censure the Clergy are not declared by this Canon to be incompetent Judges it only declares them unworthy of the Protection of the Church the meaning of it is Judge not least ye be judged If you judge the Laicks they will judge you This is the Scandal for which the Privilegium Clericale will be lost So that upon the whole matter this Canon is but Advice and Counsel and offers reasons to the Choice and Approbation rather than a Command under the Authority of the Church in a Council But let it be what it will if the Canon had been most peremptory in its Prohibition and had lighten'd and thunder'd in its Denunciatiations it would have been of no force to alter the Government or discharge a Judge from doing his Duty but this is farther to be duely observed that this Canon could not be broken if the Law had not been otherwise than these Canons direct and therefore these Canons produced by our Adversaries are the greatest Testimonies to the Right we defend and a practice agreeable thereto Doth not the Canon suppose that a Beneficed Clerk or one in Holy Orders was sometimes in Commission for judging in Capital Causes For certainly the Canon did not prohibit them to murder or enjoyn them not to write Letters to subborn men to kill What can be the meaning of the Canon but this supposing a Beneficed Clerk to be made a Judge of Life and Death to assist in a Commission of Oyer Terminer or Goal-delivery that he should be enjoyned not to pronounce the Sentence or to sign the Order or Calendar for Execution But if he were not a Judge how possibly could he sign an Order for Execution By the other words of the Canon Nec intersit ubi judicium sanguinis tractatur he can be forbidden onely to be present and assisting as a Judge or Officer at the pronouncing of Sentence for it can be no fault sure nor ever was intended by any Canon to be made one for any Clerk to hear a Court pronounce a Judgment of Death or Mutilation or to see a Malefactor executed What therefore can be more evident than that the Bishops did withdraw not for want of Right of Session but they pretended the Canon because they did not like the Causes But further that nothing more than what we have shewed was understood to be done in that Protestation by those times they must be allowed at least to know their own Opinions doth appear for that notwithstanding the Protestation of the Bishops aforementioned the great Council of the Kingdom did not think the Authority of a Parliament when the Bishops were absent unquestionable This Opinion we do not go about to maintain but this we conclude that there could never have been such an Opinion if the Bishops had been denied Right of Session in Capital Causes in that time CHAP. IX THE Commons of England in the 21 R. 2 pray that the Bishops might make their Proxy which they did thrice in that Parliament once by Procuratory Letters to Sir Thomas Percy as is before recited and afterwards William la Scroop Earl of Wilts was made their Procurator and a third time the Earls of Worcester and Wilts were made their Procurators in the matter between the two Dukes of Hereford and Norfolk That it may the better appear that the Bishops were virtually present by their Proxy it ought to appear that they were allowed to make Proxies and that the Lords Spiritual did so as well as the Temporal Lords The first mention of Proxies that occurs in the memory of our Parliaments is in the Parliament of Carlisle under E. 1. and that is of the Bishops Proxies The words are these Quia omnes Praelati tunc plenariè non venerunt receptis quibusdam procurationibus Praelator qui venire non poterant adjornantur And in a Parliament held at Westminster under Ed. 2. dors clauso Ed. 2. m. 11. the Bishops of Durham and Carlisle remaining upon the Defence of the Marches of Scotland are severally commanded to stay there and in the Writ this Clause was added to both of them Sed Procurat vestrum sufficienter instructum ad dictum diem locum mittatis ad consentiendum his quae tunc ibidem praedictos Praelatos Proceres contigerit ordinari Though generally Proxies were admitted to both Spiritual and Temporal Lords
ought to set aside and supersede the consideration of Decency CHAP. XII BUT to complete our Evidence I will add the consideration of what remains unquestionably the Right of the Lords Spiritual which seems to me to be in parity of Reason with the Right now in Pretense and that is their Right to be authoritatively present and assisting at passing Bills of Attainder which the Bishops always exercised as the Folio saith though he will not think it allowable from thence to infer that they have rightful Authority when that House doth proceed judicially to Condemnation But I desire to be informed what difference there is between condemning a man by Act of Parliament and by Judgment in Parliament If the death of the man be onely considered it is as much against the Canon to condemn the man one way or the other It 's causa judicium sanguinis and death follows Nay to condemn a man by Bill of Attainder is more against the reason of the Canon than the condemning a man judicially for the condemning a man judicially is ex officio Judicis but a Bill of Attainder is an extraordinary use of the Legislative Power to a purpose which was not designed in the Institution Such an Act is not ex officio Legislatoris but the using of the Absolute Power of the Sovereignty upon Reasons of State Here one would think if the Canon had any consideration any obligation it should restrain the Bishops from meddling in such Legislations Privilegia ne irrogunto was one of the Laws of the twelve Tables But if I do rightly understand the reason why Bishops did more frequently and without pretence of scruple or objecting the Canon assist in the Bills of Attainder was for this reason That the weightiness of the Affair the high nature of the Proceeding the extraordinary use of the Legislative Power which can be warranted onely by extraordinary Reasons required their Presence and put that little pretence of the Canon out of countenance it could not with any faith to the Government be then so much as mentioned for an Excuse by the Bishops And this I will say that the Canon hath no more right of restraining the Bishops in Judicial Proceedings than in the Proceedings upon Bill of Attainder That it hath not done so is confessed in this and therefore it did not de jure do so in the other The Folio Author hath found out a very extraordinary Reason why Bishops are necessary to Acts of Attainder but this he saith must not be drawn into an Argument for the Bishops Right of Judging and that is because Rights Titles and Interests are made forfeit by Acts of Attainder which were not forfeitable at Common Law and for the doing of this it iâ— necessary there should be a concurrence of the three Estates to bind all Rights This Argument supposeth that private Acts of Attainder did not always conform themselves in the matter of Forfeitures to the severity of the Common Law or general Statute Law which is a mistake for before the Statutes of 26 H. 8. c. 13. 33 H. 8. c. 20. private Acts of Attainder made no Forfeitures but what the Common Law made and since the Statutes of 26 H. 8. c. 13. 33 H. 8. c. 20. the private Attainders by Parliament have not exceeded those appointed by that Statute but have often times gone less And therefore the Bishops were not present for the reason of making Forfeitures larger and of more things than the Law at the time being made forfeitable but of common duty especially in all these matters of an extraordinary nature or difficulty to assist as Judges and Councellours in that House And to this that I now say all the Acts of Parliament of private Attainders that I have seen and they are not a few are agreeable I believe what he hath said in this matter is not grounded upon any observation but he was willing to find out a Reason for what he had undertaken to prove and to offer it without trying of its truth Besides whatever can be a Law can be a Law without them and if they are absent CHAP. XIII BUT I must take notice that we have proved beyond what is necessary to maintain the Lords Spiritual their pretence of Right to judge of the Earl of Danby's Pardon which is the present case and gives the occasion of this Dispute And here I desire the Reader to remember and observe what was heretofore done by the Bishops in case of Heresie The Bishop in his Consistory convicted a Heretick and did never imagine he incurr'd the Canon pretended though the delivery over to the Secular Arm and burning of the Convict if he did not recant was intended assuredly to follow because he did not award the Execution and give the final killing Sentence How then can the Canon if it was a Law as it is not nor obligeth any man but he that will be obliged lay any restraint upon the Bishops in judging of the Earl of Danby's Pardon For if they dislallow his Pardon and reject his Plea he is not to be therefore condemned though perhaps his Condemnation may follow as burning doth the Conviction of a Heretick but he is not ipso facto and merely by rejecting his Plea of Pardon condemned For observe I pray no man is condemned or cast in any Suit because he doth not make a good Defence but upon the sufficiency of the matter whereupon he is charged Besides that it is not without Precedent that a man hath been tried after a Pardon pleaded and disallowed This every Lawyer knows to be so that if a Plea is pleaded to any Declaration upon which the Plaintiff demurs if the Plea be ruled a bad Plea the Defendent hath liberty to take exception to the insufficiency of the Declaration So that Judgment is finally and truly given upon the Declaration and Charge because there is a good cause of Action and not because the Defendent hath made a bad Plea So that the Bishops may judge in their own persons of the validity of Pardons without being contravenient to the Reason of the Canon so much talked of is evident for that the Judgment upon the Pardon is not the final and killing Judgment The Folio hath furnished us with an Authority for the same out of an ancient Manuscript Chronicle in libro Mailrosso he calls it wherein he saith the Prelates are said to have given their Opinion in 21 R. 2. for the revocation of certain Pardons of the Duke of Gloucester Earls of Arundel and Warwick which were granted in 11 R. 2. and in the Parliament of 21 R. 2. repealed And though the Chronicle said some blamed the Bishops and thought that they had incurred thereby Irregularity That doth not at all prejudice our Right nor abate the force of the Testimony that this matter of fact gives to it We reserved it to this place to add that as the intention of the Assize of Clarendon was to set bounds
Fortunes to their Children but what they themselves could deserve viz. Hate and Infamy All Usurpation and Encroachment of Power is to be opposed where it can be lawfully as the greatest Mischief and the Ministers to the Designs hated and detested as the most pernicious and loathsome Vermine CHHP. XV. BUt to return agreable to this Policy of Sovereign Princes who had the Donation of Bishopricks of advancing Bishops to the highest secular Dignities and Trust William the Conqueror did create Bishops into Barons and exacted the Services and Counsells of Barons in the Great Council of the Kingdom by putting their Lands under Tenure by Barony he gave them no new Endowments but as a Conqueror he confirmed their Ancient Possessions under a new reserv'd Tenure and annex'd to their Order a Secular Honor a successive Baronage Since the Conquerour the title of Baron took the place of that of Thane which was likewise a Feudal Honour in the Saxons time By William the Conquerour Baronies were feudal and in congruity to the State of the Lay Nobles he made the Bishops feudal Barons for there was no other than feudal Nobility at that time It will not be amiss nor time mispent here to give a short account of the Government in the Conquerours time of the Baronage by him introduced and the policy thereof and of the change made in the Baronage of England in after time Because from thence we must derive the Bishops Right now in question which is included and virtually contained in their Right of Baronage Hereby it will appear that the Bishops were of the Barones majores and of the Barones majores the first in Dignity that they became feudal Barons in the Conquerour's time and when the reason of our Baronage changed and no man continued a Baron ratione tenurae it cannot with reason be said that the Bishops are Barons onely for the sake of their Lands which our Adversaries do insist upon for that they think it is an abatement to the Honour of Peerage and a prejudice to their Right in question but because it has been said before by men of Authority in the Law and grown up to be a vulgar error we will now discharge the mistake by affixing here the History and Reason of the change It was the policy of the first William for some are so critical they will not call him Conquerour to create new Tenures upon all the great Possessions of the Realm and impose upon the principal men to hold their Lands of him in capite under such Services that were necessary in peace and war for State and Justice and by putting all the considerable men of the Realm under Oaths of Fealty incident to those Tenures besides the Oaths of Allegeance he provided for the establishment of his Conquest or his possession of the Crown without title The principal men of the Realm both Ecclesiastical and Lay hereby were not onely obliged to support but to become part of the Government and were obliged to be Ministers of Justice and also Members of the great Council of the Kingdom or Parliament which was now to be made up principally of his Dependents by which he changed the constitution of the great Council in the Saxons times in the balance of that equal sort of Government the consequent mischiefs whereof this Kingdom laboured under untill we recovered it again by an equal representative of the Commons in Parliament in the time of King Henry the Third The power of the Baronage proved equally oppressive to the people and came in that time to be reduced irreverent to the Crown By this policy the Conquerour intended to establish his Conquest to secure to himself and his posterity the Imperial Crown of England imagining that otherwise he should have been but a precarious King He had now turn'd the Kingdom upon the matter into one great Mannor and kept his Courts called the Curia Regis in the nature of a Sovereign Court Baron now become more frequented and solemn than that Court was before the Conquest thrice in every Year at stated Times and Places viz. at Easter at Winchester at Whitsuntide at Westminster and at Christmas at Gloucester at these times and places all his Tenants which were all the considerable Free-holders of England attended of course and upon a General Summons at any other time or place appointed by the King as his Affairs did require they were bound likewise to attend In these Courts the Suitors swore Fealty did renew and confirm their Obligations to the Crown and the King became more assured of their Allegiance by their Personal Attendance and by his Royal Entertainments of them at such times In these Courts they recognized their own Services and the Rights of the King their Lord and assessed Aids and Estuage Prestations due to the Crown by their Tenures upon themselves to which in general they were obliged by their Tenures In these Conventions the Right of the Suitors the King's Tenants were adjudged as Private Lords had Judgment of the Right of Lands in pretence held of them in Fee in their several Manors as they have to this day But if Right was not done by the Lord the Cause was to be removed to this Curia Regis the King being Lord Paramount of whom all Estates mediately or immediately were held Which appears by the Form of the Writ of Right now in use which we will transcribe N. B. precipimus tibi quod sine dilatione plenum Rectum teneas A. de B. de uno Messuagio L. in I quae clamat tenere de te per liberum Servitium unius denarii per annum pro omni servitio quod W. de T. ei deforciat nisi feceris Vicecomes faciatne amplius inde Clamorem audiamus pro defectu Recti The Common Pleas was not then a Court and at this time the Appeal and resort to the King was in this Court if Justice was not done by the Lord or Sheriff So that the greatest part of the Justice of the Nation was administred in those Assemblies But it must not be understood that this vast Convention was a Court of Judicature for every Cause neither that it was formally a Parliament without some farther Act of the King for erecting that Convention into the great Council of the Nation But in this Curia Regis they were obliged to answer the King's Writs of Summons Writs of Commission and obey his Appointments in the Ordinary Administration of Justice in which the Capitalis Justiciarius or Justitia was to preside That this was not a Judicature the vast numbers of those that made it the inequality of the Persons considered under the Common Reason of being Tenants in Capite and Barons whereby they became indifferently members of the Curia Regis besides the neglect that must necessarily be presumed in the greatest part of such a Body to the business of Jurisdiction and judging of Rights without particular Designation thereto do sufficiently argue and evince But
summoned Yet the Bishops by reason of their Spiritual Dignity had necessarily a right and voice The Archiepiscopi Comites Barones alii Magnates in ancient Parliamentary Writs of Summons do ordinarily express and comprehend the whole Baronage without naming the Abbots and Priors which must be signified by the alii Magnates Which I the rather note because the Folio Author a Gentleman very easie and ready in Inferences doth conclude that because such Writs mention Magnates besides Bishops Comites Barones which he too suddenly concluded were comprehensive of the whole Baronage doth thence argue that a Writ of Summons of any man to Parliament doth not make him a Baron and from thence would have it inferred that the Bishops are not so though they are expresly mentioned and first in order and cannot in reason be reduced to that meanness of rate and quality with those that fall under an Et caetera and from hence would have it concluded that they may when the King pleaseth be dismist that House because there were anciently some Grandees that had Session in Parliament now discharged Besides we do observe that another sort of great men may be meant by the alii Magnates that is to say famous men of the Clergy not Bishops and other men of great name for wisdom of which there were some summoned in most of the ancient Parliaments not intended thereby by the King to be made noble or advanced to the state of Baronage for there were distinct clauses in the Writs of Summons to signifie the Kings purpose therein The Writs directed to such as were not intended thereby to be made Barons as the Judges Attorney General Kings Serjeant c. was Quod intersitis nobiscum cum caeteris de Concilio nostro and sometimes nobiscum onely super praemissis tractaturi vestrúmque consilium impensuri whereas that to the Barons was Quòd intersitis cum Praelatis Magnanatibus Proceribus c. But as Mr. Selden observes that custom of sending Summons to great men not Bishops to Parliament did cease after the clause of Praemunientes by which Convocations were summoned by Bishops to meet with Parliaments grew in use in the Bishops Writs of Summons to Parliament Of which excellent Provision we shall have occasion to speak to hereafter All the Baronage both Spiritual and Temporal de jure ought to have Summons now to Parliament without respect to Estate or Tenures There is no man now noble by his Acres a sort of Nobility that this refined Age will not allow of The King according to the Constitution of H. 3. afore-mentioned may now by Letters Pattents or Writ erect a new successive Barony as well as hereditary as was done by H. 8. The fifth year of his Reign for that the Baronage of England was now affixed to Family and Succession and not to Tenures he by his Letters Patents did then grant unto Richard Bamham Abbot of Tavestock in the County of Devon the Abbey being of his Foundation and Patronage and to the Successors of the said Abbot Vt eorum quilibet qui pro tempore ibidem fuerit Abbas sit erit unus de Spiritualibus Religiosis Dominis Parliamenti nostri haeredum Successorum nostrorum gaudend honore privilegio libertatibus ejusdem This the King might well do because the Abbot was of his Patronage and the Successors were therefore to be elected and collated by the King for that was the Inducement and Reason of Kings and Sovereign Princes advancing Bishops and great Abbots to the degree of Baronage making them members of the great Councils of their Kingdoms and Principalities as is before observed because such Abbots as the Bishops were made always and appointed by the Sovereign Prince And here we may take notice by the way of the Reason why the Episcopus Soderensis or the Bishop of the Isle of Man is not summon'd to Parliament which I shall give you in the Words of Sir H. Spelm. in his Glossary Baronum appellatione non omnes hodie apud nos censentur Episcopi ut pote Soderensis in insula Manniâ quod de Rege non tenet immediate at de Comite Darbiae Nay it is most observable That this Honour of Baronage or being a Member of the House of Peers was so inseparable to the Office of a Bishop after the afore-mentioned new Constitution of the Baronage That the Guardians of the Spiritualties of Bishopricks in the times of Vacancy and the Vicars General of Bishops being beyond Sea were summoned to Parliaments by the same kind of Writs as the Bishops were summoned Of this Mr. Selden doth assure us Titles of Honour 2 Edit fol. 721. But this Honour lasted no longer than this legal Substitution and Vicarious Power If they had Right to sit in that House in respect of their Temporalties the Guardian of the Spirituals or the Vicars General would not have had Writs of Summons to Parliament But if the Kingdom had not had a great Opinion of that Order it would not have been provided and put in use that in Vacancy of the See or Absence of the Bishop rather than that great Council would want one Bishop utterly or the Interest Authority and Consent of any that had Episcopal Authority they admitted the Substitute by whom that Office was executed and administred for that Interval only When Baronies were feudal the person tho' in respect of his Land was noble his great Estate and Interest and the other general Presumptions that attend opulent Fortunes made the Possessor noble in his Person Anciently the Estate of late the Discent in the Temporal Baronies and the Succession in the Spiritual Baronies place the persons respectively in the Census and Rank of Baronage but there is no Nobility but what is personal nor can be in Nature All the persons in the same Order of the publick Census are of the same Quality Neither are Bishops to be accounted less Barons or less noble because they enjoy their Baronies for Life only no more than a Tenant for Life of an hereditary feudal Barony could be so accounted Feudal Baronies being considered as Estates were alienable as Estates and as Estates would suffer Limitations and admit of particular Estates for Life No man can say we had no personal Nobility in the time when there was no other Baronage than Feudal How then can it be said that the Bishops Persons are not noble though they should be accounted only Barons Ratione Tenurae as certainly they are not in proper speaking at this day neither can it be objected against their personal Nobility that a Bishop may be degraded for so may a Peer for more Reasons than a Decay of his Fortune and Estate Which matter I the rather insist upon for that the great Mr. Selden committed an Error by not considering that the ways and means by which persons derive and come to be of the Order of the Nobility and Baronage can make no Difference in the Baronage
him out of the Government and he had no more Christian Graces than Faith Hope and Charity which he attributes to this Ternary of States of his own making But if he had four of those Graces there had been four States if six of those Graces to have match'd them in number he would have found three States in the House of Commons viz. Knights Citizens and Burgesses and have made six States It seems too King James made a Speech in Parliament wherein he was pleased to use his Logick and liked it seems the Ramistical way of Dichotomies The truth is he had more Logick than a wise King could tell how to bestow For in that Speech he saith The Parliament is composed of a Head and a Body himself and the Parliament This Body is sub-divided into two parts the upper House and the lower House The upper House into two Lords Spiritual and Temporal the lower House into two Knights and Burgesses The Citizens were left out for the sake of his Dithotomy His Method was to proceed by the way of two's and therefore 't was impossible we should here in this Speech of any three whatsoever yet this Speech too is produced against three States distinct from the King Besides they tell us that in one of the late King's Declarations drawn by then a young Gentleman but of great hopes and afterwards a very great Man the King is called one of the three States This Gentleman was very probably misled into that Mistake by a Book called Nomotechnia wherein it is said that the King Lords and Commons are the three States a Book of Institutions for young Students which was never yet allowed for Authority in the Law nor ever had the Honor to be cited in our Courts of Westminster These Mistakes or whatever you will call them with the Authority of the Octavo Author are united together to form an Opinion that the King is but the Bishops are not one of the three States which will be a very dishonorable Error For that it will lead us into a Mistake of our Government and which is much worse for that it hath a tendency to subvert it that is to depress the King and to suppress the Bishops It is an Indign thing and not to be suffer'd that we should lose our Government by Surreption and be made a Babel by dividing and confounding our Language To prevent this mischief we have declared our Government from the very Reason and Nature of the Structure thereof to consist of three States that is three different Orders which make the Great Council of the Kingdom whose End and Business is to administer Council and Auxiliaries to the King who is intrusted with the executive Power of the Government and Laws And besides now we will produce great Authorities to put this Mistake out of Countenance and to prevent its gaining any farther Authority with the People For Errors of this nature in process of time turn into Truth and things prove to be so at last as the Error and Mistake first bespake them and this our Lawyers know well enough with whom 't is a Maxime it belongs only to them and matters within their Province Communis Error facit Jus. And first for this purpose we will mention the Stile that the Parliament used which was convened by the Authority of Richard the Second he being then about to relinquish the Crown to H. 4. This Parliament in transacting so weighty an Office had reason to consider and know who they themselves were They without doubt in all their Proceedings in this High Matter used their true as well as biggest Stile which was that of States Walsingham tells us Sede Regali tunc vacua Procurators Regis Richardi Archiepiscop Eborac Hereford Renunciationem dicti Regis cessionem omnibus statibus Regni tunc adunatis ibi publice declararunt And again Quoniam videbatur cunctis Regni statibus super dictis Articulis singulatim ac etiam communiter interrogatis And again Ordinati sunt Comissarii ex parte statuum Communitatis ejusdem Regni Observe here that the King is none of these States that they are called all the States which signifies more than two that there is mention of States besides Community and therefore it was then understood that there were two States in the Lords House But afterwards he recites us the Form of a most important Instrument which follows In Dei nomine Amen Nos I. Episc Assavensis I. Abbas Glasconiensis Thomas Comes Glocestriae Thomas Dominus de Berkley Tho. de Epingham Tho. Gray Miles Willielmus Thirning Justiciarius per Pares Proceres Regni Angliae Spirituales Temporales ejusdem Regni Communitates omnes status ejusdem Regni Representantes Commissarii ad infra scripta specialiter deputati c. By which it is most clear that the Government was then understood to consist of three States of which the King was none as he cannot be with any Congruity 1 R. 3. Rot. Parl. apud Westm die Veneris 23 Jan. it appears that a Bill was exhibited coram Dom. Rege in Parl. Wherein is contained That several Articles on the behalf and in the name of the three States of the Realm viz. Lords Spiritual Temporal and Commons were delivered to the King And farther that the said three Estates were not assembled in form of Parliaments therefore be it ordained by this present Parliament that the Tenor of the said Articles delivered as aforesaid on the behalf of the said three Estates out of Parliament c. Now by the three Estates assembled in this present Parliament be the same ratified and approved Ac idem Dominus Rex de assensu dictorumtrium statuum Regni Authoritate praedicta omnia singula praemissa in billa praedicta contenta concedit ea pro vero indubio pronunciat decernit ac declarat This was in like manner an Act of Parliament for declaring the Right of the Crown to be in Rich. 3. In the Statute made 2 H. 4. the Word State is used plurally and for more than two of which the King was none to signifie the Parliament as appears cap 15. And so it is also in 4 Hen. 4. cap. 4. in which these words are Sith it is the desire of all the States of the Realm that nothing shall be so demanded of our Sovereign the King He will that all those who make any Demand c. So that hereby it is evident that in the Understanding of that time there were three States besides the King But to spare the Reader the trouble of the mentioning the Records at large that testifie the Parliament to consist of the King and the three Estates viz. Lords Spiritual Lords Temporal and Commons I will refer them that doubt to the Collection made in Mr. Pryn's Index to Sir Robert Cotton's Abridgment under that Title who himself was of this Opinion which nothing but the Evidence of the truth of the thing could have
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
govern as he pleaseth that the power of the Laws is solely in him that he may if he please use the consent of Parliaments to assist the reason of his Laws when he shall give any but it is great condescention in Kings to give a reason for what they do and a diminution to their most unaccountable Prerogative You say That they are for a Popish Successor and no Parliament and do as much as in them lies give up our antient Government and the Protestant Religion the true Christian Faith to the absolute will of a Popish Successor giving him a Divine Right to extirpate God's true Religion established amongst us by Law and to evacuate our Government by his absolute pleasure Our Government by a King and Estates of Parliament is as antient as any thing can be remembred of the Nation The attempt of altering it in all ages accounted treason and the punishment thereof reserved to the Parliament by 25. Ed. 3. The conservancy of the Government being not safely to be lodg'd any where but with the government it self Offences of this kind not pardonable by the King because it is not in his power to change it This is our Government and thus it is established and for ages and immemorial time hath thus continued a long Succession of Kings have recognized it to be such And just now when we are under the dread of a Popish Successor some of our Clergy are illuminated into a mystery that hath been concealed from the beginning of Governments to this day from the wisdom of all Princes and Ministers of State That any authority in the Government not derived from the King and that is not to yield to his absolute Will was rebellious and against the Divine Right and Authority of Kings in the Establishment against which no usage or prescription to the contrary or in abatement of it is to be allowed That all Rights are ambulatory and depend for their continuance upon his pleasure So that though the Reformation was made here by the Government established by Law and hath acquired civil Rights not to be altered but by the King and the three Estates These men yet speak say you as if they envied the Rights of their own Religion and had a mind to reduce the Church back again into a state and condition of being persecuted and designed she should be stript of her Legal Immunities and Defensatives and brought back to the deplorable helpless condition of Prayers and Tears do utterly abandon and neglect all the Provisions that God 's providence hath made for her protection Nay by this their new Hypothesis they put it by Divine Right into the power of a Popish Successor when he pleaseth at once by a single indisputable and irresistable Edict to destroy our Religion and Government And these opinions you say they are the more inclined to entertain For That they believe no Plot but a Presbyterian Plot for of them they believe all ill and call whom they please by that hated name and boldly avow that Popery is more eligible than Presbytery for by that they shall have greater revenues and more Authority and Rule over the Lay-men This is a heavy charge if true but it is imputable I am sure but to a few and not so generally as some malevolent men of the Popish Faction are industriously busie to have it For if it were I confess it might choque the constancy Resolution and Zeal of the most addicted to the service of the Church men and make them at least very indifferent in their concerns For these mistakes are so gross and inexcusable that they ought to be permitted to suffer the smart of their own follies and to be corrected by the evils they are drawing down upon themselves with their own hands They deserve to suffer as betrayers of their own Country and to be prosecuted with greater shame and ignominy by all of the Reformed Religion than the Traditores were by the antient Christians These their diserting of the true Christian Faith being much less excusable then that of theirs and of greater mischief as of deeper malignity How many of the Clergy-men are thus misled we know not but they seem many more than they are because they are most in view and come often under observation frequent publick houses and talk loud because they want the Complement of their preferments But certainly Sir what you say to be the declared opinions of some Clergy-men is the business now of the Papists to propagate Hoc Ithacus velit magno mercantur Atridae These are agreeable to and indeed make up the most modern Project and Schem of the Popish Plot. Since the discovery of their first design of killing the King and massacring of the Protestants They have taken such courage by observing how little power we have to prevent their design that they have us in scorn and in the vilest contempt They now think that we are not worth destroying but by our own hands that we are not worthy of their trouble or the charge of Executioners of their providing How entertaining is it to his Holiness to find the Church of England the impregnable Bulwark of the Reformed Religion easily fall into his hands by the unpresidented folly of some of her Sons without the trouble of attacking her either by force or Argument which hath hitherto wanted success and the attempts always attended with dishonor and mischief to his See How pleasant will it be to him to see us perish and our destruction to be from our selves With this he will answer all the irrefragable Apologies of the Church of England for her departure from the Communion of the Romish Church Then he will say with triumph our Church destroyed her self and perished by a Divine Fate for her unwarrantable and Sacrilegious Schism for so he will call our follies and impute them to Divine infatuations The manner of our destruction will be a better Argument and of more force against the Doctrine of the Reformation than all the Arguments of all the Doctors of that Church to this day For this purpose since the Discovery of the Popish Plot it is that Sir Robert Filmers Books were Re-printed together and recommended by the Title Page and the publick Gazet to our reading Since the Discovery of the Plot we have had variety of Books Printed to the same purpose viz. To prove that all Kings as Kings are absolute by Divine Right Since the Discovery of the Popish Plot we have had men imployed to search all our antient Records and Histories to find out something more antient than our Parliaments as now constituted that it may serve as a pretence to take them away Since the Discovery of the Popish Plot we have the memory of our late calamitous War revived to raise a Pannick fear of another and to make the King believe that the genius of the Nation is Rebellious and that the Protestant Religion it self is to be apprehended by Kings It is
recommend to all ingenious Gentlemen that would be rightly instructed and informed neither deceive others nor would be deceived themselves as they love truth and virtue wisdom and sober thoughts to dispise this sort of wit in others and repress it in themselves And never allow it to be used but in the hours of mirth in the Relaxations of their minds from serious Contemplations and matters grave and weighty where this prophane thing wit ought always to be shut out with care Enough hath been said for rectifying the mistakes of any true Protestant especially any Clergy-man of the Church of England which you have objected against them about Government or Parliament dissenters from the Church of England and Popery Especially when it is made apparent that these mistakes are made serviceable to the Popish Plot and the means which that party prosecute to compass and bring about the ruine of our Church But that nothing may be wanting that lyes in my poor power for pulling their Foot out of the Snare I shall more distinctly consider them First I shall desire them to consider what our Government is and where the true knowledge of it is to be found And where can it be found but in our Statute Books the Commentaries of our Law the Histories of our Government and of the Kingdom Search them if you be at leisure if you are not consult those that have read them and whose business and employment it is to understand them and you cannot fail to be informed That the King hath no power to make Laws that both Houses of Parliament must joyn with the King in making a Law It can with no more reason be concluded that the King hath the Legislative power because his Assent makes the Bills in Parliament Laws than it can because the third Unit added to two makes a Triad that the other two do not go to the making of that number when a matter 's moved from the King in Parliament to pass into a Law the Commons consent last The Letters Patents of Ed. Sir E. Cook 8 R. 3. for making the Eldest Son of a King in Succession Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall was confirmed as there must have been otherwise they would have been void by the House of Commons And yet we will not say that the House of Commons can make a Prince of Wales or Duke of Cornwall And yet upon no better reason than this some men will talk as if they believed themselves that the Legislative power is in the King when no King of England yet ever pretended to it but by their process of Law have punished such officious and mischievous Knaves They will tell you that the Laws are the measures of our Allegiance and the Kings Prerogative and declare the terms of Obedience and Government That a Legislative authority is necessary to every Government and therefore we ought not to want it and therefore Parliaments in which our Government hath placed the making of Laws cannot be long discontinued nor their Conventions rendred illusory and in vain which is all one as to want them That to Govern by Laws implieth that great fundamental Law that new Laws shall be made upon new emergencies and for avoiding unsufferable mischiefs to the State By the Statutes of 4 Ed. 3. c. 14.36 Ed. 3. c. 10. it is provided that Parliaments be holden once every year The Statute of this King required a Parliament every three years which being an affirmatory Law doth not derogate from those of Ed. the 3. But if the King doth not call a Parliament once in a year He neglects these Laws and if he delays calling a Parliament three years he neglects the other Law of his own time to And for that he is by the Law intrusted with the calling of Parliaments He is at liberty to call them within the times appointed And that Laws ought to be made for Redress of mischiefs that may ensue appears by the Statute of provisors 25. E. 3. cap. 23. In which we have these words Whereupon the Commons have prayed our said Soveraign Lord the King that sith the right of the Crown of England and the Law of the said Realm is such that upon the mischiefs Dammage which happeneth to this Realm he ought and is bound of the Accord of his said People in his Parliament thereof to make Remedy and Law in avoiding the mischief and dammage which whereof cometh which that King agreed to by his Royal Assent thereto given I dare be bold to say that never any Bill in Parliament was lost and wanted the Royal Assent that was promoted by the general desires of the people If Popery therefore which is the greatest mischief to us that ever threatned this Kingdom can be kept out by a Law we ought to have such a Law and nothing can hinder such a Law to be past for that purpose but want of an universal desire to have it I desire these Gentlemen to consider how they will answer it to their Saviour at the last day if they suffer his true Religion and the professors of it to be destroyed and persecuted when nothing but their desires of a thing lawful to be had and of right due was requisite to prevent it Their sufferings will be just and righteous from God if their sin occasioneth it and very uncomfortable to themselves The extent of the Legislative authority is no where to be understood but by our Acts of Parliament in which it hath been exercised and used and by such Acts that declare the extent of its power by the 13. Eliz. cap. 1. it is made Treason during that Queens Life and forfeiture of Goods and Chattels afterwards To hold maintain and affirm that the Queen by the Authority of the Parliament of England is not able to make Laws and Statutes of sufficient force and validity to limit and bind the Crown of this Realm and the descent limitation inheritance and Government thereof And this authority was exercised by Entailing the Crown in Parliaments in the times of Richard the 2d Henry the 4th Henry the 6th Edward the 4th Richard the 3d. Henry the 7th thrice in the time of Henry the 8th and upon the Marriage of Queen Mary to King Philip of Spain both the Crowns of England and Spain were Entailed whereby it was provided that of the several Children to be begotten upon the Queen one was to have the Crown of England another Spain another the Low-Countries The Articles of Marriage to this purpose were confirmed by Act of Parliament Those that are truly Loyal to our present Sovereign have reason to recognize with high satisfaction that such a power of altering and limiting the descent of the Crown is duly lodged in the King and States of the Realm For under the authority of an Act of Parliament of the Kingdom of Scotland we derive our selves to the happiness of his Government and and He his title to the Crown of Scotland which drew to
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
ought not to loose our Lives Liberties and Estates but where forfeited by Law we ought much rather not to loose them for the profession of the best Religion which by Law is made the publick national Religion And it is strange that some men of the same Religion in profession can think that notwithstanding it makes no matter what is done to a man if he be Religious but if he be not so the least publick injuries and injustice may be resisted vindicated remedyed and by right defended by old Laws or new ones to be made for that purpose The Christian Religion was publisht when the whole world was Pagan and therefore it was submitted to such usage as the Governments would give it But when the Christian Faith had by miracles of patience declared it self to be of Heaven and of a Divine Original According to the Prophecies on that behalf it took possession of the Empire and Crowns and Scepters became submitted to the Cross and the Christians acquir'd a civil right of Protection and Immunity which they ought not they cannot relinquish and abandon no more than they can destroy themselves or suffer violence and cruelty to destroy the Innocent Such as thus perish shall never wear a Martyrs Crown but perish in the next world for perishing in this This will be interpretatively Crucifying Christ afresh after he is received up into Glory i. e. After his Religion is exalted into dignity and honor and civil Authority If the senate of Rome had been Christians they would never have given up the Government to a Pagan Augustus with a power to him and his Successors to make laws for extirpating the Christian Faith what is said of the Christian Religion and Paganism holds between the Reformed Religion and Popery If any man is so vain as to say that an unalterable course of Succession is established amongst us by Divine Right I say he is a man fitted to believe transubstantiation and the infallibility of the Pope he is deeply lapsed into fanaticism he dreams when he is awake and his dreams are dreams of phrensie There are somethings so false that they cannot be disproved as somethings are so evidently true that they cannot be proved This proposition hath no color to ground it self upon no medium to prove it no argument for it which is to be answered nor nothing more absurd than it self to reduce it to But if any shall add that this Doctrin is the Doctrin of the Reformation and adventure to tell the people so they are the most impudent falsaries that ever any age produced when there is scarce a Child but hath heard what was done said and maintained by the Clergy of England in the case of Mary Queen of Scots a Popish Successor in the earliest time of our Reformation here in England Our Age is blessed with a Clergy renownedly Learned and Prudent by the Providence of God and the piety of our Ancestors they possess good though not to be envyed Revenues and Honors It is scarce possible they should have many among them that can countenance a proposition so wickedly impious and sacrilegious that we cannot have new Laws but must loose the old at the pleasure of a Popish Successor against not their own interest and the Rights of the Church but against the Rights and Liberty of Religion it self For she is capable of Franchises and Immunitys which ought above all things to be most zealously asserted and defended by her Ministers can they themselves with their own hands ever pull down her Hedg and destroy her Defensatives and expose her helpless to the rage of her implacable Enemies and suspend all the Legal security she hath for her preservation upon the Life of our present King whom God long preserve If Kings be admitted to have a power to make Laws One Proclamation may establish the Popish Religion amongst us which the Papal Bulls so long as that See continues will never be able to effect Next to Religion her self the Revenues of the Church challenge their faithful care for they are at best but Usu-fructuary Trustees of her Endowments for the Succession which they will wretchedly betray to an Arbitrary Successor if they do not repress such Opinions that pretend to change the Government into an absolute jure Divinity Monarchy which will leave nothing jure divino but it self and the Popedom Kings for their so doing have the authority of Sir Robert Filmer who affirms in his Treatise called the Power of Kings Fol. 1. That the Laws Ordinances Letters Patents Priviledges and Grants of Princes have no force but during their Life if they be not ratified by the express consent or at least by the sufferance of the Prince following who had a knowledge thereof This is but the necessary consequence and result from the Doctrine of the absolute power of a Prince for in such Government the Concessions of a Predecessor can no more oblige the Successor than he can Govern when he is dead and the Successor must be absolute in his time as the Predecessors were in theirs But in vain is the Net spread in the sight of any Bird this deceit is of so gross a thread that it cannot pass with the common people much less upon our Clergy but I will not dissemble what may be the true reason of the seduction of some young good natured Gentlemen of the Clergy They perswade themselves that if these principles and opinions of the Unlimited Power of Kings had been received the late Wars had been prevented Not rightly considering that if such opinions had never been broached or Universally rejected that War could never have ensued and we should together with peace have enjoyed our ancient Government which our Ancestors transmitted to us without that miserable inter-regnum I would not be perversely understood by any man as if I went about to justify our late War This is all I say that every Government once established will continue for ever if all the parts of it would unalterably consent to preserve it to which their narural Allegiance doth oblige them And never any Prince endeavored to change the Government but where part of the people were first willing or content to have it so Those false flatterers that go about to remove the boundaries of power and change the Government are the greatest enemies to the quiet and happy Reigns of the Kings and the peace and prosperity of Kingdoms And if they do adventure to call the ir fellow Subjects by any opprobrious names of disloyalty because they will not joyn with them in such change they are as absurdly impious and insolent as any Prince or State would be who should challenge another as free and absolute as himself for his Tributary and Vassal and traduce him for a troubler of the World because he would not Compose the Quarrel thus injuriously sought with the surrender of his Crown and dignity I desire these Gentlemen to consider that the happiness of a Nation is best
Government and fit to be cut off Neither can the most insolent Paradox of Sir Robert Filmers Patriarcha contribute much to this purpose But that it may be able to deceive but a very few for the time to come for the sake of such Gentlemen who have not Chosen their side are glad of the least Color or dream of a Shadow a single opinion of any body it matters not whom to relieve their modesty in their notorious defections from Truth Justice and the Government I shall here consider his Hypothesis especially for that it was Re-printed and is magnified by the Factors for the Popish Plot. And first I will draw it out shortly in all its strength and make it more argumentative than he hath left it for he hath left his willing readers to find out the Argument and to make the Conclusion Adam saith he was the Father of Mankind that to him as Father belonged an Absolute dominion over all his descendents that all Men being so born are born under subjection to such an Authority This authority so reserved upon us by God and the condition of our birth and the manner of coming into the World is to be submitted to in the person of the present King who by becoming King is for that reason vested with this absolute Authority This power and the duty of our subjection to it results from our being Born and coming into the World after the manner of men This power of Kings is grounded by him meerly upon this natural resultance and not from any positive and express Revelation from God for such neither we nor he yet ever heard of We will now then consider what there is of weight in this fictitious Reason of Government in which the World is so lately illuminated by this Speculator what force there is in it to unravel all Models of Government that are framed in the World to confound Kingdoms and Nations and to give Warranty to the bringing upon us all the miseries that are designed by the Papists for us which we are to be prepared to suffer with most conscientious patience from the comforts and supports of this insolent and vain pretence I appeal to the Reader of him whither in thus stating his Doctrine I have not made it more Argumentative and concluding to his purpose than he left it I will take this method of remonstrating the fertility of his Hypothesis By considering what a Father is and what his Duty towards and Power over his Children in which it will be found that nothing of Empire belongs to him as Father that no more belonged to Adam over his Children than did to any of his Children over their own That the Authority of Parents over their Children continues together with Soveraign power and is not at all abated by it and that it cannot be the same because it continues entire with it That there is no footsteps in the Records of the Old Testament to verify his Hypothesis that we could not have wanted some Declarations about it from God if true it being a matter so necessary for us to know That no claims were made that we know of to any such authority in the earliest times when the Right was unprejudiced and must have been best understood and could not have been forgotten as now it is utterly Besides that it was never used The first Histories Recorded in the Bible makes every Child of the common Ancestor alike independent and absolute and so it would for ever have continued And to this day we should have been in the state of Nature and not United in any Government and so no King yet in the World notwithstanding the Paternal authority That his Instances of exercising Soveraign power by the Fathers of Families are not concluding and to this purpose That admitting Adam had while he liv'd been Universal Monarch yet if there be no other reason and Foundation of Monarchy in the World but this of Sir Robert Filmer Adams right heir not been known and if he were might perhaps be an Ideot or Lunatick some Cobler or Botcher under a Stall or mean Person unfit to govern we can have no rightful King in the World for certain it is that there is nothing in the World so personal as Relations and the duties and Rights that do result from them for they are neither assignable to nor can be exercised or exacted by and between any persons but the Relatives themselves So that this power of Sir R. F. hath no foundation of reason in the nature of things was in Fact never exercised and is now utterly fallen to the ground and all Government with it A more pusled vain sensless and unlearned Paradox was never yet offer'd to the World nor a thing more mischievous ever received The absolute Power of a Prince over his Subjects is not at all connatural to the dutiful Care of a Father over his Children It was the good pleasure of God that this part of the immense world should be planted with men endowed with a capacity to admire his power wisdom and goodness and therefore to render him praise and worship he design'd that we should be happy in our own enjoyments and promote the happiness of each other which is not to be performed but by a mind serene beneficent and loving He provided that the disseminations of Love should run parallel and be under a like necessity with the propagation of our kind For the planting love in our nature he instituted Marriage for Procreation that we might owe our Being to the state of the greatest and most agreeable friendship and tenderest affection That for many years we should be educated by a pure single and undesigning love of our Parents and the friendship of that conjugal State should be maintained by and principally exercised in their common care of their issue Every Act of Love of either of the Parents to the Child being the best instance of love to the other of them an endearment of a reciprocal love and a provocation to the like love and care of the Child God did likewise ordain and so it was that all Mankind should derive from one stock be made of one blood and every Man every Mans Brother of the same family and cognation By this it was provided by the Father of us all that we should be born into the World under the tendrest care for our preservation and improvement of our Nature and be powerfully enclined to love and beneficence whereby we may be pleased with our selves and at Peace and Amity with our whole kind That the Generations of Mankind might certainly proceed God planted in our Natures powerful and irresistible instincts to procreation which the Jews call a Precept tho after this no Precept seem'd necessary for encrease and multiply they make a Command But we follow our own propensions and have no conscience of obedience to a Law when we observe and follow them which are so strong pleasurable and entertaining that if
continues entire together with Sovereign Power and is not at all abated by it and therefore cannot be the same No Soveraign Power can extort the Children from their Fathers Authority and care This is a duty in Nature before Governments They cannot belong to the Government before they are filii precepti and capable of the Conscience of a Law It is a duty in Parents to Educate their Children and a right they have in consequence to govern them that cannot be taken from them It is the Parents duty to form their consciences They are appoint-by God the great Ministers of his Providence to the Children That they perform this Office he hath tyed them to it by the sweatest constraints and almost violences of Nature by an irresistable love and tyes of Endearment that cannot be broken this declares their Right of Authority over their Children against any interposings of Soveraign Authority to its prejudice let or hindrance Thomas Aquinas positively determines that it is not lawful for Christian Kings to baptize the Children of the Jews against the will of their Parents for that saith he it is against the course of natural justice 4ly There is no footsteps in the Records of the old World to verifie this Hypothesis That such Authority was so much as pretended to be used or exercised by Adam but we find instances against it in the short History before the Flood Cain received no sentence from Adam his Prince and Soveraign Judg but from God himself or rather from his Shecinah or some visible Representation of his presence Thence he obtained some degree of impunity and his life protected No mention here at all of Adam his taking the Tribunal or Cains arraignment or of any pardon or indulgence granted by King Adam Lamech that had Kill'd a man by mischance did not alledge his case at his Father Adams Court and the matter of extenuation of the Man-killing we hear of no pardon of Course to be allowed when the circumstances of fact had been first judicially considered How could a thing of such importance be omitted in the story of the old World tho so short It was of more concernment than to know that Tubal Cain was the first Smith and Jubal the first man that made a Musical instrument to know the original nature and reason of Government Besides we find all the grand Children of Noah becoming Princes of Countries and the Sons and grand sons of Esau alike Dukes and Princes that is at least absolute Fathers of their own Families and ruling over such as were their slaves and dependents And the 12 Sons of Jacob are all called Patriarchs When Nimrod played the Tyrant we find nothing said for his justification upon any Patriarchal right But if we consult the Traditions of the Jews they will inform us of another original of Government and that is this They say that God gave several Precepts to Adam and his Sons and Noah and his Sons and one amongst the rest that they should erect Governments which his Sons could not have performed without Rebellion against their King Father if Adam had been so as Sir Robert Filmer first dreamt Also besides that of making Governments there was a Precept given them of honoring their Parents Selden de jure Naturae secundum Hebraeos fol. 2792. And therefore the Precept of honoring Parents is a distinct duty from that of obedience to Governments By this Precept they had Authority in general to establish Governments amongst themselves in the specification of which they were left to rheir own liberty and discretion and therefore were not obliged to any single form of Government It must be understood that the Precept which required the Sons of Adam and Noah to establish Governments required also every mans Submission to their Orders Laws and Decrees when established Lastly We will consider of the instances he gives of the Exercise of Soveraign Power by Fathers of Families which are as impertinent to his purpose as his Doctrine is groundless and precarious but they are these Abrahams War and Judahs judgment upon Thamar As to the first of Abrahams making War We say we cannot allow that making War doth argue any Soveraign Authority It is sufficient that he who makes it is under none to make a vindicative War Lawful For an injured Person may in the State of Nature vindicate wrongs by an authority derived from God and Nature to a just satisfaction Because there is no competent judicature to appeal to for right and redress But see how unhappy the Gentleman is This very instance of his production is clearly against him for if Soveraign Power had been Patriarchal Abraham had been guilty of Treason in making War without a Commission from Melchizedech the King of Salem who as the Learned men conjecture was Shem his Patriarch and Chief and known by him for such But because Abraham the best man perhaps in any Age did not take a Commission from Melchizedech his Patriarchal chief And yet he was blessed by Melchizedech when he returned from the War We may conclude that neither Melchizedeeh nor Abraham knew of any such Patriarchal Soveraignty And also from this great example it appears that it is lawful for him that is not a Soveraign if he be not under any to make War I will not enter into a discourse whence and how is derived the Authority of making War and capital Sentences which must have the same reason to warrant both which hath pusled some great Divines Dr. Hammond that great man was at a loss in this enquiry and thinks that nothing but a Divine Authority can warrant them which hath put them upon strange extravagant Hypotheses of Government and sent this Knights brains a Wool-gathering But this may satisfie any man of sense that whatever is necessary for the general happiness of mankind and for preserving peace in the world and protecting the innocent and disinabling the mighty oppressors is more commendable to be done then the Killing a man in his own defence is simply lawful As to his second instance of Judah his Sentence pronounced upon his Daughter in Law Thamar which he would have an exercise of Patriarchal Soveraign Authority We say how could Judah do this by a Patriarchal Power when Jacob his Father was then alive and for all that appears Judah his Son was not extrafamiliated Besides which is very unlucky Thamar was then none of his Family or of the Subjects of his Domestick Empire for his Son her Husband being dead she was free from the Law of her Husband and ceased to be a Subject of his Paternal Kingdom But Mr. Selden under the Authority of some Rabbins which he cites in his excellent Book before mentioned Fol. 807. saith that Judah might have the Office of a Prince or Magistrate in a district in that Country and by that Authority might judge her according to the Laws of that Country But what the Law was and the Nature and reason of her offence