inquisition or Impeachment the Lords in that of Judicature and determination with the consent and approbation of the King though many times without his personal assent and presence The King may be abused in his Grants and Patents to the oppression of the people or the dilapidation and destruction of the Royal Patrimony Judges and other the great Officers of Law and Equity are subject to corruptions and may smell of gifts whereby the passages of Justices do become obstructed The Ministers of inferiour Courts as well Ecclesiastical as Civil either exhaust the miserable Subject by Extortions or else consume him by delays Erroneous judgments may be given through fear or favour to the undoing of a man and his whole posterity in which his Majesties Justices of either Bench can afford no remedy The great Ones of the State may become too insolent and the poor too miserable and many other ways there are by which the Fabrick of the State may be out of Order for the removing of which mischiefs the rectifying of which abuses the Lords and Commons in their several ways before remembred are of special use yet so that if the King's Grants do come in question or any of his Officers are called to a reckoning they used heretofore to signifie unto his Majesty what they found therein and he accordingly either revoked his Grants or displaced his Servants or by some other means gave way unto their contentment the Kings consent being always necessary and received as a part of the final sentence if they went so far So that we may conclude this point with these words of Bodin who being well acquainted with the Government of this State and Nation partly by way of Conference with Dr. Dale the Queens Ambassadour in France and partly in the way of observation when he was in England doth give this resolution of the point in Controversie Bodin de Repub l. 1. o. 8. Habere quidem Ordines Anglorum authoritatem quandam jura vero majestatis imperii summam in unius Principis arbitrio versari The States saith he of England have a kind of Authority but all the Rights of Sovereignty and command in chief are at the will and pleasure of the Prince alone And to say truth although the Lords and Commons met in Parliament are of great Authority especially as they have improved it in these later times yet were they never of such power but that the Kings have for the most part over-ruled them and made them pliant and conformable to their own desires and this not only by themselves but sometimes also by their Judges by their Council often For such was the great care and wisdom of our former Kings as not to venture single on that numerous Body of the two Houses of Parliament whereby the Sovereignty might be so easily over-matched but to take with them for Affistants as well the Lords of their Privy Council with whom they might advise in matters which concerned them in their Sovereign Rights as their learned Council as they call them consisting of the Judges and most eminent Lawyers from whom they might receive instruction as the case required and neither do nor suffer wrong in point of Law and by both these as well as by the power and awe of their personal presence have they not only regulated but restrained their Parliaments And this is easily demonstrable by continual practice 4 Ed. 1. For in the Statute of Bigamie made in the fourth year of King Edward I. it is said expresly That in the prefence of certain Reverend Fathers Bishops of England and others of the Kings Council the Constitutions under-written were recited and after published before the King his Council forasmuch as all the Kings Council as well Justices as others did agree that they should be put in writing and observed In the Articuli super Chartas when the Great Charter was confirmed at the request of the Prelates 28 Ed. 1. c. 2. Earls and Barons we find these two claufes the one in the beginning thus Nevertheless the King and his Council do not intend by reason of this Statute Ibid. c. 20. to diminish the Kings right c. The other in the clofe of all in these following words And notwithstanding all these things mentioned or any part of them both the King and his Council and all they which were present at the making of this Ordinance do will and intend that the Right and Prerogative of his Crown shall be saved in all things In the 27th of King Edward the 3d. The Commons presenting a Petition to the King 27 Ed. 3. which the Kings Council did mislike were content thereupon to mend and explain their Petition the Form of which Petition is in these words following To their most redoubted Sovereign Lord the King praying the Commons that whereas they have prayed him to be discharged of all manner of Articles of the Lyre c. which Petition seemeth to his Council to be prejudicial unto him and in disherison of his Crown if it were so generally granted his said Commons not willing not desiring to demand things of him which should fall in disherison of him or of his Crown perpetually as of Escheats c. but of Trespasses Misprifions Negligences and Ignorances c. In the 13th of the reign of King Richard the 2d when the Commons did pray that upon pain of forfeiture the Chancellor or Council of the King should not after the end of the Parliament make any Ordinance against the Common Law 13 Rich. 2. the King by the advice of his Council answered Let it be used as it hath been used before this time so as the Regality of the King be saved for the King will save his Regalities 4 Hen. 4. as his Predecessors have done In the 4th year of King Henry IV. when the Commons complained against Sub-poenae's and other Writs grounded upon false suggestions the King upon the same advice returned this Answer that he would give in charge to his Officers that they should abstain more than before time they had to send for his Subjects in that manner But yet saith he it is not our intention that our Officers shall so abstain that they may not send for our Subjects in matters and causes necessary as it hath been used in the time of our good Progenitors Finally not to bring forth more particulars in a case so clear it was the constant custom in all Parliaments till the Reign of King Henry V. that when any Bill had passed both Houses Henr. 5. and was presented to the King for his Royal Assent the King by the abvice of his Privy Council or his Council learned in the Laws or sometimes of both did use to cross out and obliterate as much or as little of it as he pleased to leave out what he liked not and confirmed the rest that only which the King confirmed being held for Law And though in the succeeding
in their Convocations as well by the common assent as by subscriptions of their hands 5 6. Edw. 6. chap. 12. And for the time of Q. Elizabeth it is most manifest that they had no other body of Doctrine in the first part of her Reign then only the said Articles of K. Edward's Book and that which was delivered in the Book of Homilies of the said Kings time In which the Parliament had as little to do as you have seen they had in the Book of Articles But in the Convocation of the year 1562. being the fifth of the Q. Reign the Bishops and Clergy taking into consideration the said book of Articles and altering what they thought most fitting to make it more conducible to the use of the Church and the edification of the people presented it unto the Queen who caused it to be published with this Name and Title viz. Articles whereupon it was agreed by the Arch-Bishops and Bishops of both Provinces and the whole Clergy in the Convocation holden at London Anno 1562. for the avoiding of diversity of Opinions and for the establishing of Consent touching true Religion put forth by the Queens Authority Of any thing done or pretended to be done by the power of the Parliament either in the way of Approbation or of Confirmation not one word occurs either in any of the Printed Books or the Publick Registers At last indeed in the 13th of the said Queens Reign which was 8 years full after the passing of those Articles comes out a Statute for the Redressing of disorders in the Ministers of holy Church In which it was enacted That all such as were Ordained Priests or Ministers of God's Word and Sacraments after any other form then that appointed to be used in the Church of England all such as were to be Ordained or permitted to Preach or to be instituted into any Benefice with Cure of souls should publickly subscribe to the said Articles and testifie their assent unto them Which shews if you observe it well that though the Parliament did well allow of and approve the said Book of Articles yet the said Book owes neither confirmation nor authority to the Act of Parliament So that the wonder is the greater that that most insolent scoff which is put upon us by the Church of Rome in calling our Religion by the name Parliamentaria-Religio should pass so long without controle unless perhaps it was in reference to our Forms of Worship of which I am to speak in the next place But first we must make answer unto some Objections which are made against us both from Law and Practice For Practice first it is alledged by some out of Bishop Jewel in his Answer to the Cavil of Dr. Harding to be no strange matter to see Ecclesiastical Causes debated in Parliament and that it is apparent by the Laws of King Ina King Alfred King Edward c. That our Godly Fore-fathers the Princes and Peers of this Realm never vouchsafed to treat of matters touching the Common State before all Controversies of Religion and Causes Ecclesiastical had been concluded Def. of the Apol. part 6. chap. 2. sect 1. But the answer unto this is easie For first if our Religion may be called Parliamentarian because it hath received confirmation and debate in Parliament then the Religion of our Fore-fathers even Papistry it self concerning which so many Acts of Parliament were made in K. Hen. 8. and Q. Maries time must be called Parliamentarian also And secondly it is most certain that in the Parliaments or common-Common-Councils call them which you will both of King Inas time and the rest of the Saxon Kings which B. Jewel speaks of not only Bishops Abbots and the higher part of the Clergy but the whole Body of the Clergy generally had their Votes and Suffrages either in person or by proxie Concerning which take this for the leading Case That in the Parliament or common-Common-Council in K. Ethelberts time who first of all the Saxon Kings received the Gospel the Clergy were convened in as full a manner as the Lay-Subjects of that Prince Convocati Communi Concilio tam Cleri quam Populi saith Sir H. Spelman in his Collection of the Councils Anno 605. p. 118. And for the Parliament of King Ina which leads the way in Bishop Jewel it was saith the same Sr. H. Spelman p. 630. Communi Concilium Episcoporum Procerum Comitum nec non omnium Sapientum Seniorum Populorumque totius Regni Where doubtless Sapientes and Seniores and you know what Seniores signifieth in the Ecclesiastical notion must be some body else then those which after are expressed by the name of Populi which shews the falshood and absurdity of the collection made by Mr. Pryn in the Epistle to his Book against Dr. Cousins viz. That the Parliament as it is now constituted hath an ancient genuine just and lawful Prerogative to establish true Religion in our Church and to abolish and suppress all false new and counterfeit Doctrines whatsoever Unless he means upon the post fact after the Church hath done her part in determining what was true what false what new what ancient and finally what Doctrines might be counted counterfeit and what sincere And as for Law 't is true indeed that by the Statute 1 Eliz. cap. 1. The Court of Parliament hath power to determine and judge of Heresie which at first sight seems somewhat strange but on the second view you will easily find that this relates only to new and emergent Heresies not formerly declared for such in any of the first four General Councils nor in any other General Cuncil adjudging by express words of holy Scripture as also that in such new Heresies the following words restrain this power to the Assent of the Clergy in their Convocation as being best able to instruct the Parliament what they are to do and where they are to make use of the secular sword for cutting off a desperate Heretick from the Church of CHRIST or rather from the Body of all Christian people 5. Of the Reformation of the Church of England in the Forms of Worship and the Times appointed thereunto THIS Rub removed we now proceed unto a view of such Forms of Worships as have been setled in this Church since the first dawning of the day of Reformation in which our Parliaments have indeed done somewhat though it be not much The first point which was altered in the publick Liturgies was that the Creed the Pater-noster and the Ten Commandements were ordered to be said in the English Tongue to the intent the people might be perfect in them and learn them without book as our Phrase is The next the setting forth and using of the English Letany on such days and times in which it was accustomably to be read as a part of the Service But neither of these two was done by Parliament nay to say truth the Parliament did nothing in them All which was done in either of them
regni negotiis ac aliis tractari consuetis cum caeteris dicti regni Paribus aliis ibidem jus interessendi habentibus consulere tractare ordinare statuere diffinire ac caetera facere quae Parliamento ibidem imminent facienda In vita Gul. Courtney This put together makes enough abundantly for the proofs de jure and makes the Bishops right to have Vote in Parliament to be undeniable Let us next see whether this right of theirs be not confirmed and countenanced by continual practice and that they have not lost it by discontinuance which is my second kind of proofs those I mean de facto And first beginning with the reign of the Norman Conqueror we find a Parliament assembled in the fifth year of that King wherein are present Episcopi Abbates Comites Primates toties Angliae the Bishops Abbots Earls and the rest of the Baronage of England Matth. Paris in Williglmo 1. In the 9th year of William Rufus an old Author telleth us de regni statu acturus Episcopos Abbates quoscunque Regni proceres in unum praecepti sui sanctione egit that being to consult of the affairs of the Kingdom he called together by his Writ the Bishops Abbots and all the Peers of the Realm Eadmer hist Nov. l. 2. During the reign of Henry the 2d for we will take but one Example out of each Kings reign though each Kings reign would yield us more a Patliament was called at London wherein were many things dispatched as well so Ecclesiastical as secular nature the Bishops and Abbots being present with the other Lords Coacto apud Londoniam magno Episcoporum Procerum Abbatumque Concilio multa ecclesiasticarum secularium rerum ordinata negotia decisa litigia saith the Monk of Malmesbury Malmesb. hist reg Angl. l. 5. And of this Parliament it is I take it that Eadmer speaketh Hist Novel l. 4. p. 91. Proceed we to King Henry the 2d for King Stephens reign was so full of Wars and Tumults that there is very little to be found of Parliaments and there we find the Bishops with the other Peers convened in Parliament for the determination of the points in controversie between Alfonso K. of Castile and Sancho K. of Navarre referred by compremise to that King of England and here determined by K. Henry amongst other things habito cum Episcopis Comitibus Baronibus cum deliberatione consilio as in Roger Hoveden Hoveder Annal pars posterin Hen. 2. Next him comes Richard the first his Son during whose imprisonment by the D. of Austria his Brother John then Earl of Moriton endeavoured by force and cunning in Normandy to set the Crown on his own head which caused Hubert the Arch-bishop of Canterbury to call a Parliament Convocatis coram eo Episcois Comitibus Baronibus regni wherein the Bishops Id in Joh. Earls and Barons did with one consent agree to seiz on his Estate and suppress his power the better to preserve the Kingdom in wealth peace and safety After succeded John and he calls a Parliament wherein were certain Laws made for the defence of his Kingdom Communi assensu Archiepiscoporum Episcoporum Comitum Baronum omnium fidelium suorum Angliae by the common Council and assent of the Arch-bishops Bishops Earls Barons and the rest of his Leiges Remember what was said before touching the Writ of Summons in the said Kings time From this time till the last Parliament of King Charles there is no Kings reign of which we have not many though not all the Acts of Parliament still in print amongst us Nor is there any Act of Parliament in the printed Books to the enactig of the which the Bishops approbation and consent is not plainly spectified either in the general Prome set before the Acts or in the body of the Act it self as by the books themselves doth at large appear And to this kind of proof may be further added the form and manner of the Writ by which the Prelates in all times have been called to Parliament being the very same verbatim with that which is directed to the Temporal Barons save that the Spiritual Lords are commanded to attend to the service in fide dilectione the Temporal in fide homagio and of late times in fide legeantia A form or copy of which summons as ancient as King Johns time V. Titles of Hon. pt 2. c. 5. is still preserved upon Record directed nominatim to the Arch-bishop of Canterbury and then a scriptum est similiter to the residue of the Bishops Abbots Earls and Barons Then add the Priviledg of Parliament for themselves and their servants during the time of the Sessions the liberty to kill and take one or two of the Kings Deer as they pass by any of his Forests in coming to the Parliament upon his commandment Charta de Foresta cap. Cambden in Britannia their enjoying of the same immunities which are and have been heretofore enjoyed by the Temporaal Barons and tell me if the Bishops did not sit in Parliament by as good a Title and have not sat there longer by some hundreds of years in their Predecessors as or than any of the Temporal Lords do sit or have sat there in their Progenitours and therefore certainly Essential Fundamental parts of the Court of Parliament But against this it is objected first that some Acts have passed in Parliament to which the Prelates did not Vote not 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 both 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 an 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 copnformity to some former Canons ad sanctorum Canonum instituta Antiqu. Brit. in Gul. Conrineâ— Constitut Othobon fol. 45. as their own words are by which it was not lawful for the Clergy-men to be either Judges or Assessors in causa Sanguinis And yet they took such care to preserve their Interests that they did not only give their Proxies for the representing of their persons but did put up their Protestation with a salvo jure for the preserving of their rights for the time to come jure Paritatis interessendi in dicto Parliamento quaod omnia singula ibi exercenda in omnibus semper salvo Antiqu. Britan. in Gul. Courtney as the manner was Examples of the 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 Praelatis when the Bishops
regulated by the three Estates 6. Of what Authority they have been antiently in the Parliaments of Scotland 7. The King of England always accounted heretofore for an absolute Monarch 8. No part of Sovereignty invested legally in the English Parliaments 9. The three Estates assembled in the Parment of England subordinate unto the King not co-ordinate with him 10. The Legislative power of Parliaments is properly and legally in the King alone 11. In what particulars the power of the English Parliament doth consist especially 12. The Kings of England ordinarily over-rule their Parliaments by themselves their Council and their Judges 13. Objections answered touching the power and practice of some former Parliaments and the testimonies given unto them 14. No such Authority given by God in Holy Scripture to any such Popular Magistrates as Calvin dreams of and pretends 15. The Application and Conclusion of the whole discourse I Have been purposely more copious in the former Chapter because I thought it necessary to declare and manifest who made the three Estates in each several Kingdom which are pretended by our Author to have such power of regulating the Authority and censuring the actions and the persons of their Sovereign Princes And this the rather in regard it is thought of late and more than thought presented to the world in some publick writings especially as it relates to the Realm of England that the King the Lords and Commons make the three Estates which brings the King into an equal rank with the other two in reference to the business and affairs of Parliament A fancy by what accident soever it was broached and published which hath no consistence either with truth or ordinary observation or with the practice of this Realm or of any other For the proof of this my position that the King is none of the three Estates as is now pretended if all proofs else should fail I have one from Calvin whose judgment in this point amongst many of us will be instar omnium Calvin instit 4. cap. ult For where he saith in singulis Regnis tres esse Ordines that there are three Estates in each several Kingdom and that these three Estates convened in Parliament or by what other name soever they call their meeting are furnished with a power Regum lididinem moderandi of moderating the licentiousness of Kings and Princes and that they become guilty of perfidious dissimulation si Regibus impotenter grassantibus c. If they connive at Kings when they play the Tyrants or wantonly insult on the common people I trow it cannot be conceived that the King is any one of the three Estates who are here trusted or at least supposed to be intrusted with sufficient power as well to regulate his authority as to control his actions If Calvin be allowed to have common sense and to have wit and words enough to express his meaning as even his greatest Adversaries do confess he had it must be granted that he did not take the King of what Realm soever to be any of the three Estates or if he did he would have thought of other means to restrain his insolencies than by leaving him in his own hands to his own correction Either then Calvin is mistaken in the three Estates and if he be mistaken in designing the men he aims at may he not be mistaken in the power he gives them or else the King is none and indeed can be none of the three Estates qui primarios conventus peragunt who usually convene in Parliament for those ends and purposes before remembred But not to trust to him alone though questionless he be ideoneus testis in the present case Let us behold the Assembly of the three Estates or Conventus Ordinum in France from whence it is conceived that all Assemblies of this kind had their first Original and we shall find a very full description of them in the Assembly des Estats at Bloys under Henry III. Anno 1577. of which thus Thuanus Rex in sublimi loco sub uranisco sedebat Thanus in histor sci temp l. 63. c. The King saith he sate on an high erected Throne under the Canopy of State the Queen-Mother and the Queen his Wife and all the Cardinals Princes Peers upon either hand And then it followeth Transtris infra dispositis ad dextram suam sacri Ordinis Delegati ad laevam Nobilitas infra plebetus ordo sedebat that on some lower forms there sate the Delegates of the Clergy towards the right hand of the King the Nobility towards the left and the Commissioners for the Commons in the space below We may conjecture at the rest by the view of this Of those in Spain by those Conventions of the States which before we spake of at Burgos Monson Toledo and in other places in which the King is always mentioned as a different person who called them and dissolved them as he saw occasion For Scotland it is ordinary in the stile of Parliaments to say the King and the Estates do ordain and constitute for which I do refer you to the Book of Statutes which clearly makes the King to be a different person from the Estates of that Kingdom And as for England Statutes of Scotland besides what may be gathered from the former Chapter we read in the History of Titus Livius touching the Reign and Acts of King Henry V. that when his Funerals were ended the three Estates of the Realm of England did assemble together and declared his Son King Henry VI. being an Infant of eight months old to be their Sovereign Lord Tit. Liv. M. S. in Bibl. Bodl. as his Heir and Successor And in the Parliament Rolls of King Richard III. there is mention of a Bill or Parchment presented to that Prince being then Duke of Glocester on the behalf and in the name of the three Estates of this Realm of England that is to wit of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and of the Commons by name which forasmuch as neither the said three Estates nor the persons which delivered it on their behalf were then Assembled in form of Parliament was afterwards in the first Parliament of that King by the same three Estates Assembled in this present Parliament I speak the very words of the Act it self and by Authority of the same enrolled Ap. Speed in K. Rich. 3. recorded and approved And at the request and by the assent of three Estates of this Realm that is to say the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons of this Land Assembled in this present Parliament and by Authority of the same it be pronounced decreed and declared that our said Sovereign Lord the King was and is the very and undoubted Heir of this Realm of England 1 Eliz. cap. 3. c. And so it is acknowledged in a Statute of 1 Eliz. cap. 3. where the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons in that Parliament assembled being said
of Charters under the Great Seal or else as Proclamations of Grace and Favour so do they carry still this mark of their first procuring the King willeth the King commandeth the King ordaineth the King provideth the King grants c. And when the Kings were pleased to call their Estates together it was not out of an Opinion that they could not give away their Power or dispense their Favours or abate any thing of the severity of their former Government without the approbation and consent of their people but out of just fear lest any one of the three Estates I mean the Clergy the Nobility and the Commons should insist on any thing which might be prejudicial to the other two The Commons being always on the Craving part and suffering as much perhaps from their immediate Lords as from their King might possibly have asked some things which were as much derogatory to the Lords under whom they held as of their Sovereign Liege the King the chief Lord of all In this respect the Counsel and Consent as well of the Prelates as the Temporal Lords was accounted necessary in passing of all Acts of Grace and Favour to the people because that having many Royalties and large immunities of their own a more near relation to the person and a greater interesse in the honour of their Lord the King nothing should pass unto the prejudice and diminution of their own Estates or the disabling of the King to support his Sovereignty And this for long time was the Stile of the following Parliaments viz. To the honour of God and of holy Church Preface an 1 Ed. 3. and to the redress of the oppressions of the people our Sovereign Lord the King c. at the request of the Commonalty of his Realm by their Petition made before him and his Council in the Parliament by the Assent of the Prelates Earls Barons and other great men assembled in the said Parliament hath granted for him and his Heirs c. To this effect but with some little and but a very little variation of the words was the usual Stile in all the Prefaces or Preambles of the Acts of Parliament from the beginning of the Reign of King Edward the 3d till the beginning of the Reign of King Henry the 7th save that sometimes we find the Lords complaining 10 Ed. 3. c. 21 Ed. 3. c. 28 Ed. 3. c. or petitioning and the Commons assenting as their occasion did require and sometime also no other motive represented but the Kings great desire to provide for the ease and safety of his people upon deliberation had with the Prelates and Nobles and learned men assisting with their mutual Counsel 23 Ed. 3. And all this while there is no question to be made but that the power of making Laws was conceived to be the chiefest Flower of the Royal Diadem to which the Lords and Commons neither joint nor seperate did not pretend the smallest Title more than petitioning for them or assenting to them it being wholly left to the Kings Grace and goodness whether he would give ear or not to their Petitions or hearken unto such Advice as the Lords or other great men gave him in behalf of his people And this is that which was declared in the Parliament by the Lords and Commons and still holds good as well in point of Law as Reason that it belonged unto the regality of the King to grant or deny what Petitions in Parliament be pleaseth But as the Kings came in upon doubtful Titles 2 Hen. 5. or otherwise were necessitated to comply with the peoples humours as sometimes they were so did the Parliaments make use of the opportunities for the encrease of their Authority at least in the formalities of Law and other advantages of expression So that in the minority of King Henry the sixth unto those usual words by the advice and assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and at the special instance and request of the Commons which were inserted ordinarily into the body of the Acts from the beginning of the Reign of King Henry the sixth was added this By the Authority of the said Parliament But still it is to be observed 3 Hen. 6. c. 2. 8 H. 6.3 c. that though those words were added to the former clause yet the power of granting or ordaining was acknowledged to belong to the King alone as in the places in the Margin where it is said Our Lord the King considering the premises by the advice and assent and at the request aforesaid hath ordained and granted by the Authority of the said Parliament 3 H. 6.2 and our Lord the King considering c. hath ordained and established by Authority of this Parliament 8 H. 6.3 And thus it generally stood but every general Rule may have some exceptions till the beginning of the Reign of King Henry the seventh about which time that usual clause the special instance or request of the Commons began by little and little to be laid aside and that of their advice or assent to be inserted in the place thereof for which I do refer you to the Book at large Which though it were some alteration of the former stile and that those words By the Authority of this present Parliament may make men think that the Lords and Commons did then pretend some Title unto the power of making Laws yet neither advising or assenting are so operative in the present case as to transfer the power of making Laws to such as do advise about them or assent unto them nor can the alteration of the Forms and stiles used in anitient times import an alteration of the Form of Government unless it can be shewed as I think it cannot that any of our Kings did renounce that Power which properly and solely did belong unto them or did by any solomn Act of Communication confer the same upon the Lords and Commons convened in Parliament And this is that which is resolved and declared in our Common Law where it is said Cited in the unlawfulness of resist p. 107. Le Roy fait les loix avec le consent du Seigneurs et communs et non pas les Seigneurs et communs avec le consent du Roy that is to say that the King makes Laws in Parliament by the assent of the Lords and Commons and not the Lords and Commons by the assent of the King And for a further proof of this and for the clearing of this point that the Lords and Commons pretend to no more power in the making of Laws than opportunity to propound and advise about them and on mature advice to give their several Assents unto them we need but look into the first Act of the Parliament in the third year of K. Charles being a Recognition of some ancient rights belonging to the English Subject An Act conceived according to the Primitive Form Statut. 3 Carol. in
times the Kings did graciously vouchsafe to pass the whole Bill in that Form which the Houses gave it or to reject it wholly as they saw occasion yet still the Privy Council and the Judges and the Council learned in the Laws have and enjoy their place in the House of Peers as well for preservation of the Kings Rights and Royalties as for direction to the Lords in a point of Law if any case of difficulty be brought before them on which occasions the Lords are to demand the Opinion of the Judges and upon their Opinions to ground their Judgment As for Example In the Parliament 28 of Hen. VI. The Commons made suit that William de la Pole Duke of Suffolk should be committed to Prison for many Treasons and other Crimes and thereupon the Lords demanded the Opinion of the Judges 28 Hen. 6. whether he should be committed to Prison or not whose Answer was that he ought not to be committed in regard the Commons had not charged him with any particular offence but with generals only which Opinion was allowed and followed In another Parliament of the said King held by Prorogation one Thomas Thorpe the Speaker of the House of Cemmons was in the Prorogation-time condemned in 1000 l. damages upon an Action of Trespass at the suit of Richard Duke of York and was committed to Prison for execution of the same The Parliament being reassembled the Commons made suit to the King and Lords to have their Speaker delivered to them according to the Privilege of Parliaments The priviled of the Barons p. 15. the Lords demanded the Opinion of the Judges in it and upon their Answer did conclude that the Speaker should stilll remain in Prison according to Law notwithstanding the privilege of Parliament and according to this resolution the Commons were commanded in the Kings name to chuse one Tho. Carleton for their Speaker which was done accordingly Other Examples of this kind are exceeding obvious and for numbers infinite yet neither more in number nor more obvious than those of our Kings serving their turns by and upon their Parliaments as their occasions did require For not to look on higher and more Regal times we find that Richard the 2d a Prince not very acceptable to the Common people could get an Act of Parliament 21 Ric. 2. to confirm the extrajudicial Opinion of the Judges given before at Notingham that King Henry IV. could by another Act reverse all that Parliament entail the Crown to his posterity 1 Hen. 4. and keep his Dutchy of Laneaster and all the Lands and Scigneuries of it from being united to the Crown that King Edward the 4th could have a Parliament to declare all the Kings of the House of Lancaster to be Kings in Fact but not in Right 1 Ed. c. 1. and for uniting of that Dutchy to the Crown Imperial notwithstanding the former Act of separation that King Richard the 3d could have a Parliament to bastardize all his Brothers Children Speeds Hist in K. Richard 3. Verulams Hist of K. Hen. 7. 11 Hen. 7. c. 10. to set the Crown on his own Head though a most bloody Tyrant and a plain Usurper that K. Henry VII could have the Crown entailed by an Act of Parliament to the issue of his own body without relation to his Queen of the House of York which was conceived by many at that time to have the better Title to it another for paying a Benevolence which he had required of the Subject though all Benevolences had been damned by a former Statute made in the short but bloudy reign of King Richard the 3d that King Henry VIII could have one Act of Parliament to bastardry his Daughter Mary in favour of the Lady Elizabeth 65 Hen. 8. c. 22 28. c. 7. 35 H. 8. c. 1. another to declare the Lady Elizabeth to be illegitimate in expectation of the issue by Queen Jane Seymour a third for setling the succession by his Will and Testament and what else he pleased that Queen Mary could not only obtain several Acts in favour of her self and the See of Rome but for the setling of the Regency on the King of Spain 1 Mar. ses 2. c. 1 2. 1. 2 Ph. M. c. 8.10 in case the Children of that Bed should be left in non-age And finally that Queen Elizabeth did not only gain many several Acts for the security of her own Person which were determinable with her life but could procure an Act to be passed in Parliament for making it high Treason to affirm and say That the Queen could not by Act of Parliament bind and dispose the Rights and Titles which any person whatsoever might have to the Crown 13 Eliz. c. 1. And as for raising moneys and amassing Treasures by help of Parliaments he that desires to know how well our Kings have served themselves that way by the help of Parliaments let him peruse a book entituled the Privilege of Parliaments writ in the manner of Dialogue between a Privy Counsellor and a Justice of Peace and he shall be satisfied to the full Put all that hath been said together and sure the Kingdom of England must not be the place in which the three Estates convened in Parliament have power to regulate the King or restrain his actions or moderate his extravagances or where they can be taxed for persidious treachery of they connive at Kings when they play the Tyrants or wantonly insult on the Common-people or otherwise abuse that power which the Lord hath given them Calvin was much mistaken if he thought the contrary or if he dreamt that he should be believ'd on his ipse dixit without a punctual enquiry into the grounds and probability of such a dangerous intimation as he lays before us But against this it is objected that Parliaments have disposed of the Militia of the Kingdom of the Forts Castles Ports and the Navy Royal not only without the Kings leave but against his liking that they have deposed some Kings and advanced others to the top of the Regal Throne And for the proof of this they produce Examples out of the Reign of King Henry III. Edw. II. and King Richard the second Examples which if rightly pondered do not so much prove the Power as the Weakness of Parliaments in being carried up and down by the private conduct of every popular pretender For 't is well known that the Parliaments did not take upon them to rule or rather to over-look K. Henry III. but as they were directed by Simon Montfort Earl of Leicester who having raised a potent faction in the State by the assistance of the Earls of Glocester Matth. Paris Henr. 3. Hereford Derby and some others of the great Lords of the Kingdom compelled the King to yield unto what terms he pleased and made the Parliaments no other than a means and instrument to put a popular gloss on his wretched purposes And
't is well known that the ensuing Parliaments which they instance in moved not of their own accord to the deposing of K Edw. the 2d or K. Richard the 2d but sailed as they were steered by those powerful Councils which Qu. Isabel in the one Walsingham in Hist Angl. Hypodig Neustriae and Henry Duke of Lancaster in the other did propose unto them It was no safe resisting those as their cold wisdoms and forgotten loyalties did suggest unto them qui tot legionibus imperarent who had so many thousand men in Arms to make good their project and they might think as the poor-spirited Citizens of Samaria did in another case but a case very like the present Behold two Kings stood not before him 2 Kings 10.4 how then can we stand For had it been an Argument of the power of Parliaments that they deposed one King to set up another dethroned King Richard to advance the Duke of Lancaster to the Regal Diadem they would have kept the House of Lancaster in possession of it for the full demonstration of a power indeed and not have cast them off at the first attempt of a new plausible pretender declared them to be kings in fact but not in right whose lawful right they had before preferred above all other Titles and set the Crown upon the heads of their deadly Enemies In the next place it is objected that Parliaments are a great restraint of the Sovereign power according to the Doctrine here laid down by Calvin in that the King can make no Laws nor levy any money upon the Subject but by the counsel and assent of the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament But this Objection hurts as little as the former did For Kings to say the truth need no Laws at all In all such points wherein they have not bound themselves by some former Laws made for the common use and benefit of the Subject they are left at liberty and may proceed in governing the people given by God unto them according to their own discretion and the advice of their Council New Laws are chiefly made for the Subjects benefit at their desire on their importunate requests for their special profit not one in twenty nay I dare boldly say not one in an hundred made for the advantage of the King either in the improvement of his power or the encrease of his Revenue Look over all the Acts of Parliaments from the beginning of the reign of King Henry III. to the present time and tell me he that can if he finds it otherwise Kings would have little use of Parliaments and less mind to call them if nothing but the making of new Laws were the matter aimed at And as for raising Moneys and imposing Taxes it either must suppose the Kings to be always unthrifts that they be always indigent and necessitous and behind-hand with the World which are the ordinary effects of ill husbandry or else this Argument is lost and of little use For if our Kings should husband their Estates to the best advantage and make the best benefit of such Escheats and forfeitures and confiscations as day by day do fall unto them If they should follow the Example of K. Henry VII and execute the penal Laws according to the power which those Laws have given them and the trust reposed in them by their People if they should please to examine their Revenue and proportion their expence to their comings in there would be little need of Subsidies and supplies of money more than the ordinary aids and impositions upon Merchandize which the Law alloweth of and the known rights of Sovereignty backed by prescription and long custom have asserted to them So that it is by Accident not by and Nature that the Parliament hath any power or opportunity to restrain their King in this particular for where there is no need of asking there is no occasion of denying by consequence no restraint upon no baffle or affronting offered to the Regal power And yet the Sovereign need not fear if he be tolerably careful of his own Estate that any reasonable demand of his in these money-matters will meet with opposition or denial in his Houses of Parliament For whilest there are so many Acts of Grace and Favour to be done in Parliament as what almost in every Parliament but an enlargement of the Kings favours to his people and that none can be done in Parliament but with the Kings siat and consent there is no question to be made but that the two Houses of Parliament will far sooner chuse to supply the King as all wise Parliaments have done than rob the Subject of the benefit of his Grace and Favours which is the best fruit they reap from Parliaments Finally whereas it is Objected but I think it in sport that the old Lord Burleigh used to say that he knew not what a Parliament in England could not do and that K. James once said in a Parliament that then there were 500 Kings which words were taken for a Concession that all were Kings as well as he in a time of Parliament they who have given us these Objections do either misunderstand their Authors or abuse themselves For what the Lord Burleigh said of Parliaments though it be more than the wisest man alive can justifie he spake of Parliaments according as the word is used in its proper sense not for the two Houses or for either of them exclusive of the Kings presence and consent but for the supream Court for the highest Judicatory consisting of the Kings most excellent Majesty the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Representees of the Commons and then it will not serve for the turn intended And what King James said once in jest though I have often heard it used in earnest upon this occasion was spoken only in derision of some daring Spirits who laying by the modesty of their Predecessors would needs be looking into the Prerogative or finding Errors and mistakes in the present Government or medling with those Arcana imperii which former Parliaments beheld at distance with the eye of Reverence But certainly King James intended nothing less than to acknowledg a co-ordinative Sovereignty in the two Houses of Parliament or to make them his Co-partners in the Regal power His carriage and behaviour towards them in the whole course of his Government clearly shews the contrary there never being Prince more jealous in the points of Sovereignty nor more uncapable of a Rival in those points than he But yet the main Objection which we may call the Objection paramount doth remain unanswered For if the three Estates convened in Parliament or any other popular Magistrate whom Calvin dreams of be ordained by the Word of God as Guardians of the peoples Liberties and therefore authorized to moderate and restrain the power of Kings as often as they shall invade or infringe those liberties as Calvin plainly says they were or that they know
be Lords of Parliament concerning which take this from Chief Justice Coke where he affirms that only a Lord of Parliament shall be tryed by his Peers being Lords of Parliament and neither Noblemen of any other Countrey nor others that are called Lords and are no Lords of Parliament are accounted Peers that is to say Peers within this Statute he meaneth the Magna Charta or Great Charter of England the ground of all our Laws and Liberties to this very day by which it seems that he conceived a Peer and a Lord of Parliament to be terms equivalent every Peer of the Realm being a Lord of Parliament and every Lord of Parliament a Peer of the Realm which clearly takes away the pretended difference that is made between them But secondly admit the distinction to be sound and solid yet it will easily be proved that Bishops are not only Lords of Parliament but Peers of the Realm In order whereunto we must take notice of some passages in our former Treatise touching the Bishops place and Vote in Parliament that is to say that from the first planting of the Gospel in the Realms of England parcelled at that time amongst several Kings the Bishops always had the principal place in their Common Councils which the Saxons call by the name of Wittenegemote or the Assembly of wise men and afterwards in the time of the Normans took the name of Parliaments In all which Interval from Ethelbert the first Christian King of Kent in the year of our Lord 605. till the death of Edward the Confessor which happened in the year 1066 no Common Council of the Saxons had been held without them and all this while they held their Courts by no other Tenures than purâ perpetuâ Eleemosynâ franke Almoigne as our Lawyers call it discharged from all Attendances upon secular Services And therefore they could sit there in no other Capacity than ratione officii spiritualis Dignitatis in regard of their Episcopal function which as it raised them to an height of eminence in the eye of the people so it was probably presumed that they were better qualified than the rest of the Subjects as the times then were for Governing the great Affairs of the Common-wealth But when the Norman Conqueror had attained the Crown he thought it an improvident Course to suffer so much of the Lands of the Nation as then belonged unto the Prelates whether Bishops or Abbots in the Right of their Churches to be discharged from doing service to the State And therefore he ordained them to hold their Lands sub militari servitute either in Capite or by Baronage or some such military hold whereby they were compellable to aid the Kings in all times of War with Men Arms and Horses as the Lay-subjects of the same Tenure were required to do Concerning which our Learned Antiquary out of Matthew Paris informs us thus viz. Cambden Brit. fol. 123. Rex enim Gulielmus Episcopatus Abbatias quae Baronias tenebant in purâ perpetuâ Eleemosynâ catenus ab omni servitute militari libertatem habuerunt sub servitute statuit militari Irrotulans singulos Episcopos Abbatias pro voluntate sua quot milites sibi successoribus hostilitatis tempore à singulis voluit exhiberi Which though at first it was conceived to be a great Disfranchisement and an heavy burden to the Prelacy yet Cambden very well observes that it conduced at last to their greater honour in giving them a further Title to their place in Parliament a claim to all the Rights of Peerage and less obnoxious to Disputes if considered rightly than that which formerly they could pretend to so that from this time forwards we must look upon them in all English Parliaments not only as Bishops in the Church but as Peers and Barons of the Realm of the same Tenure and therefore of the same preheminence with the Temporal Lords Which certainly must be the Reason that the Bishops of the Isle of Man are not called to Parliament because they hold not of the King by Barony as the rest of the English Bishops do but hold the whole Estate in Lands from the Earl of Darby Thus also saith a Learned Lawyer Coke Institut part 2. f. 3. Every Arch-bishoprick and Bishoprick in England are of the Kings foundation and holden of the King per Baroniam and many Abbots and Priors of Monasteries were also of the Kings foundation and did hold of him per Baroniam and in this Right the Arch-bishops and Bishops and such of the Abbots and Priors as held per Baroniam and were called by Writ to Parliament were Lords of Parliament And yet not Lords of Parliament only but Peers and Barons of the Realm as he shall call them very shortly on another occasion In the mean time we may observe that by this changing of their Tenure the Bishops frequently were comprehended in the name of Barons and more particularly in that passage of Magna Charta Coke Institut part 2. fol. 23. where it is said Comites Barones non amercientur nisi per pares suos that Earls and Barons are not to be amerced but by their Peers concerning which the said Great Lawyer tells us thus viz. That though this Statute as he calls it be in the negative yet long use hath prevailed against it for now the Amerciament of the Nobility is reduced to a certainty viz. a Duke 10 l. an Earl 5 l. a Bishop that hath a Barony 5 l. where plainly Bishops must be comprehended in the name of Barons and be amerced by their Peers as the Barons were though afterwards their Amerciaments be reduced to a certainty as well as those of Earls and Barons in the times succeeding And then if Bishops be included in the name of Barons and could not be legally amerced but by their Peers as neither could the Earls or Barons by the words of this Charter it must needs follow that the Bishops were accounted Peers as well as any either of the Earls or Barons by whom they were to be Amerced And for the next place we may behold the Constitutions made at Clarendon the tenth year of King Henry the 2d Matth. Paris in Hen. 2d Anno 1164. in which it was declared as followeth viz. Archiepiscopi Episcopi universae personae Regni qui Rege tenent in Capite habeant possessiones suos de Rege sicut Baroniam inde respondeant Justiciariis Ministris Regis sicut caeteri Barones debent interesse Curiae Regis cum Baronibus quousque perventum sit ad diminutionem membrorum vel ad mortem Where first I think that those words universae personae are to be understood of none but Ecclesiastical persons according to the notion of the word persona in the Common Law and so to comprehend the Regular Clergy as well as the Arch-bishops and Bishops But secondly if we must understand it of the Laity also it
Realm and in respect thereof of the House of Commons in Parliament Next to the Parliament the most renowned Judicatory of this Land is the Great Council of the Peers called by the King on sudden and emergent occasions which cannot safely stay the leisure of a Parliament for the prescribing of such remedies as the case requires and called so for no other reason but that it is a general meeting of the Bishops and Temporal Lords under the common name of Peers to give the King such Counsel and advice in his greatest difficulties as the exigencies of affairs shall suggest unto them which proves the Bishops to be Peers as well as any of the Temporal Lords Nor could it properly be called the Great Council of Peers if any but the Peers be invited to it The last example of which Council was that held at York about the latter end of September Anno 1640. upon the breaking in of the Scottish Rebels And the like Argument may be drawn from that Appellation which commonly is given to that place or Room wherein the Lords Spiritual and Temporal do consult together in the times of Parliament best known unto us by the name of the House of Peers and known unto us by that name for no other Reason but because it is appropriated to the use of the Peers that is to say the Nobles Spiritual and Temporal or the Bishops and the Temporal Lords for their Consultations And as they have the name of Peers and the Rights of Peerage so is there none of all the Antient Rights of Peerage which belong not to them as fully and as amply as to any of the Temporal Lords that is to say a necessary place and Vote in Parliament and a particular Writ of Summons to invite them to it the freedom of their persons from Arrests at the suit of a Subject not to be troubled with Essoynes or supplicavits in the Courts of Justice a power to qualifie their Chaplains to hold several Benefices not to have any Action against them tried except one Knight at the least be returned of the Pannel the Liberty of killing one or more of the Kings Deer in any of his Parks or Chases both in their going to the Parliament and returning home of which take this in General from our Learned Antiquary Cambden Brit. fol. 123. Inde Ecclesiastici illi omnibus quibus caeteri Regni Barones gavisi sunt immunitatibus nisi quod à Paribus non judicentur that is to say that they enjoy all priviledges and Immunities as the Lay Lords do but that they are not to be Judged by their Peers But first he is not certain that this exception their not being to be Judged by their Peers will hold good in Law and therefore leaves the resolution of that point to our Learned Lawyers sed an hoc sit Juris explorati dixerint ipsi Juris periti as his own words are And secondly the reason which he gives is no more than this that since by reason of the Canons they could not be Judges or Assessors in causa sanguinis they therefore were referred to a Common Jury of twelve Men in all publick Trials but by this reason they must either have no Trial at all or may as well be tried by their Peers as a Common Jury because they are disabled by those Canons from sitting in Judgment on the life of a Common Juror as well as of a Lord or Peer which I marvail Cambden did not see But weaker is the Reason which is given by Stamford in his Pleas of the Crown that is to say that Bishops are not to be tried by their Peers because they do not hold their place in Parliament Ratione Nobilitatis sed ratione officii and yet not only in regard of their Office eien en respect de lour possessions l'antient Baronyes annexes a lour dignitye but in regard of their possessions and those ancient Baronies which are annexed to their Sees which reason in my Judgment hath no reason at all for then the old Barons which were called to Parliament in regard of their Tenure as they were all until the time of King Richard the 2d could have no Trial by their Peers because they had no place in Parliament but in respect of their possessions or temporal Baronies and secondly the Bishops as before was proved are accounted Nobles and thereupon may challenge their place in Parliament not only ratione officii as anciently before the times of William the Conqueror but also ratione Nobilitatis since they were ranked amongst the Barons in regard of their Tenure Others perhaps may give this reason that Bishops in the former times were debarred from Marriage and that now holding their Estates and Honours only for term of life they are not capable of transmitting either unto their posterity which possibly may make the Laws less tender of them than they might be otherwise but then what shall we say of the Wives and Widows of the Temporal Lords who being either barren or past hope of Children shall notwithstanding be tried by their Peers according to the Statute of Henry the sixth Or put the case that any man should be created Earl or Baron for the time of his life or with a limitation to the Heirs of his body and either live unmarried or continue childless must he be therefore made incapable of a Trial by the Peers of the Realm because his Honours and his Life do expire together I think no reasonable man can say it and I hope none will It cannot be denied but that some Bishops have been tried by Common Juries that is to say Adam de Orlton Bishop of Hereford Thomas Lyld Bishop of Ely Thomas Merkes Bishop of Carslile John Fisher Bishop of Rochester and Thomas Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury but then it is to be observed that none but Fisher suffered death on that account whether by reason of some illegality in their proceedings or in reference to their High and holy Callings it is hard to say And secondly we may observe that though in some confusions and disorder of times such Presidents may be produced as in matter of Fact yet the Case is not altogether so clear in point of Law as not to leave the matter doubtful as we heard before and that it was conceived by some Learned men of that profession that if those Bishops had desired to be tryed by their Peers it could not have been denied them in a course of Justice And therefore thirdly we observe that the Bishops of Hereford and Ely did trust so much to their dependance on the Pope and their exemption from the power of all secular Judges that they refused absolutely to be tryed by any but the Archbishop of Canterbury as the Popes Legate in this Kingdom which possibly might put their Enemies upon a course of enquiring into their offences by a Common Jury the parties being wilfully absent and not submitting to a Trial in due course of Law
luck in making choice of three such instances which if true would not serve his turn Page 681 8. The danger which lyeth hidden under the disguise of such popular Magistrates as are here instanced in by Calvin Page 682 9. What moved Calvin to lay these dangerous stumbling-blocks in the Subjects way Page 683 10. The dangerous positions and practices which have hence ensued in most parts of Europe Page 684 11. The sect of Calvin professed Enemies to Monarchy and the power of Princes Page 685 CHAP. V. What are the three Estates in each several Kingdom of which Calvin speaks and what particularly in the Realm of England 1. Of the division of a People into three Estates and that the Priests or Clergy have been always one Page 687 2. The Priests employed in Civil matters and affairs of State by the Egyptians and the Persians the Greeks Gauls and Romans Page 688 3. The Priests and Levites exercised in affairs of Civil Government by Gods own appointment Page 680 4. The Prelates versed in Civil matters and affairs of State in the best and happiest times of Christianity Page 690 5. The Clergy make the third Estate in Germany France Spain and the Northern Kingdoms Page 692 6. That anciently in the Saxon times the Ecclesiasticks of this Realm were called to all publick Councils Page 694 7. The Prelates an essential fundamental part of the English Parliament ibid. 8. Objections answered and that the word Clerus in the Legal notion doth not extend unto the Prelates Page 698 9. That the inferior Clergie of the Realm of England had anciently their Votes in Parliament to all intents and purposes as the Commons had Page 700 10. Objections answered and that the calling of the Clergie to Parliaments and Convocations were after different manners and by several Writs Page 703 11. The great Disfranchisement and Slavery obtruded on the English Clergy by the depriving of the Bishops of their Votes in Parliament Page 705 12. A brief discussion of the question whether any two of the three Estates conspiring or agreeing together can conclude any thing unto the prejudice of the third Page 706 CHAP. VI. That the three Estates of every Kingdom whereof Calvin speaks have no Authority either to regulate the power or controll the Actions of the Sovereign Prince 1. The Bishops and Clergy of England not the King make the third Estate and of the dangerous consequences which may follow on the contrary Tenet Page 708 2. The different influence of the three Estates upon conditional Princes and an absolute Monarch Page 710 3. The Sanhedrim of no Authority over the Persons or the actions of the Kings of Judah Page 711 4. The three Estates in France of how small Authority over the actions of that King Page 712 5. The King of Spain not over-ruled or regulated by the three Estates Page 713 6. Of what Authority they have been antiently in the Parliaments of Scotland Page 714 7. The King of England always accounted heretofore for an absolute Monarch Page 715 8. No part of Sovereignty invested Legally in the English Parliaments Page 716 9. The three Estates assembled in the Parliament of England subordinate unto the King not co-ordinate with him Page 719 10. The Legislative power of Parliaments is properly and legally in the King alone Page 720 11. In what particulars the power of the English Parliament doth consist especially Page 723 12. The Kings of England ordinarily over-rule their Parliaments by themselves their Council and their Judges Page 724 13. Objections answered touching the power and practice of some former Parliaments and the testimonies given unto them Page 726 14. No such Authority given by God in Holy Scripture to any such Popular Magistrates as Calvin dreams of and pretends Page 727 15. The Application and Conclusion of the whole Discourse Page 728 De jure Paritatis Episcoporum The Right of Peerage vindicated to the Bishops of England Page 739. FINIS
the Lord Commissioners the Right of Sitting there 1. The Prebends Original Right 2. Their Derivative Right and lastly their Possessory Right Upon hearing the proofs on both sides it was ordered by general consent of the Lord Commissioners That the Prebends should be restored to their old Seat and that none should sit there with them but Lords of the Parliament and Earls eldest Sons according to the ancient custom After this there was no Bishop of Lincoln to be seen at any Morning-Prayer and seldom at Evening At this time came out the Doctor 's History of the Sabbath the Argumentative or Scholastick part of which subject was referred to White Bishop of Eli the Historical part to the Doctor And no sooner had the Doctor perfected his Book of the Sabbath but the Dean of Peterborough engages him to answer the Bishop of Lincoln's Letter to the Vicar of Grantham He received it upon good Friday and by the Thursday following discovered the sophistry mistakes and falshoods of it It was approved by the King and by him given to the Bishop of London to be Licens'd and Publish'd under the title of a Coal from the Altar In less than a twelve-month the Bishop of Lincoln writ an Answer to it Entituled The Holy Table Name and Thing but pretended that it was writ long ago by a Minister in Lincolnshire against Dr. Cole a Divine in the days of Queen Mary Dr. Heylyn receiv'd a Message from the King to return a reply to it and not in the least to spare him And he did it in the space of seven weeks presenting it ready Printed to his Majesty and called it Antidotum Lincolniense But before this he answered Mr. Burtons Seditious Sermon being thereunto also appointed by the King In July 1637. the Bishop of Lincoln was censured in the Star-Chamber for tampering with Witnesses in the Kings Cause suspended à Beneficio officio and sent to the Tower where he continued three years and did not in all that space of time hear either Sermon or publick Prayers The College of Westminster about this time presented the Doctor to the Parsonage of Islip now void by the death of Dr. King By reason of its great distance from Alresford the Doctor exchanged it for South-warnborough that was more near and convenient At which time recovering from an ill fit of Sickness he studiously set on writing the History of the Church of England since the Reformation in order to which he obtained the freedom of Sir Robert Cottons Library and by Arch-bishop Laud's commendation had liberty granted him to carry home some of the Books leaving 200 l. as a Pawn behind him The Commotions in Scotland now began and the Arch Bishop of Canterbury intending to set out an Apology for vindicating the Liturgy which he had commended to that Kirk desired the Doctor to translate the Scottish Liturgy into Latin that being Published with the Apology all the World might be satisfied in his Majesties piety as well as the Arch-Bishops care as also that the perverse and rebellious temper of the Scots might be apparent to all who would raise such troubles upon the Recommendation of a book that was so Venerable and Orthodox Dr. Heylyn undertook and went through with it but the distemper and trouble of those times put a period to the undertaking and the Book went no farther than the hands of that Learned Martyr In Feb. 1639. the Doctor was put into Commission of Peace for the County of Hampshire residing then upon this Living into which place he was no sooner admitted but he occasioned the discovery of a horrid Murther that had been committed many years before in that Countrey In the April following he was chosen Clerk of the Convocation for the College of Westminster at which time the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury sending a Canon to them for suppressing the farther growth of Popery and reducing Papists to the Church our Doctor moved his Grace that the Canon might be enlarged for the Peoples farther satisfaction as well as the Churches benefit what was done therein and many other notable things by that Convocation may be seen at large in the History of the Arch-Bishops Life Friday being May the 29th the Canons were formally subscribed unto by the Bishops and Clergy no one dissenting except the Bishop of Glocester who afterward turn'd Papist and died in the Communion of the Romish Church and was all that time of his Life in which he revolted from the Church of England a very great Servant of Oliver Cromwel unto whom he dedicated some of his Books But for his Contumacy in refusing to subscribe the Articles he was voted worthy of Suspension in the Convocation and was actually Suspended by the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury which being done the Convocation was ended In Novemb. 3. A.D. 1640. began the Session of the long Parliament At the opening of which a general Rumor was spread abroad that Dr. Heylyn was run away for fear of an approaching storm that was like to fall upon his head as well as on his Grace the Arch-Bishop of Cauterbury but he who was ever of an undaunted spirit would not pusillanimously desert the Cause of the King and Church then in question but speedily hastned up to London from Alresford to confute the common calumny and false report raised on him by the Puritan faction that he appeared the next day in his Gown and Tippet at Westminster-Hall and in the Church with the accustomed formalities of his Cap Hood and Surplice employed then his Pen boldly in defence of the Bishops Rights when the Lords began to shake the Hierarchy in passing a Vote That no Bishop should be of the Committe for Examination of the Earl of Strafford being Causa sanguinis upon which the Doctor drew up a brief and excellent Discourse entituled De jure paritatis Episcopum wherein he asserted all the Bishops Rights of Peerage and principally of this as well as the rest That they ought to sit in that Committee with other Priviledges and Rights maintained by him which either by Law or ancient custom did belong unto them A rare Commendation at this juncture of time for which the Doctor is to be admired that he could command his Parts and Pen of a sudden to write on this subject or any other if there was need that did conduce to the publick good and above all make a quick dispatch in accomplishing what he had once undertaken and begun But for those quick dispatches the Doctor afterward endured many tedious waitings at the backs of Committe-men in that Parliament especially in the business of Mr. Pryn about his Histriomastix for which he was kept four days under examination because he had furnished the Lords of the Privy Council with matters out of that Book which Mr. Pryn alledged was the cause of all his sufferings Great hopes had the Committee by his often dancing attendance after them to sift the Doctor if they could gather any thing by his speeches
Submission brought down the Convocation to the same Level with the Houses of Parliament yet being made unto the King in his single person and not as in conjunction with his House of Parliament it neither brought the Convocation under the command of Parliaments nor rendred them obnoxious to the power thereof That which they did in former times of their self-authority in matters which concerned the Church without the Kings consent co-operating and concurring with them the same they did and might do in the times succeeding the Kings Authority and Consent being superadded without the help and midwifery of an Act of Parliament though sometimes that Authority was made Use of also for binding of the subject under Temporal and Legal penalties to yield obedience and conformity to the Churches Orders Which being the true state of the present business it makes the clamour of the Papists the more unreasonable but then withal it makes it the more easily answered Temporal punishments inflicted on the refractory and disobedient in a Temporal Court may add some strength unto the Decrees and Constitutions of the Church but hey take none from it Or if they did the Religion of the Church of Rome the whole Mass of Popery as it was received and settled here in Qu. Maries Reign would have a sorry crutch to stand upon and might as justly bear the name of a Parliament-Faith as the reformed Religion of the Church of England It is true indeed that had those Convocations which were active in that Reformation being either called or summoned by the King in Parliament or by the Houses separately or convenedly without the King Or had the Members of the same been nominated and impowered by the House alone and intermixt with a considerable number of the Lords and Commons which being by the way the Case of this New Assembly I do not see how any thing which they agree on can bind the Clergy otherwise than imposed by a strong hand and against their privileges Or finally had the conclusions or results thereof been of no effect but as reported to and confirmed in Parliament the Papists might have had some ground for so gross a calumny in calling the Religion which is now established by the name of a Parliament-Religion and a Parliament-Gospel But so it is not in the Case which is now before us the said Submission notwithstanding For being the Body being still the same privileged with the same freedom of debate and determination and which is more the Procurators of the Clergy invested with the same power and Trust which before they had There was no alteration made by the said Submission in the whole constitution and composure of it but only the addition of a greater and more excellent power Nor was there any thing done here in that Reformation but either by the Clergy in their Convocations and in their Convocations rightly called and Canonically constituted or with the councel and advice of the Heads thereof in more private conferences the Parliaments of these times contributing very little towards it but acquiescing in the Wisdom of the Sovereign Prince and in the piety and zeal of the Ghostly Fathers This is the ground-work or foundation of the following Building I now time I should proceed to the Superstructures beginning first with the Ejection of the Pope and vesting the Supremacy in the Regal Crown 2. Of the Ejection of the Pope and vesting the Supremacy in the Regal Crown AND first beginning with the Ejection of the Pope and his Authority that led the way unto the Reformation of Religion which did after follow It was first voted and decreed in the Convocation before ever it became the subject of an Act of Parliament For in the year 1530. 22 Hen. 8. the Clergy being caught in a premunire were willing to redeem their danger by a sum of money and to that end the Clergy of the Province of Canterbury bestowed upon the King the sum of 100000 l. to be paid by equal portions in the same year following but the King would not so be satisfied unless they would acknowledge him for the supream Head on earth for the Church of England which though it was hard meat and would not easily down amongst amongst them yet it passed at last For being throughly debated in a Synodical way both in the upper and lower Houses of Convocation they did in sine agree upon this expression Cujus Ecclesiae sc Anglicanae Singularem protectorem unicum Supremum Dominum quantum per Christi leges licet Supremum caput ipsius Majestatem recognoscimus To this they all consented and subscribed their Hands and afterwards incorporated it into the publik Act or Instrument which was presented to the King in the Name of his Clergy for the redeeming of their errour and the grant of their money which as it doth at large appear in the Records and Acts of the Convocation so it is touched upon in a Historical way in the Antiq. Britan. Mason de Minist Anglic. and other Authors by whom it also doth appear that what was thus concluded on by the Clergy of the Province of Canterbury was also ratified and confirmed by the Convocation of the Province of York according to the usual custom save that they did not buy their pardon at so dear a rate This was the leading Card to the Game that followed For on this ground were built the Statutes prohibiting all Appeals to Rome and for determining all Ecclesiastical suits and controversies within the Kingdoms 24 H. 8. c. 12. That for the manner of electing and consecrating of Arch-Bishops and Bishops 25 H. 8. c. 20. and the prohibiting the payment of all Impositions to the Court of Rome and for obtaining all such dispensations from the See of Canterbury which formerly were procured from the Popes of Rome 25 H. 8. c. 21. Which last is builkt expresly upon this foundation That the King is the only supream Head of the Church of England and was so recognized by the Prelates and Clergy representing the said Church in their Convocation And on the very same foundation was the Statute raised 26 H. 8. c. 1. wherein the King is declared to be the supream Head of the Church of England and to have all honour and preheminences which were annexed unto that Title as by the Act it self doth at full appear Which Act being made I speak it from the Act it self only for corroboration and confirmation of that which had been done in the Convocation did afterwards draw on the Statute for the Tenths and first fruits as the point incident to the Headship or supream Authority 26 H. 8. c. 3. The second step to the Ejection of the Pope was the submission of the Clergy to the said King Henry whom they had recognizanced for their supream Head And this was first concluded on in the Convocation before it was proposed or agitated in the Houses of Parliament and was commended only to the care of the
was only by the King's Authority by vertue of the Headship or Supremacy which by way of recognition was vested in him by the Clergy either co-operating and concurring with them in their Convocations or else directed and assisted by such learned Prelates with whom he did advise in matters which concerned the Church and did relate to Reformation By virtue of which Headship or Supremacy he ordained the first and to that end caused certain Articles or Injunctions to be published by the Lord Cromwel then his Viear General Anno 1536. And by the same did he give order for the second I mean for the saying of the Letany in the English Tongue by his own Royal Proclamation Anno 1545. For which consult the Acts and Monuments fol. 1248 1312. But these were only preparations to a greater work which was reserved unto the times of K. Edw. 6. In the beginning of whose Reign there passed a Statute for the administring the Sacrament in both kinds to any person that should devoutly and humbly desire the same 1 E. 6. c. 1. In which it is to be observed that though the Statute do declare that the ministring of the same in both kinds to the people was more agreeable to the first Institution of the said Sacrament and to the common usage of the primitive Times Yet Mr. Fox assures us and we may take his word that they did build that Declaration and consequently the Act which was raised upon it upon the judgment and opinion of the best learned men whose resolution and advice they followed in it fol. 1489. And for the Form by which the said most blessed Sacrament was to be delivered to the common people it was commended to the care of the most grave and learned Bishops and others assemby the King at His Castle of Windsor who upon long wise learned and deliberate advice did finally agree saith Fox upon one godly and uniform zOrder for receiving of the same according to the right rule of Scriptures and the first use of the primitive Church fol. 1491. Which Order as it was set forth in Print Anno 1548. with a Proclamation in the name of the King to give Authority thereunto amongst the people so was it recommended by special Letters writ unto every Bishop severally from the Lords of the Council to see the same put in execution A copy of which Letters you may find in Fox fol. 1491. as afore is said Hitherto nothing done by Parliament in the Forms of Worship but in the following year there was For the Protector and the rest of the Kings Council being fully bent for a Reformation thought it expedient that one uniform quiet and godly Order should be had throughout the Realm for Officiating God's divine Service And to that end I use the words of the Act it self appointed the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and certain of the most learned and discreet Bishops and other learned men of the Realm to meet together requiring them that having as well eye and respect to the most pure and sincere Christian Religion taught in Scriptures as to the usages in the Primitive Church they should draw and make one convenient and meet Order Rite and fashion of Common Prayer and Administration of Sacraments to be had and used in this his Majesties Realm of England Well what did they being thus assembled that the Statute tells us Where it is said that by the aid of the Holy Ghost I pray you mark this well and with one uniform agreement they did conclude upon and set forth an Order which they delivered to the Kings Highness in a Book entituled The Book of Common-Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church after the use of the Church of England All this was done before the Parliament did any thing But what was done by them at at last Why first considering the most godly travel of the King's Highness and the Lord Protector and others of his Highness Council in gathering together the said B. and learned men Secondly The Godly Prayers Orders Rites and Ceremonies in the said Book mentioned Thirdly The motive and inducements which inclined the aforesaid learned men to alter those things which were altered and to retain those things which were retained And finally taking into consideration the honour of God and the great quietness which by the grace of God would ensue upon it they gave his Majesty most hearty and lowly thanks for the same and most humbly prayed him that it might be ordained by his Majesty with the assent of the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament and by Authority of the same that the said Form of Common-Prayer and no other after the Feast of Pentecost next following should be used in all his Majesties Dominions with several penalties to such as either should deprave or neglect the same 2 and 3. E. 6. cap. 1. So far the very words of the Act it self By which it evidently appeareth that the two Houses of Parliament did nothing in the present business but impose that Form upon the people which by the learned and religious Clergy-men whom the K. appointed thereunto was agreed upon and made it penal unto such as either should deprave the same or neglect to use it And thus doth Poulton no mean Lawyer understand the Statute who therefore gives no other title to it in his Abridgement publish'd in the year 1612. than this The penalty for not using uniformity of Service and Ministration of the Sacrament So then the making of one uniform Order of celebrating divine Service was the work of the Clergy the making of the Penalties was the work of the Parliament Where let me tell yu by the way that the men who were employed in this weighty business whose names deserve to be continued in perpetual memory were Thomas Cranmer Arch-Bishop of Canterbury George Day Bishop of Chichester Thomas Goodrich B. of Ely and Lord Chancellour John Ship Bishop of Hereford Henry Holbeck Bishop of Lincoln Nicholas Ridley Bishop of Rochester translated afterwards to London Thomas Thirlby Bishop of Westminster Dr. May Dean of St. Pauls Dr. Taylor then Dean afterwards Bishop of Lincoln Dr. Hains Dean of Exeter Dr. Robertson afterwards Dean of Durham Dr. Redman Master of Trinity Colledge in Cambridge and Dr. Cox then Almoner to the King afterward Dean of Westminster and at last Bishop of Ely men famous in their generations and the honour of the Age they lived in And so much for the first Liturgy of King Edwards Reign in which you see how little was done by Authority or power of Parliament so little that if it had been less it had been just nothing But some exceptions being taken against the Liturgy by some of the preciser sort at home and by Calvin abroad the Book was brought under a review And though it had been framed at first if the Parliament which said so erred not by the ayd of the Holy Ghost himself yet to comply with
came out in some years succeeding for the taking away of Images and Reliques with all the Ornaments of the same and all the Monumens and writings of feigned Miracles and for restraint of offering or setting up Lights in any Churches but only to the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar in which he was directed chiefly by Arch-Bishop Cranmer as also those for eating of white meats in the time of Lent the abolishing the Fast on St. Marks day and the ridiculous but superstitious sports accustomably used on the days of St. Clement St. Katherine and St. Nicholas All which and more was done in the said Kings Reign without help of Parliament For which I shall refer you to the Acts and Mon. fol. 1385 1425 1441. The like may also be affirmed of the Injunctions published in the name of K. E. 6. An. 1547. and printed also then for the Use of the Subjects And of the several Letters missive which went forth in his Name prohibiting the bearing of Candles on Candlemas-day of Ashes in Lent and of Palms on Palm-sunday for the taking down of all the Images throughout the Kingdom for administring the Communion in both kinds dated March 13 1548. for abrogating of private Masses June 24 1549. for bringing in all Missals Graduals Processionals Legends and Ordinals about the latter end of December of the same year for taking down of Altars and setting up Tables instead thereof An. 1550. and the like to these All which particulars you have in Foxes Book of Acts and Mon. in King Edwards life which whether they were done of the Kings meer motion or by advice of his Council or by consultation with his Bishops for there is little left upon Record of the Convocations of that time more than the Articles of the year 1552 certain I am that there was nothing done nor yet pretended to be done in all these particulars by the Authority of Parliament Thus also in Q. Elizabeths time before the new Bishops were well settled and the Queen assured of the affections of her Clergy she went that way to work in the Reformation which not only her two Predecessors but all the Godly Kings and Princes in the Jewish State and many of the Christian Emperours in the Primitive times had done before her in the well ordering of the Church and People committed to their care and government by Almighty God and to that end she published her Injunctions An. 1559. A Book of Orders An. 1561. Another of Advertisements An. 1562. All tending unto Reformation unto the building up of the new Jerusalem with the advice and counsel of the Metropolitan and some other Godly Prelates who were then a-about her by whom they were agreed on and subscribed unto before they were presented to her without the least concurrence of her Court of Parliament But when the times were better settled and the first difficulties of her Reign passed over she left Church-work to the disposing of Church-men who by their place and calling were most proper for it and they being met in Convocation and thereto Authorised as the Laws required did make and publish several Books of Canons as viz. 1571. An. 1584. An. 1597. Which being confirmed by the Queen under the broad Seal of England were in force of Laws to all intents and purposes which they were first made but being confirmed without those formal words Her Heirs and Successors are not binding now but expired together with the Queen No Act of Parliament required to confirm them then nor never required ever since on the like occasion A fuller evidence whereof we cannot have than in the Canons of year 1603. being the first year of King James made by the Clergy only in the Convocation and confirmed only by the King for though the old Canons were in force which had been made before the submission of the Clergy as before I shewed you which served in all these wavering and unsettled times for the perpetual standing rule of the Churches Government yet many new emergent cases did require new rules and whilst there is a possibility of Mali mores there will be a necessity of bonae Leges Now in the confirmation of these Canons we shall find it thus That the Clergy being met in their Convocation according to the Tenour and effect of his Majesties Writ his Majesty was pleased by virtue of his Prerogative Royal and Supream Authority in causes Ecclesiastical to give and grant unto them by his Letters Patents dated April 12. and June 25. full free and lawful liberty licence power and authority to convene treat debate consider consult and agree upon such Canons Orders Ordinances and Constitutions as they should think necessary fit and convenient for the honour and service of Almighty God the good and quiet of the Church and the better government thereof from time to time c. to be kept by all persons within this Realm as far as lawfully being members of the Church it may concern them which being agreed on by the Clergy and by them presented to the King humbly requiring him to give his Royal assent unto them according to the Statute made in the 25 of K. H. 8. and by his Majesties Prerogative and Supream Authority in Ecclesiastical causes to ratifie and confirm the same his Majesty was graciously pleased to confirm and ratifie them by his Letters Patents for himself his Heirs and lawful Successors straightly commanding and requiring all his loving Subjects diligently to observe execute and keep the same in all points wherein they do or may concern all or any of them No running to the Parliament to confirm these Canons nor any question made till this present by temperate and knowing men that there wanted any Act for their confirmation which the law could give them 7. An Answer to the main Objections of either Party BUT against this all which hath been said before it will be objected That being the Bishops of the Church are fully and wholly Parliamentarian and have no more Authority and Jurisdiction nisi à Parliamentis derivatum but that which is conferred upon them by the power of Parliaments as both Sanders and Schultingius do expresly say whatsoever they shall do or conclude upon either in Convocation or in more private conferences may be called Parliamentarian also And this last calumny they build on the several Statutes 24 H. 8. c. 12. touching the manner of Electing and Consecrating Arch-Bishops and Bishops that of the 1 E. 6. c. 2. appointing how they shall be chosen and what Seals they shall use these of 3 and 4 Ed. 6. c. 12. 5. 6 E. 6. for Authorizing of the Book of Ordination But chiefly that of the 8 Eliz. c. 1. for making good all Acts since 1 Eliz. in Consecrating any Arch Bishop or bishop within this Realm To give a general answer to each several cavil you may please to know that the Bishops as they now stand in the Church of England derive their Calling together with
old Roman Missals not fully finished and compleated till the time of Pope Gregory Whence the distinction of Ecclesiae Ambrosianae Ecclesiae Gregorianae extant in Bonaventure and others of the Writers of the latter times Cross we the Seas unto the Diocess of Africk governed in chief by the Primate or Arch-Bishop of Carthage And there we find S. Cyprian determining against Pope Stephen in the then controverted case of Rebaptization and calling him in his Epistle to Pompeius an obstinate and presumptuous man and a fautor of Hereticks no very great tokens of subjection if you mark it well The error of his judgement in the point debated I regard not here but I am sure that in defence of his authority and jurisdiction he was right enough and therein strongly seconded by the African Church opposing the incroachments of Zosimus Boniface and Celestine succeeding one another in the Roman Patriarchate prohibiting all Appeals to Rome in the Councils of Milevis and Carthage and finally excommunicating Lupicinus for appealing to Pope Leo the first contrary to the Rites and Liberties of the African Church Next for the Diocess of Spain I look upon the Musarabick Liturgy composed by Isidore Arch-Bishop of Sevil and universally received in all the Churches of that Continent for as unquestionable a character of self-subsistency as the Ambrosian Office was in the Church of Milain the Roman or Gregorian Missal not being used in all this Countrey till the year 1083. At which time one Bernard a French-man and a great stickler in behalf of the Roman Ceremonies being made Arch-Bishop of Toledo by practising with Alfonso the then King of Castile first introduced the Roman Missal into some of the Churches of that City and after by degrees into all the rest of those Kingdoms soon after the Churches of France the greatest and most noble part of the Gallick Diocess they were originally under the Authority of the Bishop of Lions as their proper Primate not owing any suit or service to the Court of Rome but standing on their own Basis and acting all things of themselves as the others did The freedom wherewith Irenaeus the renowned Bishop of that City reproved the rashness of Pope Victor in the Case of Easter not well becoming an inferior Bishop to the Supream Pastor shews plainly that they stood on even ground and had no advantage of each other in respect of sub supra as Logicians say notwithstanding that more powerful Principality potentior principalitas as the Latine hath it which Irenaeus did allow him over those at home But a more evident proofof this there can hardly be than those large liberties and freedoms which the Church Gallican doth at this time enjoy the remainders past all doubt of those antient Rights which under their own Patriarch they were first possessed of not suffering the Decrees of the Council of Trent that great supporter of the Popedom to take place amongst them but as insensibly and by the practices of some Bishops they were introduced curbing the Popes exorbitant power by the pragmatick Sanction and by the frequent Judgments and Arrests of Parliament insomuch as a Book of Cardinal Bellarmines tending to the advancement of the Papal Monarchy and another Writ by Beanus the Jesuite entituled Controversia Anglicana in maintenance of the Popes Supremacy were suppressed and censured Anno 1612. Another Writ by Gasper Scioppius to the same effect but with far less modesty being at the same time burnt by the hands of the Hangman Finally for the Churches of the Diocess of Britain those of Illyricum lying too far off to be brought in here they had their own Primate also the Arch-Bishop of York and under him two Metropolitans the Bishops of London and Caer-leon And for a character of their Freedom or self-subsistence they had four different customs from the Church of Rome as in the Tonsure and the keeping of the Feast of Easter wherein they followed the Tradition of the Eastern Churches So firm withal in their obedience to their own Primate the Arch Bishop of Car-leon on Vsh the only Arch-Bishop of three which before they had that they would by no means yield subjection unto Augustine the Monk the first Arch-Bishop of the English though he came Armed amongst them with the Popes Authority Nor would they afterwards submit unto his Successors though backed by the Authority of the Kings of England acknowledging no other Primate but the Bishop of St. Davids to which the Metropolitan See was then translated until the time of Henry II. when the greatest part of South Wales and the City of S. Davids it self was in possession of the English These were the Patriarchs or Primates of the Western Churches and by these Primates the Church was either governed singly but withal Supreamly in their several Diocesses taking the word Diocese in the former notion or in conjunction each with other by their Letters of advice and intercourse which they called Literas Formatas and Communicatorias You see by this that though the Pope was one of the Western Patriarchs yet was he not originally and by primitive Institution either the Patriarch of the West that is to say not the only one nor could pretend unto their Rights as any of their Sees were ruined by the barbarous Nations and consequently his consent not necessary to a Reformation beyond the bounds of his own Patriarchate under that pretence Let us next see what power he can lay claim unto as the Apostle in particular of the English Nation Which memorable title I shall never grudge him I know well not only that the Wife of Ethelbert King of Kent a Christian and a Daughter of France had both her Chappel and her Chappellance in the Palace Royal before the first preaching of Austin the Monk but that the Britains living intermixt with the Saxons for so long a time may be supposed in probability and reason to have gained some of them to the Faith But let the Pope enjoy this honour let Gregory the Great be the Apostle of the English Saxons by whom that Augustine was sent hither yet this entituleth his Successors to no higher Prerogatives than the Lords own Apostles did think fit to claim in Countreys which they had converted For neither were the English Saxons Baptized in the name of the Pope they had been then Gregoriani and not Christiani or looked upon him as the Lord of this part of Gods Heritage but as an helper to their joy S. Paul the Apostle of the Gentiles did disclaim the one S. Peter the Apostle of the Jews did dissuade the other The Anglican Church was absolute and Independent from the first beginning not tied so much as to the Ceremonies of the Church of Rome it being left by Gregory to the discretion of Augustine out of the Rites and Rubricks of such Churches as he met with in his journey hither these of Italy and France he means to constitute a form of worship for the Church
Saturdays Slop So easily did the Popes prevail with our now friends of Scotland that neither miracle nor any special packet from the Court of Heaven was accounted necessary But here with us in England it was not so though now the Popes had got the better of King John that unhappy Prince and had in Canterbury an Archbishop of their own appointment even that Steven Langton about whom so much strife was raised Which notwithstanding and that the King was then a Minor yet they proceeded here with great care and caution and brought the Holy-days into order not by command or any Decretal from Rome but by a Council held at Oxford Ap. Lindwood Anno 1222. where amongst other Ordinances tending unto the Government of the Church the Holy-days were divided into these three ranks In the first rank were those quae omni veneratione servanda erant which were to be observed with all reverence and solemnity of which sort were omnes dies Dominici c. all Sundays in the year the feast of Christs Nativity together with all others now observed in the Church of England as also all the Festivals of the Virgin Mary excepting that of her Conception which was left at large with divers which have since been abrogated And for conclusion festum dedicationis cujuslibet Ecclesiae in sua parochia the Wakes or Feasts of Dedication of particular Churches in their proper Parishes are there determined to be kept with the same reverence and solemnity as the Sundays were Nor was this of the Wakes or Feasts of Dedication any new device but such as could plead a fair original from the Council held in Mentz anno 813. If it went no higher For in a Catalogue there made of such principal feasts as annually were to be observed they reckon dedicationem templi the consecration Feast or Wake as we use to call it and place it in no lower rank in reference to the solemnity of the same than Easter Whitsontide and the rest of the greater Festivals Now at the first those Wakes or Feasts of dedication were either held upon the very day on which or the Saints day to which they had been first consecrated But after finding that so many Holy days brought no small detriment to the Common-wealth it came to pass that generally these Wakes or Feasts of dedication were respited until the Sunday following as we now observe them Of the next rank of Feasts in this Council mentioned were those which were by Priest and Curate to be celebrated most devoutly with all due performances minoribus operibus servilibus secundum consuetudinem loci illis diebus interdictis all servile works of an inferiour and less important nature according to the custom of the place being laid aside Such were Saint Fabian and Sebastian and some twenty more which are therein specified but now out of use and amongst them the Festival of Saint George was one which after in the year 1414. was made by Chicheley then Archbishop a Majus duplex and no less solemnly to be observed than the Feast of Christmass Of the last rank of Feasts were those in quibus post missam opera rusticana concedebantur sed antequam non wherein it was permitted that men might after Mass pursue their Countrey businesses though not before and these were only the Octaves of Epiphany and of John the Baptist and of Saint Peter together with the translations of Saint Benedict and Saint Martin But yet it seems that on the greater Festivals those of the first rank there was no restraint of Tillage and of Shipping if occasion were and that necessity did require though on those days Sundays and all before remembred there was a general restraint of all other works For so it standeth in the title prefixt before those Festivals haec sunt festa in quibus prohibitis aliis operibus conceduntur opera agriculturae carrucarum Where by the way I have translated carrucarum shipping the word not being put for Plough or Cart which may make it all one with the word foregoing but for ships and sayling Carruca signifieth a Ship of the greater burden such as to this day we call Carrects which first came from hence And in this sense the word is to be found in an Epistle writ by Gildas Illis ad sua remeantibus emergunt certatim de Carruchis quibus sunt trans Scyticam vallem avecti So then as yet Tillage and Sayling were allowed of on the Sunday if as before I said occasion were Math. Westmonaster and that necessity so required Of other passages considerable in the Reign of K. Henry III. the principal to this point and purpose are his own Coronation on Whitsunday anno 1220. two years before this Council which was performed with great solemnity and concourse of People Next his bestowing the order of Knighthood on Richard de Clare Earl of Gloucester accompanied with forty other gallants of great hopes and spirit on Whitsunday too Anno 1245. and last of all a Parliament Assembled on Mid-lent Sunday Parliamentum generalissimum the Historian calls it the next year after This was a fair beginning but they staid not here For after in a Synod of Archbishop Islippes he was advanced unto the See Lindw l. 2. tit de feriis Anno 1349. it was decreed de fratrum nostrorum consilio with the assent and counsel of all the Prelates then assembled that on the principal Feasts hereafter named there should be generally a restraint through all the Province ab universis servilibus operibus etiam reipubl utilibus even from all manner of servile works though otherwise necessary to the Common-wealth This general restraint in reference to the Sunday was to begin on Saturday night ab hora diei Sabbati vespertina as the Canon goes not a minute sooner and that upon good reason too ne Judaicae superstitionis participes videamur lest if they did begin it sooner as some now would have us they might be guilty of a Jewish superstition the same to be observed in such other Feasts quae suas habent vigilias whose Eves had formerly been kept As also that the like restraint should be observed upon the Feast of Christmass S. Steven S. John c. and finally on the Wakes or Dedication Feasts which before we spake of Now for the works before prohibited though necessary to the Common wealth as we may reckon Husbandry and all things appertaining thereunto so probably we may reckon Law-days and all publick Sessions in Courts of Justice in case they had not been left off in former times when as the Judges general being of the Clergy Finâ—â— of the Law l. 1. c. 3. might in obedience to the Canon-law forbear their Sessions on those days the Lords day especially For as our Sages in the Law have resolved it generally that day is to be exempt from such business even by the Common Law for the solemnity thereof to the intent that people may apply
darling Doctrine of this present time so is it very eagerly pursued by Buchannan who affirms expresly Quicquid juris populus alicui dederit Buchann de jure Regni idem justis de causis posse reposcere that whatsoever power the people give unto their King or Supream Magistrate they may resume again upon just occasions Their Power they make so small and inconsiderable that they afford them very little even in matters of Temporal and no Authority at all in things Spiritual Calvin professeth for himself that he was very much agrieved to hear that King Henry the eighth had took unto himself the Title of Supream Head of the Church of England accuseth them of inconsiderate zeal nay blasphemy who conferred it on him and though he be content at last to allow Kings a Ministerial power in matters which concern the Reformation of Gods Publick Worship yet he condemns them as before of great inconsiderateness Calvin in Amos cap. 7. Qui facerent eos nimis spirituales who did ascribe unto them any great authority in spiritual matters The designation of all those who bear publick Office in the Church the calling of Councils or Assemblies the Presidency in those Councils Ordaining publick Fasts and appointing Festivals which anciently belonged unto Christian Princes as the chief branches of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction which is vested in them are utterly denied to Kings and Princes in their Books of Discipline Insomuch that when the Citizens of Embden did expel their Earl they did it chiefly for this reason Thuan. hist l. 114. Quod se negotiis Ecclesiasticis Consistorialibus praeter jus aequitatem immisceret that he had intermedled more than they thought fit in Ecclesiastical causes and intrenched too much upon their Consistory As for their power in Temporal or civil Causes by that time Knoxes Peers and Buchannans Judges Paraeus his inferiour Magistrates and Calvins popular Officers have performed their parts in keeping them within the compass of the Laws arraigning them for their offences if they should transgress opposing them by force of Arms if any thing be done unto the prejudice of the Church or State and finally in regulating their Authority after the manner of the Spartan Ephori and the Roman Tribunes all that is left will be by much too little for a Royd'Ivitot or for a King of Clouts as we English phrase it Last of all for their persons which God held so sacred that he gave it for a Law to his people Israel not to speak evil of their Princes saying Thou shalt not speak evil of the Ruler of thy people Let us but look upon these men and we shall find the basest attributes too good for the greatest Kings Calvin calls Mary Queen of England by the name of Proserpine Calvin in Amos cap. 7. and saith that she did superare omnes Diabolos that all the Devils of Hell were not half so mischievous Beza affords Queen Mary of Scotland no better Titles than those of Medea and Athaliah Beza in Epist ad Jo. of which the last was most infamous in divine the other no less scandalous in humane stories the one a Sorceress and a Witch the other a Tyrant and Usurper The Author of the Altare Damascenum whosoever he was can find no better attribute for King James of most blessed memory than infensissimus Evangelii hostis Didoclaviuâ— in Epistola ad â—â—ctor the greatest and deadly Enemy of the Gospel of Christ And Queen Elizabeth her self did not scape so clear but that the zealous Brethren were too bold sometimes with her Name and Honour though some of them paid dearly for it and were hanged for their labour How that seditious Hugonot the Author of the lewd and unworthy Dialogue entituled Eusebius Philadelphus hath dealt with three great Princes of the House of France and what reproachful names he gives them I had rather you should look for in the Author than expect from me being loath to wade too far in these dirty puddles save that I shall be bold to add this general Character which Didoclavius gives to all Kings in general viz. Naturâ insitum est in omnibus Regibus Christi odium that all Kings naturally hate Christ which may serve for all This is enough to let us see how irreconcileable an hatred these of the Calvinian faction bear against Kings and Princes how well they play the part of the very Antichrist in exalting themselves against whatsoever is called God and that the special reason why they affect so much to be called the Saints is out of a strong probable hope to see the day in which they shall bind Kings in chains and all the Princes of the earth in fetters of iron Finally such is their disaffection unto sacred Monarchy which they have sucked out of the grounds and principles here laid down by Calvin that we may justly say of them what was most truely said of the ancient Romans quasi nefas esset Regem aliquem prope eorum terminos esse Jâ—stin hist l. 29. they have bestirred themselves so bravely in defiance of the Regal Government as if they did account it an unpardonable sin to suffer any King though most good and gracious to border near them Which lest they should not be of power to compass by their popular Magistrates or by the Judges or the Peers or the People severally which make the main Battel for this Combat let us next look on the Reserve and see what hopes they have to effect the business by the three Estates conjoyned in Parliament or by what other name soever we shall call their meeting which Calvin in the last place doth reflect upon but cautiously with a qua forte or a peradventure as in that before CHAP. V. What are the three Estates in each several Kingdom in which CALVIN speaks and what particularly in the Realm of England 1. Of the division of a People into three Estates and that the Priests or Clergy have been always one 2. The Priests employed in Civil matters and affairs of State by the Egyptians and the Persians the Greeks Gauls and Romans 3. The Priests and Levites exercised in affairs of Civil Government by Gods own appointment 4. The Prelates versed in Civil matters and affairs of State in the best and happiest times of Christianity 5. The Clergy make the third Estate in Germany France Spain and the Northern Kingdoms 6. That antiently in the Saxon times the Ecclesiasticks of this Realm were called to all publick Councils 7. The Prelates an essential fundamental part of the English Parliament 8. Objections answered and that the word Clerus in the Legal notion doth not extend unto the Prelates 9. That the inferior Clergy of the Realm of England had anciently their Votes in Parliament to all intents and purposes as the Commons had 10. Objections answered and that the calling of the Clergy to Parliaments and Convocations were after different maners and by several Writs
Clergy Subsidies presented to the Kings of England ever since the 27th of Queen Elizabeth and in the form of the Certificates per 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 in the Petition to K. K. Philip and Mary about the confirmation of the Abby Lands to the Patentees So that though many Statutes have been made in these later times excluso Clero the Clergy that is to say the inferiour Clergy 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 they either were shut out by force or excluded by cunning As for Kilbancies book which that Author speaks of Proing pract of Parl. p. 38. in which the Justices are made to say 7 H. 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 Spiritualties but by reason of their Temporal possessions Besides that it is only the opinion of a private man of no authority or credit in the Common-wealth and contrary to the practice in the Saxon times in which the Bishops sate in Parliament as Spiritual persons not as Barons the reason for ought I can see will serve as well to pretermit all or any of the Temporal Lords as it can serve to pretermit or exclude the Bishops the Temporal Lords being called to Parliament on no other ground than for the Temporal possessions which they hold by Barony If it be said that my second answer to the argument of Excluso Clero supposeth that the inferior Clergy had some place in Parliament which not to be supposed makes the Answer void I shall crave leave to offer some few observations unto the consideration of the sober and impartial Reader by which I hope to make that supposition probable and perhaps demonstrative First then we have that famous Parliament call it Concilium magnum or Concilium commune or by what other name soever the old Writers called it summoned by King Ethelbert Concil Hen. Speiâ—â— Anno 605. which my Author calleth Commune concilium tam Cleri quam Populi where Clerus comprehendeth the body of the Clergy generally as well the Presbyters as the Bishops as the word populus doth the lay-subject generally as well Lords as Commons or else the Lords and Commons one of the two must needs be left out And in this sense we are to understand these words in the latter times Matth. Paris in Hen. 1. as where we read that Clerus Angliae populus Vniversus were summoned to appear at Westminister at the Coronation of King Henry the first where divers Laws were made and declared subscribed by the Arch-bishops Bishops and others of the principal persons that were there assembled Rong Hov. in Hen. 2. that Clero populo convocato the Clergy and People of the Realm were called to Clarendon Anno 1163. by King Henry II. for the declaring and conforming of the Subjects liberties that in the year 1185. towards the latter end of the said Kings Reign Convocatus est Clerus populus cum tota Nobilitate ad fontem Clericorum Matth. Paris in Hen. 2. the Clergy Commons and Nobility were called unto the Parliament held at Clerkenwell and finally that a Parliament was called at London in which the Arch-bishop of Canterbury was present cum toto Clero tota secta Laicali Quadrilog ap Selden Tit. of Hon. pt 2. c. 5. in the time of King John Hitherto then the Clergy of both ranks and orders as well as Populus or tota secta Laioalis the Subjects of the Laity or the Lords and Commons had their place in Parliament And in possession of this right the Clergy stood when the Magna Charta was set out by King Henry III. wherein the Freedoms Rights and Priviledges of the Church of England of which this evidently was one was confirmed unto her of the irrefragable and inviolable authority whereof we have spoken before Magna Charta cap. 1. The Cavil of Excluso Clero which hath been used against the Voting of the Bishops in the House of Peers comes in next for proof that the inferiour Clergy had their place or Vote with the House of Commons if in those times the Lords and Commons made two Houses which I am not sure of the Clergy could not be excluded in an angry fit or out of a particular design to deprive them of the benefit of the Kings protection if they had not formerly a place amongst them and if we will not understand by Clerus the inferior Clergy which much about that time as before we shewed began to be the legal English of the word we must needs understand the whole Clergy generally the Clergy of both ranks and orders But our main proofs are yet to come which are these that follow First it is evident that antiently the Clergy of each several Diocess were chargeable by Law for the expences of their Proctors in attending the service of the Parliament according as the Counties were by Common law since confirmed by Statute 23 H. 6. c. 11. to bear the charges of their Knights the burroughs and Cities of their Representees which questionless the Laws had not taken care for but that the Clergy had their place in Parliament as the Commons had Rotul Patent 26 Ed. 3. pt 1. 1. M. 22. And this appears by a Record of 26th of King Edward III. in which the Abbot of Leicester being then but never formerly commanded to attend in Parliament amongst others of the Regular Prelates petitioned to be discharged from that attendance in regard he held in Frank-Almoigne only by no other tenure Which he obtained upon this condition ut semper in Procuratores ad hujusmodi Parliamenta mittendos consentiat ut moris est eorundem expensis contribuat that is to say that he and his Successors did give their Voices in the choice of such Procurators as the Clergy were to send to Parliament and did contribute towards their charges as the custom was Next in the Modus tenendi Parliamentum which before we spake of there is a modus convocandi Clerum Angliae ad Parl. Regis Modus tenendi Parl. Ms. V. Titles of hon pt 2. a form of to the Court of Parliament said to be used in the time of Edward the Son of Ethelred presented to the Conqueror and by him observed which shews the Clergy in those times had their place in Parliament Which being but a general inference shall be delivered more particularly from the Modus it self which informs us thus Rex est caput principium finis Parliamenti
their Synods as with some Laws or Ordinances which were lately passed more to the advantage of the Clergy than the common people put in a Bill to this effect viz. That no Act nor Ordinance should from thenceforth be made or granted on the petition of the said Clergy without the consent of the Commons and that the said Commons should not be bound in times to come by any constitutions made by the Clergy of this Realm for their own advantage to which the Commons of this Realm had not given consent The reason of the which is this and 't is worth the marking car eux ne veullent estre obligez a nul de vos estatuz ne Ordinances faitz sanz leur assent because the said Clergy did not think themselves bound as indeed they were not in those times by any Statute Act or Ordinance made without their Assent in the Court of Parliament Which clearly shews that in those times the Clergy had their place in Parliament as the Commons had Put all which hath been said together and tell me if it be not clear and evident that the inferiour Clergy had their place in Parliament whether the clause touching the calling of them thither were not more than verbal in the Bishops Writs and is true that in the Writ of summons directed to their several and respective Bishops they were called only ad consentiendum to manifest their consent to those Acts and Ordinances which by the Common-council of the Realm were to be ordained But then it is as true withal that sometimes their advice was asked in the weighty matters as in the 21 of King Richard the 2. and sometimes they petitioned and remonstrated for redress of grievances as in the instances and cases which were last produced And 't is as true that if they had been present only ad consentiendum to testifie their assent to those Acts which by the Common-council of the Realm were proposed unto them their presence was as necessary and their Voice as requisite to all intents and purposes for ought I can see as the Voice and presence of the Commons in the times we speak of For in the Writs of summons issued to the several Sheriffs for the electing of Knights Citizens and Burgesses to attend the Parliament it is said expresly first that the King resolveth upon weighty motives touching the weal and safety both of Church and State to hold his Parliament Forma Brevis pro summonit Parliamenti ibidem cum Praelatis Magnatibus Proceribus dicti regni nostri colloquium habere tractare then and there to advise and treat with the Prelates Peers and Nobles of this Realm Which words are also expresly used in the Writs of summons directed to the Bishops Titles of Hon. part 2. cap. 5. and to every of them who also are required in a further clause consilium suum impendere to give the King their best advice in his great affairs So that the Prelates and Nobility convened in Parliament made the Kings great Council and were called thither to that end What then belonged unto the Commons 1. No more than did belong to the Clergy also that is to say the giving of their consent to such Laws and Statutes as should there be made Which notwithstanding in Tract of time gave them such a sway and stroke in the course of Parliaments that no Law could be made nor no Tax imposed without their liking and allowance And this is that which is expressed in the last clause of the said Writ by which the Knights and Burgesses are to come prepared ad faciendum consentiendum iis quae tunc ibidem de consilio dicti Regni nostri super negotiis antedictis contigerint ordinari Forma Brevis c. Which is the very same which you had before in the Writ directed to the Bishops for summoning the Clergy of their several Diocesses and that here is a faciendum which the other had not A word which if you mark it well hath no operation in the construction of the Text except it be in paying Subsidies or doing such things as are appointed to be done by that great Council of the Kingdom Which clause though it be cunningly left out that I may say no worse in the recital of the Writ by the Author of the Book entituled The Prerogative and practice of Parliaments is most ingenuously acknowledged in the Declaration of the Lords and Commons assembled at Oxon Declaration of the Treaty p. 15. where it is said That the Writs of summons the foundation of all power in Parliament are directed to the Lords in express terms to treat and advise with the King and the rest of the Peers of the Kingdom of England and to the Commons to do and consent to those things which by that Common-council of England should be ordained And thus it stands as with the common people generally in most states of Christendom so with the Commons anciently in most states of Greece of which Plutarch telleth us Plutarch in Lâ—curgo That when the people were assembled in Council it was not lawful for any of them to put forth matters to the Council to be determined neither might any of them deliver his Opinion what he thought of any thing but the people had only authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to give their assent unto such things as either the Senators or their Kings do propound unto them But against this it is objected first that it is not to be found at what time the Clergy lost their place and Vote in Parliament and therefore it may reasonably be presumed that they had never any there and 2dly that if they had been called ad consentiendum though no more than so we should have found more frequent mention of their consent unto the Acts and Statutes in our printed Books For answer unto which it may first be said that to suppose the Clergy had no Voice in Parliament because it is not to be found when they lost that priviledg is such a kind of Argument if it be an argument as is made by Bellarmine Bellarm. de Eccl. lib 4. c. 5. to prove that many of the controverted Tenets of the Church of Rome are neither erroneous nor new because we cannot say expresly quo tempore quo autore when and by whose promoting they first crept in And though we cannot say expresly when the inferiour Clergy lost their place in Parliament in regard it might be lost by discontinuance or non-usage or that the clause was pretermitted for some space of time the better to disuse them from it or that they might neglect the service in regard of their attendance in the Convocation which gave them power and reputation both with the common people yet I have reason to believe that this pretermission and disuse did chiefly happen under the Government of the Kings of the House of Lancaster who being the true Heirs and
negandum as if it were not fit to deny them any thing Calvin in Jerem. c. 38. ver 5. Not so saith he it rather is amarulenta Regis querimonia a sad and bitter complaint of the poor captivated King against his Counsellors by whom he was so over-ruled ut velit nolit cedere iis cogitur that he was forced to yield to them whether he would or not which he expresly calls inexcusabilem arrogantiam an intolerable piece of sawciness in those Princes and an exclusion of the King from his legal Rights Let us next take a view of such Christian Kingdoms as are under the command of absolute Monarchs And first we will begin with the Realm of France the Government whereof is meerly Regal if not despotical such as that of a Master over his Servants which Aristotle defineth to be a Form of Government 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherein the King may do whatsoever he list Aristot Politic. l. 3. according to the counsel of his own mind For in his Arbitrary Edicts which he sendeth abroad he never mentioneth the cosent of the People or the approbation of the Council or the advice of his Judges which might be thought to derogate too much from his absolute power but concludes all of them in this Regal Form Car tel est nostre plaisir for such is our pleasure And though the Court of Parliament in Paris do use to take upon them to peruse his Edicts View of France by Dallington before they pass abroad for Laws and sometime to demur on his Grants and Patents and to petition him to reverse the same as they see occasion yet their perusal is a matter but of meer formality and their demurs more dilatory than effectual It is the Car tel est nostre plaisir that concludes the business and the Kings pleasure is the Law which that Court is ruled by As for the Assemblie des Estats or Conventus Ordinum it was reputed anciently the Supream Court for Government and Justice of all the Kingdom and had the cognizance of the greatest and most weighty affairs of State But these meetings have been long since discontinued and almost forgotten there being no such Assembly from the time of King Charles the eighth to the beginning of the reign of King Charles the ninth Thuanus hist sui temp which was 70 years and not many since And to say truth they could be but of little use as the World now goeth were the meetings oftner For whereas there are three Principal if not sole occasions of calling this Assembly or Conventus Ordinum that is to say the disposing of the Regency during the nonage or sickness of the King the granting Aids and Subsidies and the redress of the grievances there is now another course taken to dispatch their business The Parliament of Paris which speaks most commonly as it is prompted by power and greatness appointeth the Regent Contin Thuani An. 1610. View of France the Kings themselves together with their Treasurers and Under-Officers determine of the Taxes and they that do complain of Grievances may either have recourse to the Courts of Justice or else petition to the King for redress thereof And for the making new Laws or repealing the old the naturalization of the Alien and the regulating of his Sales or Grants of the Crown-Lands the publick patrimony of the Kingdom which were wont to be the proper Subject and debates of these Grand Assemblies they also have been so disposed of that Conventus Ordinum is neither troubled with them nor called about them The Chamber of Accompts in Paris which hath some resemblance to our Court of Exchequer doth absolutely dispose of Naturalizations Andr. Du Chesn and superficially surveyeth the Kings Grants and Sales which they seldom cross The Kings Car tel est nostre plaisir is the Subjects Law and is as binding as any Act or Ordinance of the three Estates and for repealing of such Laws as upon long experience are conceived to be unprofitable the Kings sole Edict is as powerful as any Act of Parliament Of which Bodinus doth not only say in these general terms Bodin de Rep. lib. 1. cap. 8. Saepe vidimus sine Ordinum convocatione consensu leges à Principe abrogatas that many times these Kings did abrogate some ancient Laws without the calling and consent of the three Estates but saith that it was neither new nor strange that they should so do and gives us some particular instances not only of the later times but the former Ages Nay when the power of this Assemblie des Estats was most great and eminent neither so curtailed nor neglected as it hath been lately yet then they carried themselves with the greatest reverence and respect before their King that could be possibly imagined For in the Assembly held at Tours under Charles the 8. though the King was then no more than 14 years of age and the Authority of that Court so great and awful that it was never at so high an eminence for power and reputation quanta illis temporibus as it was at that time yet when they came before the King Monsieur de Rell being then Speaker for the Commons or the third Estate did in the name of all the rest and with as much humility and reverence as he could devise promise such duty and obedience such a conformity of his will and pleasure such readiness to supply his wants and such alacrity in hearking unto his Commandments that as Bodinus well observes his whole Oration was nothing else quam perpetua voluntatis omnium erga Regem testificatio but a constant testimony and expression of the good affections of the Subject to their Lord and Sovereign Id. ibid. But whatsoever power they had in former times is not now material King Lewis the thirteenth having on good reason of State discharged those Conventions for the time ensuing Instead whereof he instituted an Assembly of another temper and such as should be more obnoxious to his will and pleasure consisting of a certain number of persons out of each Estate but all of his own nomination and appointment which join'd with certain of his Council and principal Officers he caused to be called L' Assembly des Notables assigning to them all the power and privileges which the later Conventions of the three Estates did pretend unto right well assured that men so nominated and intrusted would never use their powers to his detriment and disturbance of his heirs successors But to proceed Bodinus having shewn what dutiful respects the Convention of Estates in France shewed unto their King adds this Note nec aliter Hispanorum conventus habentur that the Assembly of the three Estates in the Realms of Spain carry themselves with the like reverence and submission to their Lord the King Nay major etiam obedientia majus obsequium Regi exhibetur the King of Spain hath more obedience and observance
must needs follow thereupon that all which held their Lands of the Crown in Capite were capable in those times of a place in Parliament And so it seems they had in the Reign of King John and afterwards in the Reign of King Henry the 3d but in the last years of the said King Henry and by the power and prudence of King Edward the first were brought into a narrower compass none being admitted to appear and attend in Parliament but such as he thought fit to summon by his Royal Mandate And hereunto as well our choicest Antiquaries as our most eminent Lawyers do consent unanimously But here is to be noted saith Chief Justice Coke that if the King give Lands to any one tenendum per servitium Baronis de Rege he is no Lord of Parliament till he be called by Writ to the Parliament which as he there declares for a point of Law so is it also verified in point of practice out of the old Record entituled Modus tenendi Parliamentum in which it is affirmed Ad Parliamentum summoniri venire debere Archiepiscopos Episcopos Abbates Priores alios majores Cleri qui tenent per Comitatum aut Baroniam ratione hujusmodi Tenurae that all Arch-bishops Bishops Priors and other Prelates of the Church who hold their Lands either in right of their Counties or in right of their Baronages were to be summoned and come to Parliament in regard of their Tenures Where we may see that though they had a jus ad rem in regard of their Tenures yet they had no pretence to their Jus in re but only by the Writ of Summons And secondly whereas the Modus speaks of some Bishops which were to be called to the Parliament in the right of their Counties I think he means it of the Bishops of Durham and Ely which enjoyed all the Rights and priviledges of a County Palatine in their several Circuits By which we see that to the making of a Baron or a Lord of Parliament it is not only necessary that he hold by Barony but that he have his Writ of Summons to attend the service which puts a signal difference between Lords of Parliament and such as are called Lords in respect of their birth or in regard of some great Offices which they hold in the State of the first sort whereof are all the eldest sons of Earls and upwards who are not only honoured with the name of Lords but challenge a precedence by the Rules of Herauldry before all the Barons of the Realm and yet can lay no claim to the Rights of Peerage unless perhaps they may be summoned to the Parliament in their fathers life time And so it hapned in the Case of the Earl of Surrey the eldest son of Thomas Lord Howard Duke of Norfolk arraigned in the last days of King Henry the eighth and tried by a Jury of twelve men because not being called to Parliament in his fathers life-time he could not be considered as a Peer of the Realm And in the last sort we may reckon the Lord Chancellor the Lord Treasurer the Lord Privy Seal the Lord President of his Majesties Council the Lord High Chamberlain the Lord Admiral the Lord Steward and the Lord Chamberlain of his Majesties Houshold the Lord Warden of the Cinque-ports and the three Chief Judges who if they be not otherwise of the Rank of Barons can plead no Title to their Peerage nor to Vote in Parliament and so it hapned in the Case of Sir William Stanly Lord Chamberlain to King Henry the seventh tried by a Jury of twelve men in a case of Treason without relation to his great Office or Title of Lord. Most true it is that some of these great Officers have their place in Parliament and so have all the Judges of the Courts of Westminster the Master of the Rolls the Masters of the Chancery the Kings Attorney General and perhaps some others all summoned to attend the service by Especial Writs but they are only called to advise the Court to give their Judgment and Opinion when it is demanded but not to canvass or debate and much less to conclude in any business which is there discoursed of as both the Bishops and the Temporal Lords are impowred to do Which difference appears in the Writs themselves For in the Writ of Summons to the Judges and the rest here mentioned the words run thus viz. Quod intersitis nobiscum cum caeteris de concilio nostro and sometimes nobiscum only supra praemissis tractaturi vestrumque consilium impensuri But in the Writ of Summons to the Bishops and the rest of the Peers we shall find it thus viz. quod intersitis cum praelatis magnatibus proceribus super dictis negotiis tractaturi vestrumque consilium impensuri c. which Writs of Summons to the Bishops and the Temporal Peers are the same verbatim but that the Bishops are required to attend the service sub fide dilectione the Temporal Peers sub fide ligeantia quibus nobis tenemini Upon which Premises it may be rationally inferred that the Bishops of this Church were reputed Barons a Baron and a Barony being conjugata and being Barons have as good a Claim to the right of Peerage as any of the Temporal Lords who hold as well their Peerage as their place in Parliament by no other Tenure for that a Baron of Realm and a Peer of the Realm are but terms synonymous and that the Bishops of the the Church of England are both Peers and Barons hath been proved before and may be further evidenced from that which they affirmed to the Temporal Lords convened in Parliament at Northampton under Henry the 2d for the determining of the differences betwixt the King and Thomas Becket Arch bishop of Canterbury which the Temporal Lords would fain have thrust upon the Bishops as more competent Judges to which the Bishops thus replied viz. non sedemus hic Episcopi sed Barones nos Barones vos Barones Pares hic sumus We sit not here say they as Bishops only Seldens Titles of Honour pag. â—18 but as Barons also we are Barons and you are Barons here we sit as Peers Their sitting in the Parliament was in a right of their Baronies And in the right of their Baronage they were also Peers and Peers to all intents and purposes as well as any others whether Earls or Barons who had Vote in Parliament This appears further by the words of Arch-bishop Stratford who being suspended from his place in Parliament by King Edward the 3d came boldly to the Doors of the House and turning towards those that attended there thus maintained his Claim Amice Rex me ad hoe Parliamentum scripto sua vocavit Antiq. Brittan ego tanquam major Par regni post Regem primam vocem habere debens in Parliamento Jura Ecclesiae meae Cantuariensis vendico ideo Ingressum in Parliamentum peto Which
and that the way being thus laid open it was no hard matter to make the Bishop of Carlisle obnoxious to that kind of Trial which being forsaken on all sides as the times then were he was not able to avoid Which might be also the condition of Arch-bishop Cranmer and as for Fisher Bishop of Rochester he was to deal with an impetuous and violent Prince who was resolved to put the greater disgrace upon him because he had received some greater Honours from the Pope than the condition of Affairs might be thought to bear But against all these violations of their Rights of Peerage it may be said in their behalves for the times to come that by the Statute of the 25th of King Edward the 3d which serves to this day for the standing Rule in Cases of Treason it is required that the Malefactor or the suspected person must be attainted by such men as are of his own Condition and therefore Bishops to be tryed by none but the Peers of the Land unless it be in open opposit on to this Rule of King Edward and in defiance to the fundamental Law in the Magna Charta where it is said that no man is to be Disseised of his Freehold exiled or any ways destroyed nisi per Judicium parium suorum Or per Legem Terrae but by the Judgment of his Peers and by the Law of the Land and I can find no Law of the Land which tells me that a Bishop shall be tryed by a Common Jury Finally if it be a sufficient Argument that Bishops ought not to be reckoned as Peers of the Realm because they may be tryed by a Common Jury then also at some times and in certain Cases the Temporal Lords Dukes Marquesses Earls c. must not pass for Peers because in all Appeals of Murder they are to be tryed by Common Jurors like the rest of the Subjects But secondly it is objected That since a Bishop cannot sit in Judgment on the death of a Peer nor be so much as present at the time of his Trial they are but half-Peers as it were not Peers to all intents and purposes as the others are But this incapacity is not laid upon them by the Laws of the Land or any Limitation of their powers in their Writ of Summons or any thing inhering to the Episcopal Function but only by some ancient Canons and more particularly by the fourth Canon of Toledo which whether they be now of force or not may be somewhat questioned Secondly whensoever they withdrew themselves they did it with a salvo Jure paritatis as before is shewn To which intent they did not only cause their Protestations to be filed on Record Coke Institut part 4. fol. 23. but for the most part made a Proxy to some Temporal Lords to Act in their behalf and preserve their right which though they did not in the Case we had before us yet afterwards in the 21st of King Richard the 2d and from that time forwards when they found Parliamentary Impeachments to become more frequent they observed it constantly as it continues to this day Nor were they hindred by those Canons whatsoever they were from being present at the depositions of Witnesses or taking such preparatory examinations as concern the Trial in which they might be able to direct the Court by the Rules of Conscience though they withdrew themselves at the time of the sentence That was a Trick imposed upon the Bishops by the late long Parliament when they excluded them from being members of the Committee which was appointed for taking the examinations in the business of the Earl of Strafford And this they did not in relation to those ancient Canons but upon design for fear they might discover some of those secret practices which were to be hatched and contrived against him Against which Preparations for a final Trial or taking the Examinations or hearing of depositions of Witnesses or giving counsel in such cases as they saw occasion the Council of Toledo saith not any thing which can be honestly interpreted to their disadvantage So that the Bishops Claim stands good to their right of Peerage any thing in those ancient Canons or the unjust practices of the late Long Parliament to the contrary notwithstanding To draw the business to an end what one thing is required unto the constituting of a Peer of England which is not to be found in an English Bishop if Tenure and Estate they hold their Lands per integram Baroniam as the old Lords did if Voice in Parliament they have their several Writs of Summons as the Lay-Lords have if we desire Antiquity to make good their Interesse most of them have sat longer there in their Predecessors than any of our Temporal Lords in their noblest Ancestors if point of Priviledg they have the same in all respects as the others have except it be in one particular neither clearly stated nor universally enjoyed by those who pretend most to it if Letters Patents from the King to confirm these Honours they have his Majesties Writ of Conge d'eslire his Royal Assent to the Election his Mandate under the Great Seal for their Consecration If therefore we allow the Bishops to be Lords of Parliament we must allow them also to be Peers of the Realm There being nothing which distinguisheth a Peer from from a common Person but his Voice in Parliament which was the matter to be proved A TABLE OF THE CONTENTS The Way of the Reformation of the Church of England declared and justified SECT I. I. THE Introduction shewing the Occasion Method and Design of the whole Discourse Page 1 I. Of Calling or Assembling the Convocation of the Clergy and the Authority thereof when convened together Page 2 II. Of the Ejection of the Pope and vesting the Supremacy in the Regal Crown Page 5 III. Of the Translation of the Scriptures and permitting them to be read in the English Tongue Page 7 IV. Of the Reformation of Religion in the points of Doctrine Page 10 V. Of the Reformation of the Church of England in the Forms of Worship and the times appointed thereunto Page 14 VI. Of the power of making Canons for the well ordering of the Clergy and the directing of the people in the publick duties of Religion Page 18 VII An Answer to the main Objections of either Party Page 20 SECT II. I. That the Church of England did not innovate in the Ejection of the Pope and setling the Supremacy in the Regal Crown Page 23 II. That the Church of England might proceed to a Reformation without the approbation of the Pope or the Church of Rome Page 26 III. That the Church of England might lawfully proceed to a Reformation without the help of a General Council or calling in the aid of the Protestant Churches Page 30 IV. That the Church did not innovate in Translating the Scriptures and the publick Liturgy into vulgar Tongues and of the Consequents thereof to the