the King's Council which the King granted yet afterwards 51 E. 3. at the Request of the Commons themselves he was restored to all and declared innocent This Gentleman was so sensible of this their Prejudice and Rashness attended with so much Levity that he could not pass it by without setting some Remark upon it p. 12. But when Justice Loyalty and Honour governs their Debates and Resolutions we may put the King and to use his own Illustration all the Three Estates of Parliament into the same Nest of Boxes and yet their respective Interests which is the Interest of the whole Kingdom interwoven will be secure and preserv'd inviolate But the Gentleman tells us further That if the Bishops be one of the Three Estates nothing can pass in Parliament without them This may be generally true among States coordinate without a Sovereign Head over them and when a Rival is set up to give Check-mate to the Sovereign Authority as it was in the time of Hen. 8. mentioned by this Gentleman at p. 92. when the Question was To whom the Supream Jurisdiction did belong to the King or to the Pope In the time of such a Competition the Crown is obliged to secure it self against such an Usurpation and does most justly abandon the Clergy that sides with it But 2. If Acts have passed without the Bishops they have likewise done so as by him is said sometimes without the Commons Egbert who first united the Seven Kingdoms of the Saxons under the common Name of England he caus'd to be conven'd at London His Bishops and Peers of the highest Rank to advise upon some course against the Danish Pyrates this was a Military Business and Bloud-shed might have ensued upon the Stubbornness of those Pyrates who infested the Sea-Coast of England And King Ethelwolph in Parliament or Assembly of his States at Winchester Anno 855. by the Advice These Great Councils were the Parliaments of those Times Let. p. 72. and Counsel of the Bishops and Nobility confirm'd unto the Clergy the Tenth Part of all mens Goods and Ordered that the Tythe so confirmed unto them should be free from all Secular Services and Impositions And Wingate in his Abridgment and the Word Parliament tells us out of the Mirrour of Justices of an Act in Aelfred's Time That Parliaments should be held twice a year and oftner if need requir'd But note saith he This was by the King and Lords only And I believe we may observe the like practice among some of this Gentleman's Precedents But it is much more satisfactory when the Laws are Enacted by the Sovereign Authority at the Request of the Commons with the consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal that is by the King with the joint Assent of the Three Estates of Parliament let us not therefore dissolve or drive them away when we have them That which is alledged out of Bishop Jewel and Crompton I refer you to the Answer of the Quodlibetical Question for your p. 93. to 98. satisfaction That King James was of this Judgment is evident from the very Words and Speech produced by this Gentleman to the contrary The Parliament saith he is composed of a Head and a Body The Head is the King the Body are the Members of the Parliament This Body again is subdivided into two parts the Upper and the Lower House the Upper House compounded partly of Nobility Temporal men who are Hereditable Counsellors to the High Court of Parliament by the Honour of their Creation and Lands and partly of Bishops Spiritual men who are likewise by virtue of their Place and Dignity Counsellors ad vitam Life-Renters of this Court. The other House is compos'd of Knights for the Shires and Gentry and Burgesses for the Towns Here we see though the King makes but Two Houses yet he does clearly distinguish them into Three Estates though he does not call them so To what is said by Stephen Gardiner and Finch I oppose the Testimonies of Livy Selden Cooke and Sheppard To the Expressions of the Late King of B. Memory in his Answer to the 19 Propos when he was fluctuating in the midst of a Storm gathering round about him and to the Declaration of the Commons 2 H. 4. n. 32. I might Answer That the Upper House in a large sense consisting of Lords Spiritual and Temporal sitting and voting together may be taken for One Estate But taken precisely and in a strict sense as their Concerns and Interests are distinct so they are clearly Two But to those Authorities I shall rather oppose the Act of Recognition 1 Eliz. 3. Where the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons in that Parliament Assembled do Recognize the Queens Majesty to be their true lawful and undoubted Sovereign Lieged Lady and Queen in these words We Your most Faithful Loving and Obedient Subjects representing the Three Estates of this Realm which evidently sheweth the Queen was not there esteemed one So when the Funerals of Hen. 5. were ended the Three Estates did Assemble and Acknowledge his Son King To think to elude such Evidence by saying as this Gentleman does in the like case that such Expressions are delivered obiter upon the By is to make what we fancy not in any Statute utterly void and of none effect The next Question concerns the Bishops Peerage For the Affirmative we have these things to say 1. That the Prelates are called by the same Writ for Form and Manner with that directed to the Temporal Barons so the Answer to the Quodlibetical Question That they Sit and Vote there by a double capacity as Bishops first in reference to their several Sees and secondly as Peers in respect of their Baronies Hereupon they affirm to the Lords Temporal in Parliament holden at Northampton Hen. 2. as Selden reports We sit not here as Bishops only but as Barons we are Barons and you are Barons here we sit as Peers And some Statutes call them Peers of the Land in terminis 2. 'T is his Grace of Canterbury's Title Primus Par Angliae That the first Peer should be no Peer is an unheard of Solecism If he be a Peer the rest of the Bishops are his Com-peers what ever they are to the Lords Temporal John Stratford Archbishop of that place in the time of Ed. 3 claim'd this Priviledge in the Right of his See And the Protestat of W. Courtney elsewhere mentioned with the rest of the Bishops is another pregnant Evidence to this purpose And 25 Edw. 3. The Prelates put up this Petition to the King as the Gentleman himself relates it p. 83. Seeing Archbishops and Bishops hold their Temporalties of the King in capite and therefore are Peers of the Land as other Earls and Barons are that you will be pleased to grant unto them that no Judge may henceforward for meer contempts cause their Temporalties to be seized Here we have a Prayer that their Temporalties may not be seized and the Reason of
Barons here we sit as Peers Which last is also verified in terminis by the words of a Statute or Act of Parliament wherein the Bishops are acknowledged to be Peers of the Land But to proceed more particularly to our proofs de facto after the alteration of their Tenures by the Norman Conqueror we find a Parliament assembled in the fifth year of that King wherein are present Episcopi Abbates Comites Primates totius Angliae †the * Math. Paris in Willi elmo 1. Bishops Abbots Earls and the rest of the Baronage of England And 3ly In the ninth year of William Rufus an old Author telleth us de Regni statu acturus Episcopos Abbates quoscunque Regni Proceres in unum praecepti sui sanctione egit that being to consult of the Affairs of the Kingdom he called together by his Writ the Bishops Abbots and all the Peers of the Realm (†) Edmor hist Mov l. 2. And 2ly During the Reign of King Henry the first for we will take but one example out of each Kings Reign though each Kings Reign would yeild us more a Parliament was called at London wherein were many things dispatched aa well of Ecclesiastical as Secular nature the Bishops and Abbots being present with the other Lords Coacto apud Londinium Magno Episcoporum Procerum Abbatumque concilio multa Ecclesiasticarum Secularium rerum ordinata negotia decisa Litigia saith the Monk of Malmsbury (†) Malmbs Hist Reg. Ang. l. 5. and of this Parliament it is I take it that Edmor speaketh Hist. Novel l. 4. p. 91. Proceed we 4ly to King Henry the second for King Stephens Reign was so full of Wars and Tumults that there is very little to be found of Parliaments and there we find the Bishops with the other Peers convened in Parliament for the determination of the points in controversy between Alphonso King of Castile and Sancho King of Navarre referred by com-promise to the King of England and here determined by King Henry amongst other things Habito cum Episcopis Comitibus Baronibus cum deliberatione Consilio as in Roger Hoveden (†) Hoveden Annal. pac Rose in H. 2. 5ly Next time comes Richard the first his Son during whose Imprisonment by the D. of Austria his Brother John then Earl of Moriton endeavoured by force and cunning in Normandy to set the Crown on his own head which caused Hubert the Archbishop of Canterbury to call a Parliament Convocatis coram eo Episcopis Comitibus Baronibus Regni (†) Id. in Ioh. wherein the Bishops Earls and Barons did with one consent agree to seize on his Estate and suppress his power the better to preserve the Kingdom in Wealth Peace and Safety 6ly After succeeded John and he calls a Parliament wherein were certain Laws made for the defence of this Kingdom Communi assensu Archiepiscoporum Episcoporum Comitum Baronum omnium fidelium suorum Angliae by the Common Counsel and Assent of the Archbishops Bishops Earls Barons and the rest of his Lieges Remember what was said before touching the Writ of Summons in the said Kings time from this time till the last Parliament of King Charles there is no Kings Reign of which we have not many though not all the Acts of Parliament still it Print amongst us Nor is there any Act of Parliament in the Printed Books to the Enacting of which the Bishops Approbation and Consent is not plainly specified either in the general Proem set before the Acts or in the Body of the Acts themselves as by the Books themselves doth at large appear 7ly And to this kind of proof may be further added the Form and manner of the Writ by which the Prelates in all times have been called to Parliament being the very Law Verbatim with that which is directed to the Temporal Barons save that the Spiritual Lords are commanded to attend the Service in fide dilectione the Temporal in fide Homagio and of late times in fide Ligeantia quibus nobis tenemini A Form or Copy of which Summons as ancient as King John's time is still reserved upon Record directed Nominatim to the Archbishop of Canterbury (†) Titles of Hon. part 2. cap. 1. and then a Scriptum est similiter to the residue of the Bishops Abbots Earls and Barons Then add the Privilege of Parliament for themselves and their Servants during the time of the Sessions the Liberty to kill and take one or two of the Kings Deer as they pass by any of his Forests in coming to Parliament upon his Commandment (*) Charta de forest cap. their enjoying of the same Immunities which are and have been heretofore enjoyed by the Temporal Barons (†) Camden in Briiania and tell me if the Bishops did not sit in Parliament by as good a Title as the Temporal Lords and therefore Essential Fundamental parts of the Court of Parliament By this Discourse it may appear that the Bishops Sit and Vote in Parliament by a double capacity as Bishops first in reference to their several Sees and secondly as Peers in regard of their Baronies In both respects accounted one of the Three Estates and the first also of the Three as from the Premises may be gathered without any great trouble But in so nice a point as this we shall not only build upon general Inferences but particular Evidences And first it is affirmed by Titus Livius in his Relation of the Life and Reign of King Henry the 5th That when his Funerals were ended the three Estates of the Realm of England did assemble together and declare his Son King Henry the 6th being an Infant of 8 Months old to be their Sovereign Lord †as his Heir and Successor And three Estates there * Tit. Liv. M. S. in Bib. Bodl. could not be to perform that Service unless the Bishops were acknowledged to be one of the number 2ly In the Parliament Rolls of King Richard the third there is mention of a Bill or Parchment presented to that Prince being then Duke of Glocester on the behalf and in the Name of the Three Estates of the Realm of England that is to wit the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and of the Commons by name which forasmuch as neither the said Three Estates nor the persons which delivered it on their behalf were then assembled in form of Parliament was afterwards in the first Parliament of that King by the same Three Estates Assembled in this present Parliament I speak the very words of the Act it self and by Authority of the same Enrolled Recorded and Approved (*) An. Speed in K. R. 3 and at the request and by the assent of the Three Estates of this Realm that is to say the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons of this Land Assembled in this present Parliament and by Authority of the same it be pronounced decreed and declared that our said Sovereign Lord the King was
and is the very and undoubted Heir of this Realm of England c. And 3ly So it is acknowledged in a †Statute of 1 El. c. 3. where 1 Eliz. c. 3 the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons in that Parliament assembled being said expresly and in terminis to represent the three Estates of the Realm of England did recognize the Queens Majesty to be their True Lawful and undoubted Sovereign Lieg'd Lady and Queen And in a Statute of the 8th year of the said Queens Reign the Bishops and Clergy are declared to be the greatest Estates of the Realm and called the High Estate of Prelacy in another place It may perhaps be thought unnecessary or impertinent to add the Testimony and Authority of a private person to that which hath been said by our Laws and Statutes But being it is such a Person as was accounted for the Oracle of the Law when he served in Parliament his Judgment may be taken for a creditable and sufficient Evidence in the present Case It is the Testimony and Authority of Sir Edward Coke successively Chief Justice of either Bench who in his Book Concerning the Jurisdiction of Courts speaks thus of Parliaments (†) Coke of Parl. fol. 1. This Court saith he consisteth of the Kings Majesty sitting there as in his Royal Politick Capacity and of the Three Estates of the Realm viz. of the Lords Spiritual Archbishops and Bishops who sit there by Succession in respect of their Counties Baronies parcel of their Bishopricks which they hold also in their Politick Capacity and every one of these when any Parliament is to be holden ought ex debito Justitiae to have a Writ of Summons Secondly The Lords Temporal Dukes Marquesses Earls Viscounts and Barons who sit there by reason of their Dignities which they hold by Descent or Creation and likewise every one of these being of full age ought to have a Writ of Summons ex debito Justitiae The Third Estate is the Commons of the Realm whereof there be Knights of Shires or Counties Citizens of Cities and Burgesses of Burghs All which are respectively Elected by the Shires or Counties Cities and Burroughs by force of the Kings Writ ex debito Justitiae and none of them ought to be omitted And these represent all the Commons of the whole Realm and are trusted for them So He and this is plain enough beyond exception Add hereunto ex abundanti that in all Christian Kingdoms of the Gothick Model there are no more nor fewer than three Estates convented at the Will and Pleasure of the Supreme Prince for their assistance and advice in Affairs of consequence that is to say the Bishops and other Ecclesiastical persons who are alwayes one the Nobles for themselves and the Commissioners for the Commons of their several Provinces for so we find it in the Constitutions of the Roman Empire and the Realms of Spain the Kingdoms of France Poland Hungary together with those of Denmark Sweden and the Realm of Scotland And it were strange if in the Constitution of the English Parliaments or Conventus Ordinum the Bishops should have been left out and none at all elected to present the Clergy But being admitted with the rest in those publick Meetings and being looked on as the First Estate in the Stile of that Court it must needs be that their Exclusion shakes the very Fundamentals of the said Assemblies and makes the whole Body to be maimed and mutilated for want of such a principal Member so necessary to the making up of the whole Compositum But against all this it is objected first that some Acts have passed in Parliament to which the Prelates did not Vote nor could be present in the House when the Bill was passed as in the sentencing to death or mutilation of a guilty Person as doth appear by the Laws and Constitutions recognized at Clarendon and the following practice This hath been touched on before and we told you then that this restraint was laid upon them not by the common Law of England or any Act or Ordinance of the House of Peers by which they were disabled to attend that service It was their own voluntary Act none compelled them to it but only out of a conformity to some former Canons ad Sanctorum Canonum instituta (†) Antiqui Brit. in Gul. Courtney as their own words are by which it was not lawful for the Clergy Men to be either Judges or Assessors in causa sanguinis (*) Constitut Othob Fol. 45. And yet they took such care to preserve their Interest that they did not only give their Proxies for there presenting of their Persons but did put up their protestations with a salvo jure for the preserving of their Rights for the time to come Jure Paritatis interessendi in dicto Parliamento (†) Antiqu. Brit. in Gul. Courtney quoad omnia singula ibi exercendi in omnibus semper salvo as the manner was Examples of which are as full and frequent as their withdrawing themselves on the said occasions But then the main Objection is that as some Acts have passed in Parliament absentibus Prelatis when the Bishops did absent themselves of their own accord so many things have been transacted in the Parliament Excluso Clero when the Clergy had been excluded or put out of the House by some Act or Ordinance A President for this hath been found and published by such as envied that poor remnant of the Churches honour though possibly they will find themselves deceived in their greatest hopes and yet the evidence will not serve to evince the cause The Author of the Pamphlet entituled the Prerogative and practice of Parliaments first lays this Tenet for his ground That many good Acts of Parliament may be made though the Archbishops and Bishops should not consent unto them †which is a point * Printed at Lond 1628 p. 31. that no man doubts of considering how easily their Negative may be over-ruled by the far greater number of the Secular Peers Then he adds that in a Parliament held at St. Edmundsbury 1196. in the Reign of Edward the first a Statute was made by the King the Barons and the Commons excluso Clero and for the proof hereof refers us unto Bishop Jewel Now Bishop Jewill saith indeed That in a Parliament held at St. Edmundsbury by King Edward the first Anno 1296. the Archbishops and Bishops were quite shut forth and yet the Parliament held and good and wholsome Laws were there Enacted the departing or absence of the Lords Spiritual notwithstanding (†) Defence of the Apol. part 6. c. 2. S. 1. In the Records whereof it is written thus Habito Rex cum Baronibus suis Parliamento Clero excluso statutum est c. The King keeping the Parliament with his Barons the Clergy that is to say the Archbishops and Bishops being shut forth it was enacted c. Wherein who doth
The Second Rule observable in matters of Priviledge is this Privilegia omnia sine prejudicio Tertii concedenda concessa intelligenda sunt We must understand all priviledges that are granted to be granted without any prejudice to any third person Now this Gentleman quotes Brompton's Chronicle reciting among p. 108. the Laws of King Athelstan this concerning Bishops Debent Episcopi cum seculi Judicibus interesse Judiciis ne permittant si possint ut aliqua pravitatum germina pullulaverint The Bishops ought to be present in Judgments with the Secular Judges not to suffer any Buds of wickedness to sprout up if they can hinder it And does not the Law of God oblige such as are in Authority to use their Power as well to rescue the oppressed as to punish evil doers Let us consult the wise man Prov. 24. 11 12. If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death and those that are ready to be slain if thou saist Behold we knew it not doth not he that pondereth the Heart consider it and he that keepeth thy Soul doth not he know it and shall not he render to every man according to his works This saith the Author of the Synopsis concerns especially such as are in Authority And as Dr. Tho. Cartwright comments upon the place Quamvis periculum certum non sit si tamen suspitio aliqua mortis imminentis justa subsit non est cunctandum donec morti quis adjudicatus fuerit facilior enim est Liberatio dum exitus adhuc dubius est quam cum lata est Mortis sententia And I must not omit what the same Author saith a little after Quemadmodum autem insontes si possis non liberare sic maleficorum quantum in te est supplicium non promovere atrox flagitium est and for this the said Cartwright quotes the same Solomon Prov. 17. 15. This is a matter of so great importance every man who has a Right and Power of Judicature ought especially to consider it And if this Gentleman be as sincere in his Profession towards the Bishops which I have no reason to question as he is just and modest in saying that he does not envy them their Honour I hope he will be so ingenuous also as not to deny the King their faithful counsel nor the Countrey their pious Aid and Service For the Body of his Epistle it consists of Record and Precedents which most men want means and opportunity to examine * This Task therefore is faln into a more able hand and very many skill to construe and comment on This is the Evidence which this Gentleman does produce and that it may be the better understood I shall lay down some undoubted Principles Rules and Observations that the Reader may the better judge of it And I shall observe 1. The Lords Spiritual being Barons Peers and Great men they are many times comprehended under these Titles when they are not stiled by their proper and distinctive Names of Bishops or Prelates I shall need to instance in no more than that of Magnates Great men In the Reign of Edrid 948 we read thus In Festo Nativitatis B. Mariae cum universi Magnates Here Archbishops and Bishops are Magnates as well as others Regni per Regium edictum summoniti tam Archiepiscopi Episcopi quam caeteri totius Regni Proceres Optimates Londini c. 2. A Negative Argument from Authority is of no validity v. g. Such a Writer does not report such a thing therefore there was no such Matter this does not follow 3. The practice of Ancient times in the case before us was very variable For they were under the Popes Jurisdiction who kept the Canon-Law in force and among the rest this Canon touching the Bishops Recess from all Trials in Cases capital In obedience to which Canon they did for the most part absent themselves But when H. 2. by the Constitution of Clarendon enjoyned all Prelates as well as other Barons to attend his Courts he granted them withal a Liberty or Priviledge to absent themselves if they should think good from Trials of that nature Hereupon they did sometimes use their Priviledge and absented themselves sometimes they did refuse their Priviledge and sate as Judges 4. We may observe how the Matter was carried running through all the Trials upon Record as this Gentleman gives account of them †With what care and fidelity is left to others to examine and make report and in his Method 1. The first is 4 E. 3. in Mortimers Case where we have Earls Barons the Peers afterwards Earls Barons and Peers the Bishops may be comprehended under either Title of Barons or Peers for they were both 5 E. 3. The Bishops would not understand their Duty at all they would neither keep the peace nor punish a Battery This was a stupid Neglect but signifies nothing to the deciding of the Controversie 3. 25 E. 3. The Bishops may be comprehended under the Name of Grantz Magnates the Great men 4. 42 E. 3. Here the Bishops were present by their title of Prelates 5. 50 E. 3. The Bishops were present at these Trials yet two of the De linquents were Lords 6. 1 R. 2. They were and they were not present the Case is doubtful 7. 3 R. 2. If the Bishops were not present 't is confest they might have been for what was done was done by the Legislative Power and in that capacity to pass Bills of Attainder the Gentleman grants they have a Right 8. 4 R. 2. If the Bishops be Peers of the Realm and Lords of Parliament they might be comprehended there To say they are always exprest by the Name of Prelates is to beg the Question 9. 7 R. 3. It seems the Lords Spiritual were absent 10. 10 R. 2. Here the Bishops were present and judged of Misdemeanors which for ought we know upon Trial might have amounted to Merit of Death 11 11 R. 2. The Bishops were virtually present by their Protestation 12. 20 R. 2. Thomas Haxey Clerk whether he was a Member of the House may be a question but his fault however aggravated seems to be but a Misdemeanor at the Trial whereof the Bishops had right undoubtedly to be present whether they were present seems doubtful but 't is most certain it had been more safe and charitable to prevent the Condemnation than to run the hazard of an After-Game when he was condemn'd to seek his Pardon 13. 21 R. 2. In this Parliament the Bishops were present by their Representative by Proxy and that three several times upon three several Occasions 14. 1 H. 4. Here they were present but gave no Judgment 15. 2 H. 4. It does not appear that the Bishops were present 16. 5 H. 4. The Bishops may be comprehended under the title of Peers and the Matter being found but a Trespass their right of Sitting the Gentleman cannot deny them 17. 7 H. 4. Here the King commanded
the Advice only of the Lords Temporal which was a special Case 18. 5 H. 5. Here the Bishops had declared Sr. John Oldcastle Heretick and delivered the Prisoner over to the Secular Power and yet in the Sentence they may be comprized under the Title of The most wise Lords of this present Parliament 19. 2 H. 6. It is not certain the Bishops did Vote 20. 28 H. 6. The two Archibishops and 13 Bishops were present did Debate and Vote in the Case 21. 31 H. 6. The Bishops doubtless as well as in the 28 were present being Peers of the Realm as I have proved 22. 38 H. 6. The Commons did accuse the King answered He would be advised and so the Matter ended Here we have 22 Precedents cited by this Gentleman from the time of Clarendon Constitutions to the Trial of the E. of Strafford whereof one is a special Case three are insignificant and null in regard there was either nothing at all done or a stupid neglect of their Right or a careless throwing off of all Duty Four are doubtful Ten are for their presence at such Trials either in person under the Names and Titles of Bishops Prelates Peers Great men or Lords of Parliament or present virtually by their Proxies or their Protestations so that there are but four of all the 22 for their not appearing or not voting at such Trials 5. For a Supersedeas to all further enquiry or dispute about this matter we must take notice that the Canon which required the Bishops to withdraw at all Trials in Cases Capital is abolish'd and the Lords Spiritual are under no obligation to observe it To say the Civil Sanction does still enforce it is absurd for what is that Civil Sanction but an Act of Parliament and if an Act of Parliament hath abolisht it it has likewise abolisht all other Acts which might seem to ratifie and confirm it otherwise it should be abolisht and not abolisht taken away and yet in force still which are Contradictions and absurd The Gentleman takes notice of this to be the Bishops Plea p. 67 68. That it is only by the Canon Law that this restraint is upon them and that the forbearance of their Predecessors being Papists and so subject to that Law was only in that respect which Law being of no force at present and taken away by Act of Parliament they are now at liberty though in Modesty they think fit sometimes to withdraw but have a Right to continue sitting if they please What does the Gentleman answer to this He saith I do not deny but the Canon Law might give the first rise to such an Usage but it came afterward to receive a civil Sanction the stamp of Parliament-Authority and several confirmations ibid. But I have evinced already that his Allegations do not prove what he pretends to undertake and the practice of the Bishops withdrawing at such Trials having no other bottom to relie on than the Canon Law That being absolutely dissolved and broken by Act of Parliament cannot now support it 6. And lastly Seeing there is no other Authority to continue and inure this practice but that Popish Canon I should think it a very dangerous thing if the King should be severe for any person to attempt it for upon the Clergies submission to the King 25 H. 8. 19. the Statute saith thus Be it therefore now enacted by Authority of this present Parliament according to the said submission and petition of the said Clergy that they nor any of them from henceforth shall presume to attempt alledge claim or put in ure any Constitutions or Ordinances Provincials or Synodals or any other Canons unless the same Clergy may have the Kings most Royal Assent and Licence upon pain of every one of the same Clergy doing contrary to this Act and being thereof convict to suffer imprisonment and make fine at the Kings Will. After those Precedents above-mentioned the next the Gentleman meets with was the Earl of Straffords whose Trial in Parliament was compleated in a Judicial way but he was attainted and condemned by the Legislative Power where this Gentleman does acknowledge a Right in the Bishops to be present Why they did then withdraw themselves such as were not Eye-witnesses or Observers of those times may best learn from Mr. Hobbes his History of them To conclude the Author does protest that he hath the very same Design Aim and Wishes with that Gentleman for that Right may prevail is the natural wish of every good man And the prevention of those Mischiefs which the Enemies to our Religion and Government have plotted and do atchieve to put in execution has incited me to this task to satisfie my self and others where the Right is My Sentiments herein I humbly submit to the High and Honourable Court of Parliament and if I have written any thing that gives a just cause of offence to my Superiors I do here solemnly retract it This Gentleman is Ingenuous and leaves his Reader to his Liberty to weigh the Arguments on both Sides and judge for himself I have taken the freedom he allows me and delivered my Opinion I pray take you the same course without Partiality and then judge for your self FINIS