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
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
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
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
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
it to the Son and his Descendents and to the Family he should derive from himself and when this was alienated in Fee the descent of it was directed agreeably to the manner and direction of the first Collation If the Father gave the Son the Estate there was a Tenure created of the Father as there was in all Feofments of the Feoffer before the Statute of Quia emptores terrarum and it is a Rule in Law that a man cannot be haeres dominus Stamford's Exposition of the Prerogative chap. 5. fol. 23. B. If before the Statute of Quia emptores the eldest Son had enfeoffed the middlemost to hold of him and had taken his Homage the middlemost dieth without Issue the youngest should have had the Land and not the eldest Howbeit if there were no youngest Son or any other Heir than the Feoffor might claim the Land again by Escheat and not otherwise Another is this for a reason in our Law why the Children of several venters shall not inherit each others Lands it is told us it is so because they are but of the half blood to one another and therefore the Brother of the first venter shall not succeed to the State of the Brother by a second venter which dies without Issue But the Land must descend to the Uncle But this Uncle can be but of the half blood to the Nephew and the very reason that is given for the Law makes the Law unreasonable But the true reason why the Brothers of different venters cannot inherit each other is a disallowance that our Ancestors the Saxons had of second Marriages they as most of the Germane Nations esteeming them as concubinat and at best but as permitted Fornication So Tacitus tells us in his Book de moribus Germanorum that they did not allow of Second Marriages Ne non maritum sed matrimonium ament non nuptam sed nuptias and agreable to this Opinion are descents governed in several Countries in Germany at this day This tho' it is apt to excite all Gentlemen of the Robe never to acquiesce in any reason of the Law that is not sence which if they do they will forfeit their Reason and Judgment I should not have been so impertinent as to have mentioned in this Discourse but that this dealing in Causes without the exercise of clear reason about them hath brought it to pass that much of our Law will not sort to Natural Reason and Justice and this gave one great occasion to the Rise and Growth of the Court of Chancery Since it came in my way to shew the Original of the other Courts and the Reader may wonder that there is nothing in Antiquity that gives Authority to so celebrated and so busie a Court as this is at this day I will here offer an account of the Rise and Growth of it which will prepare the way for taking of it down which is no less a Reproach than it is a Grievance to the Nation There is nothing so great a Reproach to a Nation than to have Laws that are confessedly not good and equal to continue them and yet to allow of an Authority to reproach them with Iniquity that our Courts of Law should be under Rules and Obligations to pronounce Judgments which a single Gentleman shall authoritatively controul and condemn as unrighteous that Law and Equity should be Opposites That a Judgment must be made up and formd in a Case and what is equal just and fit therein must not be considered though it can be and will in another Court have a judicial Consideration Our Judges at Law take themselves bound not to hear or regard the Allegations of the Defendants against the Plaintiffs pretence which ought in good reason to bar them therein or at least qualifie the Judgments when the same matter shall be heard in Chancery and prevail either wholly to set aside or to qualifie the same Judgments This is not only to be complain'd of as derogatory to the Reputation of the Wisdom of the Nation but is insufferably oppressive to the Subject by the multiplicity of Suits tedious and vexatious Delays Nay by this ill Contrivance the Expences sometimes equal sometimes exceed the Value of the Right which is litigated and which is worse the Event of the Suit is very uncertain and fortuitous But this is not all our Law it seems is not a Rule that extends it self to all Causes and we have Rights confessedly such and which can be judicially remedied to which the Common Law extends no Relief For a thousand Causes in a year are for that reason heard in the Court of Chancery Two such Reproaches no Nation but ours hath ever yet incurr'd or suffer'd For Law and Equity is no where else opposed and every Right hath his Remedy by the Law of the Country but ours The first great occasion to the rise of the Chancery was Feoffments made upon Trust to uses in the time of our Warring about the Title of the Crown to avoid Forfeitures The Judges in tenderness to the Condition and necessity of those times did judge that an Use was no Right though most certainly it is For it is jus ad rem that nothing might be forfeited when it depended upon chance whether a man should be a good Subject or a Traitor And the same consideration easily admitted of any Authority that would interpose to relieve against those who would abuse or deny such Trusts and no body brought into question that authority by which a piece of justice so necessary to the Nation was administred Another great reason of the business of the Court of Chancery is that which we before-mentioned that we have not improv'd the Statute of Westm 2 C. 24. And a third is the ill conducting of our Laws our Ancient Judges were infected with the Monkery of that time men of no Learning and of a vain Subtilty The Theology of those times was insipid and most trifling and the Administration of Justice agreably turned into a vain art of disputing the apices juris and a subtilty was used too fine for business and to govern the affairs of Men that governed themselves by none of those Superfineries They argued without Discourse or discoursed from positive Rules or Presidents which were almost the same with them as Rules of Law and not from the true Merits of the Cause and its own particular reasons of Right And the Common Law which is Lex non scripta i. e. that which a wise Judicature should declare upon the consideration of the present Case was by the Proceedings of our Courts turn'd into a Lex scripta positive and inflexible and the Rule of Justice could not accomodate it self to every Case according to the Exigency of Right and Justice But if it were consider'd that there can be no Prescription against Justice that no Presidents where a Right hath not been relieved can be pretended why it should not be assisted hereafter And if a matter
established that those that were not Barones majores qui tenent de nobis in capite should be generally summoned It is observable that the Barones minores are so mentioned as if the name of Barons were not to belong to them Agreeable thereto is that we have mentioned in the style of our Parliaments of Milites liberè tenentes alii fideles and are all involved in this general Et universi de Baronagio Regni Angliae Several Instances of this are in Mr. Petyt aforementioned p. 111 112 113 114 115 116. besides that many Instances of the like Stile of Parliaments in those times are obvious That our Parliaments in those times were thus constituted is so clear that it cannot be dissembled But I do not deny but upon a change in the Succession to the Crown there might have been in this time extraordinary Conventions of the People to declare their Universal Assent for better assuring such Successor discountenancing the Rival Prince and preserving the Peace as in the Case of William the Second Henry the first King Stephen and King John which hath been usual in other Countreys in mighty Distresses of State such were in use amongst the Jews Josephus calls such an Assembly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Grotius in his Annot. p. 200. rells us Solitos fuisse Judaeos interdum in rebus ad summam Religionis aut Imperii spectantibus advocare ad Synedrium quotquot habere poterant tribuum primores aliisve honoribus praeditos ut quod constituerunt legis potius a populo probatae quam Senatus consulti haberet auctoritatem With the assent of such an Assembly as this at least King John should only if so have made this Kingdom Tributary to the Pope though I believe what he did in it he did without and against the Assent of that Parliament in which he could only therefore offer to do it He did no more effectivè than of Right he could which is nothing That which was done was without the Consent of his Bishops and Barons as appears by a Letter of his to the Pope in those words recited by Mr. Petyt in his mentioned Book Cum Comites Barones Angliae nobis devoti essent antequam Nos nostram Terram Domino vestro subjicere curassemus Extunc in Nos specialiter ob hoc sicut publicè dicunt violenter insurgunt And by another Letter of his to the Pope recited p. 163. Wherein he complains of the Bishops Disobedience on this Occasion which I the rather take notice of that the Cause of our Government might not be betrayed by depending upon such weak Inferences as those viz. that there was a House of Commons at that time which did not consent to the vassallating of the Kingdom by King John to the Pope For that otherwise it could have been validly done And that if our present House of Commons in the same Form as it is now constituted was not in Being ever after the Conquest it is not therefore an Essential part of our Government For if our Government must take its Fate upon such Issues as these I am sure we shall not long hold it The greatest Truths are betrayed by weak Proofs and the clearest Right sometimes lost by putting it upon an uncertain or improbable Issue This is certain that whatever thing of Government is introduced by the Consent of the Prince and that Alteration assented to and embraced avowed and owned by every man of the Community by Actions and other open Declarations of a full Consent and this continued for Centuries of Years and in all that time applauded and found agreable to the Interest of the Prince and People and the Old Government abolish'd and impracticable the very matter of its ceasing and it become a thing impossible as well as not desireable to restore it I say whatever Constitution is thus introduced and established is as unmoveable as unalterable or no Government is as if it had been ever so For there can be no Government in this World that is eternal how this Change came we shall speak to by and by But for the sake of Truth I must confess that I have no reason to believe that the Counties in all this time had their Representatives in Parliament by the formality of a Choice But this is a great mistake that the People cannot be represented but by such as are from time to time chosen by them when as every Government is the Representative of the People in what they are to be governed by it and by their Consent to it in the first erecting thereof they do trust their Governors with the Rule and Order of their Lives and Estates for the Common-weal For Government as well as Law is Republicae communis sponsio to use Bracton's Words I cannot easily tell which is more eligible for the assuring us of good Men in the Common Council of the Kingdom whether the Choice and Designation of a Person thereto by his Character and a General Rule or by the contingent Suffrages of the People But they are I am sure as much our Representatives who are appointed thereto by the Constitutions of the Government embraced and consented to by the People as those are whom the People nominate for that purpose I know no reason therefore why any should think that nothing is stable in our Government but what hath been ever so and in the same Form or that any man should be so affrighted with the Objection as if it made our Government shake which some slight Antiquaries for little Learning in Antiquity will serve for that purpose That our Parliament was not at all times such it is at this day It sufficeth to me that it was always materially the same When the Conqueror did innovate his Tenures in Capite and made all men of great Estates Barons and by their Tenures and Estates Members of Parliament we had then such Laws quas vulgus elegerit and then we had materially our three Estates though not so well sized and sorted as since I thought fit to say this for the preventing the World's being troubled with such Impertinent Labors and to divert those that thus employ themselves to undertakings more useful to the Publick and advantageous to themselves We had then I say many great Freeholders in every County that by their Tenures were Members of Parliament whereas now we have but two and though the People did not chuse them yet the men of that Order seem chosen once for all interpretatively by the People in their consent to the Government and they might be reasonably presumed to be faithful to the Commonweal from their own great Concernments therein In this Constitution scarce any man that was fit to be chosen but was without the Peoples choice a Member of Parliament as now they have more who are fit to be chosen than they can chuse So that the Barones minores were then instead of Knights of the Shire and the Barones majores Bishops and
afterwards sensible of the Injustice and Irregularity of their Proceedings in judging and condemning Commoners and for the avoiding of the like for time to come an Act of Parliament was made which followeth viz. El est assensu accord per nostre Seigniour le Roy touts les gents en plein Parlement per tant que les dits Peres come Judges du Parlement pristerint en le presence nostre Seigniour le Roy a faire a render les dits judgments passant du Roy sur ascun de ceux que n'estoient pas leur Peres ce que encheson de murdre de Seignior Lige destruction de celuy que fu sipres de Sank Royal fits du Roy que per les dits Peres que ore sont ou les Peres que serront en temps aveniz ne soient mes tenus ne charge a rendre judgments sur auter que sur lour peres ne ace fair mes eiont les peres de la terre poer eins de ceo pur tout Jours ore venu soient discharges quietes qui les avant dits judgments ore rendus ne soient ensample nen sequence en temps avenir per quoi les dits peres puissent estre charges desore judges autres que lour peres contre la ley de la terre si autiel case deveigne que Dieu defend Rot. Parl. 4 E. 3. 11. 6. This the Author of the grand Question concerning the Judicature of the House of Peers would have but an Order of the House and no Act of Parliament because it served his purpose to have it so but for no other reason which he offers in that Book but that it was an Act of Parliament will appear by a Record which my worthy Friend Mr. Petyt a most Industrious and Sagacious Enquirer into the Records of Elder Times hath furnished to me which is a Writ directed to the Barons of the Exchequer wherein the afore-recited Record is mentioned and called an Act of Parliament viz. Rex Thes Baronibus suis de scaccariis salutem mittimus nobis sub pede sigilli nostri quaedam Judicia in Parliamento nostro apud Westm nuper tent ' per Comites Barones alios Pares Regni super Rogero de Mortuo Mari quosdam alios reddita necnon quondam Concordiam per nos Pares praedict ' necnon Communitatem Regni nostri in eodem Parl. to fact ' super premissis mandamas quod Judicia Concordiam praedict ' in Scaccario nostro praedict ' coram vobis legi publicari ibid. seriatim in Rotulari de caetero ibid. observari Fac ' Teste meipso apud Windsor 15. die Februarii Anno Regni nostri quinti adhuc Brevia directa Baronibus de termino Sancti Hilar. anno 5 E. 3. R. 33. penes Rememor Domini Regis in Scaccario To compleat our Argument the Concordia appears now an Act of Parliament to the purpose that the Lords should not give Judgment upon others than their Peers yet we find the Bishops afterwards judged in Parliament and that in times near the making of this Act when we may be allowed to presume they knew this Law and besides the practice hath been conformable to the Law since as our Adversary confesseth and particularly to mention no more the Bishop of Norwich in the 7 R. 2. And Thomas Arundel Arch-bishop of Canterbury 21 R. 2. both for Treason were tryed in Parliament by Peers which Cases are before mentioned to another purpose There was likewise an Act of Parliament made 13 E. 3. n. 7. that the Nobles of the Land should not be put to answer but in open Parliament by their Peers but two years after that Act was repealed otherwise we should not have since heard of Tryals of Bishops by common Juries in Capital Causes And when the Lay-peers can again procure and provide for themselves such a Law they will not I hope envy the Bishops if they find them therein included CHAP. XIX BUt after all that hath been said it will be yet necessary to advertise the Reader for informing and settling a true Judgment of the Right of the Cause that in Questions of this Nature we can only arrive to a moral Certainty which is made by incomparably the greatest probability That we cannot be answered but by producing something at least equally probable to all the several parts of our Discourse that are to the question if by any Objection they should render any one part of our Discourse doubtful they would do nothing except they can do so to all the rest which can be done only by offering something more probable For when many probabilities are concurring to prove the same thing they do not singly stand upon their own Credit but they are all assisted by their Conjunction and give Aids mutually to support every one single probability This is but necessary to be said for that I see this Question will be kept up and defended with Obstinacy Passion Interest and unreasonable Contention And farther that it is very undecent that a question of this Greatness concerning a matter grave and important should be endlesly vexed with trifling Objections of the Nequam ingeniosi To prevent therefore the Caprice Captions Cavillations trifling Criticisms forcing of a Grammatical Sence of Words against their true and easie meaning most agreable to the subject matter to the occasion of speaking of them and their probable intendment and to the understanding of the Times when they were spoken And that we may be no longer or more troubled with their Opposings to that which is fairly probable an imagination of something barely possible and which otherwise doth appear notoriously false That Objections neither from the loose Stile especially of partial Historians nor from Records of Matters dark and obscure which leave us in doubt of their true meaning and therefore can be no ground for Argument nor from the various sence of words which they make to stand for this or that as it serves their turn At which rate nothing will be certain because few words have one single determinate Sence may any longer continue the Subterfuge of a desperate Cause and matter of endless Dispute I appeal to the World whether such like Objections deserve an Answer for to some of these Topicks whatever shall be produced by our Adversaries will be reduced And whether they are not rude and imperious to the Dignity of the Right in question to draw it to a Tryal by such mean and incompetent ways and unjust measures as they are otherwise in the Management of this Question to the persons of those that are concerned in it It is with passion to be resented that so noble a Question should be tryed by such means and incompetent ways of Probation and by such unnatural measures which can be endured by none but such who have no measures of Right but an agreableness to their own Projects and who are upon the search
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