not see if he hath any eyes that by this reason if the proof be good many good Acts of Parliament may be made though the Commons either out of absence or opposition should not consent unto the same of whose consent unto that Statute whosoever it was there is as little to be found in that Record as the concurrence of the Bishops But for answer unto so much of this Record so often spoke of and applauded as concerns the Bishops we say that this if it be truly senced as I think it is not was the particular Act of an Angry and Offended King against his Clergy not to be drawn into example as a proof or Argument against a most clear known and undoubted Right The Cause stood thus A Constitution had been made by Boniface the 8th Ne aliqua collecta ex ecclesiasticis proventibus Regi aut cuivis alii Principi concedatur (†) Math. West in E. 1. that Clergy-men should not pay any Tax or Tallage unto Kings or Princes out of their Spiritual Preferments without the leave of the Pope Under pretence whereof the Clergy at this Parliament at St. Edmonsbury refused to be contributary to the Kings occasions when the Lay-Members of the House had been forwards in it The King being herewith much offended gives them a further Day to consider of it Adjourning the Parliament to London there to begin on the morrow after St. Hilaries Day and in the mean time commanded all their Barns to be fast sealed up The day being come and the Clergy still persisting in their former obstinacy Excluso è Parliamento Clero Consilium Rex cum solis Baronibus populo habuit totumque statim Clerum protectione sua privavit (*) Antiqu. Brit. in R. Winchelsey The King saith the Historian excluding the Clergy out of the Parliament advised with his Barons and his People only what was best to be done by whose Advice he put the Clergy out of his protection and thereby forced them to conform to his Will and Pleasure This is the Summa totalis of the Business and comes unto no more but this that a particular course was advised in Parliament on a particular Displeasure taken by the King against the Body of his Clergy then convened together for their particular refusal to contribute to his Wants and Wars the better to reduce them to their natural Duty Which makes not any thing at all against the Right of Bishops in the House of Peers or for excluding them that House or for the validity of such Acts as are made in Parliament during the time of such exclusion especially considering that the King shortly after called his States together and did excuse himself for many extravagant Acts which he had committed (†) Wolsingh in E. 1. An. 1297. against the Liberties of the Subject whereof this was one laying the blame thereof on his great occasions and the necessity which the Wars which he had abroad did impose upon him And so much as in Answer unto that Record supposing that the words thereof be rightly senced as I think they are not and that by Clerus there we are to understand Archbishops and Bishops as I think we be not there being no Record I dare boldly say it either of History or Law in which the word Clerus serves to signifie the Archbishops and Bishops exclusive of the other Clergy or any Writing whatsoever wherein it doth either notsignifie the whole Clergy generally or the inferiour Clergy only exclusive of the Archbishops Bishops and other Prelates Therefore in answer unto that so much applauded Cavil of Excluso Clero from what Record soever it either hath been hitherto or shall hereafter be produced I shall propose it to the consideration of the sober Reader whether by Clerus in that place or in any other of that kind and time we must not understand the Inferior Clergy as they stand distinguished in the Laws from my Lords the Bishops For howsoever it be true that Clerus in the Ecclesiastical Notion of the Word doth signifie the whole Clergy generally Archbishops Bishops Priests and Deacons yet in the Legal notion of it it stands distinguished from the Prelates and signifieth only the inferiour Clergy Thus do we find the Ecclesiasticks of this Realm divided into Prelates men of Religion and other Clerks 3 E. 1. c. 1. the Seculars either into Prelates and Clerks 9 E. 2. c. 3. 1 R. 2. c 3. or Prelates and Clerks Beneficed 18 E. 3. c. 2. or generally into the Prelates and the Clergy 9 E. 2. c. 15. 14 E. c. 1. 3. 18 E. 3. 2 7. 25 E. 3. 2 4. 8 Hen. 6. c. 1. And in all Acts and Grants of Subsidies made by the Clergy to the Kings or Queens of England since the 32 d. of H. 8 when the Clergy-Subsidies first began to be confirmed by Act of Parliament So also in the Latin Idiom which comes nearest home Nos Praelati Clerus in the submission of the Clergy to King H. 8. (†) Regist Watham and in the Sentence of Divorce against Anne of Cleve (*) Regist Cranmer and in the Instrument of the Grant of the Clergy-Subsidies presented to the Kings of England ever since the 27th of Queen Eliz. and in the form of the Certificates per (†) Stat. 8 Eliz. c. 17. ever since Praelatos Clerum returned by every Bishop to the Lord High Treasurer and finally Nos Episcopi Clerus Cantuariensis Provinciae in hac Synodo more nostro solito dum Regni Parliamentum celebratur Congregati (*) Stat. 1. Phil. Mary c. 8. In the Petition to K. Philip and Mary about the Confirmation of the Abbey-Lands to the Patentees so that though many Statutes have been made in these latter times Excluso Clero the Clergy that is to say the inferior Clergy who anciently had their place in Parliaments being quite shut out and utterly excluded from those publick Councils yet this proves nothing to the Point that any Act of Parliament hath been counted good to which the Bishops were not called or at the making of which Act they either were shut out by Force or excluded by Cunning. But then besides the so much celebrated Argument of excluso Clero the Author of the Pamphlet before remembred hath told us somewhat on the credit of Kilbancies book In which the Justices are made to say 7 Hen. 8. That our Sovereign Lord the King may well hold his Parliament by him and his Temporal Lords and by the Commons also without the Spiritual Lords for that the Spiritual Lords have not any place in the Parliament Chamber by reason of their Spiritualities but by reason of their Temporal Possessions But first this is but the Opinion of a private man of no Authority or Esteem for ought we can can find in the Realm of England and therefore not concluding in so great a business And 2dly admitting him to be a man
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
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
of more note and credit than perhaps he was yet he must needs fall short in all respects both for Abilities and Reputation of Chief Justice Coke whose Judgment to the contrary we have seen before But 3ly it runs cross to the ancient practice of the Saxon Times in which the Bishops sate in Parliament as Spiritual Persons without relation to their Temporal Possessions or their Barons Fees as afterwards in the Reign of the Norman Kings And finally admitting that Kilbancies Plea were of weight enough to keep the Bishops down from rising to their place in Parliament it must be strong enough to exclude all the Temporal Lords The Temporal Lords being called to Parliament on no other ground than for the Temporal possessions which they hold by Barony Adeo argumenta ab absurdo petita ineptos habent exitus said Lactantius truly It is the Fate said he of ill chosen Premises that they produce ridiculous and absurd Conclusions There remains one Objection more and indeed the greatest not extant in the Pamphlet before remembred though possibly promoted and occasioned by it that is to say that the Bishops are excluded from their Place and Vote by Act of Prrliament deliberately made and passed by the Kings consent For answer whereunto it will be necessary first to state this Question viz Whether that any two of the the three Estates concurring or agreeing together may conclude any thing which tends to the Subversion of the third Bodinus that renwoned Statesman hath resolved it negatively and determined thus Nihil a duobus ordinibus discerni posse quo uni ex tribus incommodum inferatur c. (†) Bodin de Rep. l. 3. c. 7. That nothing can be done by two of the three Estates to the disprofit of the third in case the point proposed be such as concerns them severally and he resolved thus in favour of the Commons of the Realm of France who were upon the point of being excluded from the Parliament or Convention of the three Estates if he had not notably bestirred himself in their behalf he being then a Delegate or Commissioner for one of the Provinces and by his diligence and care preserved their Interests and to preseve their Interest he insisted cheifly on the antient custom of the Realm of France as also on the Realm of Spain and England and the Roman Empire in each of which it was received for a ruled Case Nihil a duobus ordinibus statui posse quo uni ex tribus prejudicium crearetur That nothing could be done by any of the two Estates unto the prejudice of the third And if it were a ruled Case then in the English Parliaments there is no reason why it should be otherwise in the present times the Equity and Justice of it being still the same and the same reasons for it now as forcible as they could be then Had it been otherwise resolved of in the former ages wherein the Clergy were so prevalent in all publick Counsels how easy a matter had it been for them either by joyning with all the Nobility to exclude the Commons or by joyning with the Commonalty to exclude the Nobles Or having too much Conscience to venture in so great a change and alteration so incompatible Inconsistent with the Constitution of a Parliament how easily might they have suppressed the Potency and impair the Priviledges of either of the other two by by working on the humors or affections of the one to keep down the other Nor doth it help the matter in the least degree to say that the Exclusion of the Bishops from the House of Peers was not done meerly by the procurement of some of the other two Estates but by the Assent of the King of whom the Laws say He can do no wrong and by an Act of Parliament whereof our Lawyers say que nul doit imaginer chose dishonourable that no man is to think (†) Plowden in Commen dishonourable For we know well in what condition the King was when he passed that Act to what extremities he was reduced on what terms he stood how he was forced to withdraw from his City of London to part with his dear Wife and Children and in a word so over-powred by the prevailing Party in the two Houses of Parliament that it was not safe for him as his Case then was to deny them any thing And for the Act of Parliament thus insisted on besides that the Bill had been rejected when it was first brought unto the Lords and that the greater part of the Lords were frighted out of the House when contrary unto the course of Parliament it was brought again it is a point resolved both in Law and Reason that the Parliament can do nothing to the destruction of it self and that such Acts as are under a constraint are not good and valid whereof we have a fair example in the book of Statutes (†) 15 Ed. 3. For whereas the King had granted certain Articles pretended to be granted in the Form of a Statute expresly contrary to the Laws of the Realm and his own Prerogative and Rights Royal mark it for this is just the case which he had yeilded to eschew the dangers which by denying of the same were like to follow in the same Parliament it was repealed in these following words It seemed good to the said Earles Barons and other wise men that since the Statute did not proceed of our Free Will the same be void and ought not to have the name nor strength of a Statute and therefore by their Counsel and Assent we have decreed the said Statute to be void c. Or if it should not be repealed in a Formal Manner yet is this Act however gotten void in effect already by a former Statute in which it was enacted in full Parliament and at the self same place where this Act was gained That the Great Charter by which and many other Titles the Bishops held their place in Parliament should be kept in all points and if any Statute be made to the contrary it shall be held for none (*) 42 Ed. 3. c. 6. 1. More Arguments than these against the Bishops Place and Vote in Parliament I have no where found And these being answered and refelled I hope the point in question hath been fairly proved viz. That the Bishops make a Fundamental and Essential part of our English Parliaments AN ANSWER TO THE GENTLEMAN'S Letter to his Friend SHEWING THAT BISHOPS MAY BE JUDGES IN Causes Capital PSAL. 82. 1. Deus stat in Congregatione Dei in medio Deorum judicat LONDON Printed by Tho. Braddyll for Robert Clavell at the Peacock in S. Pauls Church-Yard 1680. AN ANSWER TO THE GENTLEMAN's Letter to his Firend SHEWING THAT BISHOPS MAY BE JUDGES IN CAUSES CAPITAL SIR I Thank you for the Gentleman's Letter you sent me touching the Right of Bishops sitting as Judges in Cases Capital This Order of Men is not Sacred enough it seems
Because in this present Parliament some things are to be transacted at which it is not lawful for us by the Decrees of the Holy Canons to be personally present This is the ground and reason of their protestation The wicked Customs therefore which that Monk inveighs against and which cost Becket so severe a Penance must be sought for elsewhere amongst the rest of those Sixteen Constitutions of Clarendon But whatever Opinion the Clergy of those times had of this Canon I doubt not to make it evident that it is grounded upon Principles of Superstition for as the Reverend Davenant hath Determ 11. it Quid impium quid illicitum What is in it that is impious What that is unlawful What that is contrary to the Office or Sacredness of a Priest where there is a just authority for it to bridle and restrain such as are notoriously wicked and disturbers of the Christian Commonwealth by civil penalties and corporal inflictions The Angels of Heaven think it no way disagreeable at Gods command to inflict corporal punishments upon the wicked And why should the Angels of the Church at the appointment of the King who is Gods Image upon Earth think it unlawful to adjudge the same wicked persons to deserve punishment The Act and Exercise of civil Jurisdiction of its own nature is not disagreeable to the most holy person nor any way opposite to the Sacerdotal Function We have the Authority of God himself in the practice of his most Ancient Church to justifie this Jurisdiction Under the Law God himself joyn'd it to the Sacerdotal Office it is not strange therefore nor forbidden by Divine Law that the Priest should obtain a Civil Jurisdiction We find it exemplified in Eli and Samuel and See Numb 25. 7 13. the Maccabees and all that were invested with the Office of High Priest This could not be expected amongst the Apostles because then the Civil Magistrates were not Christians yet S. Peter had once a supply of Civil Authority by a Miracle and to shew that it was not unlawful for an Apostle to give Sentence in Cases Capital He pronounc'd Saphira's Doom for Sacriledge and Lying Acts 5. 9. Behold the feet of them which buried thy Husband are at the Door and shall carry thee out But these New Masters of Israel were afraid a Sentence of Justice should defile them with the Blood of a Malefactor like the Priests and Elders among the Jews John 18. 28. when they had bought and sold the Life of our Blessed Lord and used all the Tricks that Craft and Malice could suborn to destroy him so precise they were for all that they would not go into Pilates Judgment Hall least they should be defiled and unfit to eat the Passover 'T was the Superstition of those Men to think they could render the Priests Office more Sacred and put more veneration upon his person then Gods own Institution had done They would not have him interess or concern himself in a Case of Blood least it should desecrate and unhallow his Person and stain his Function But we know that all Virtue is Ornamental and 't is as well an Act of Justice to condemn the Guilty as to acquit the Innocent 2. Here is Usurpation in this Canon and it is flatly against the King's Supremacy By this means a Foreign Power restrains the Sovereign Authority of the Kingdom from commanding the Service or making use of the Duty of his Subjects in such Cases The Force of this Canon divided the Prelates of those times between the Prince and the Pope either they did not understand or they did wilfully neglect their Duty and some Instances of the mischievous effects hereof this Gentleman gives us in his Letter He tells us p. 7 8. 5 E. 3. The Parliament was declared to be called for the redress of the Breach of the Laws and of the Peace of the Kingdom And because the Prelates were of opinion that it belonged not properly to them to give counsel about keeping the Peace nor punishing such Evils they went away by themselves and they returned no more Nor did their Disobedience stop here but the Gentleman tells us further at p. 96. That 20 R. 2. the Bishops upon occasion of the Statute of Provisors enter a Protestation against whatsoever should be done in derogation or restriction of the Power of their Holy Father the Pope saying they were sworn to his Holiness and to the Court of Rome These and the like Insolencies were the Fruits of those Immunities which the Prelates of those times received by the Decrees of those Holy Canons And as this Canon was grounded upon Superstition and did confront the Kings Supremacy so the Practice of it in those times was irrational and uncharitable First Irrational for 1. Why were the Prelates debarr'd the liberty of sitting Judges in such Cases Was it because they wanted Knowledge Reason or Discretion I suppose not If it were not because they had too little but too much of these Qualifications That was Irrational 2. That the Prelates have been and may be Judges of Misdemeanors this Gentleman does grant at p. 18. But there may be an Impeachment for sundry Offences under the name of Treason which really according to the Rule of Law are no more than Misdemeanors Why may not the Bishops sit as Judges in such Cases Must the Culprit be delivered up to Justice upon such Impeachments without any further Trial or Examination what will it amount unto This would be a kind of Hallifax-Law and that 's Irrational 3. In the Case of Sir John Oldcastle this Gentleman tells us Pag. 38 39. The Popish Bishops did excommunicate and condemn him for an Heretick and so turn'd him over to the Secular Judgment for execution yet certainly saith this Gentlem. p. 39. those good men I mean those Popish Bishops would have no more to do with him as to his further Execution that the World might see they were not men of Blood So that 't is pretended at least that this Holy Canon as they call it was design'd for Caution that the Prelates might have no hand in Blood and yet the practice is so irrational it does not sufficiently prevent it For in their Legislative capacity this Gentleman grants p. 3. that they may Sit and Vote and pass Bills of Attainder * He saith p. 51 the E. of Straffords Trial was compleated that way And p. 104. Acts of Attainder are Laws and every Freeman is supposed to give his consent to every Law either by his Representative or in person if a Member of Parliament and Bishops being Members may I think saith he claim to do it personally And though there be a great stir about such things as are preliminary and preparatory to Condemnation yet the Constitutions of Clarendon enjoyned them Let. p. 71. to attend the Court quousque perveniatur ad diminutionem Membrorum vel ad Mortem till it comes to loss of Life or Member which the