WHereas a great Question hath been raised of late, and but lately neither; Whether the Bishops make a Fundamental, and Essenti­al part of the English Parliament? I hope to put it out of question by two sorts of Arguments, of which the one shall be de jure, and the other de facto The one derived from that origi­nal right which is vested in them, the other from the constant exercise and continual practice, by which that right hath been enjoyed in all times foregoing.

And first we shall begin with the proofs de jure, and there­in first with that which doth occurre in the Laws of King Athelston, one of the first Monarchs of the English Saxons. Among which there is a Chapter (it is chap. 11.) entitu­led De officio Episcopi & quid pertinet ad officium ejus; that [Page 2]is to say, Touching the office of a Bishop, and that which doth of right belong unto it. In which Chapter it is thus declared, viz. Episcopo jure pertinet omnem rectitudinem pro­movere, Dei scilicet & seculi &c. Spelm. Counsel. p. 402. & convenit ut per consilium & testimonium ejus omne Legis scitum, & Burgi mensura, & omne pondus sit secundum dictionem ejus insti­tutum; that is to say, it belongeth of right unto the Bishop, to promote Justice in matters which concern both the Church and State, and unto him it appertaineth, that by his Coun­sel and award, all Lawes, and Weights, and Measures, be ordained throughout the Kingdom.

2ly. Next, we will have recourse to 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; Modus tenendi Parlia­mentum. That all the Archbishops, Bishops, Abbats, Priors, and other Prelates of the Church, who hold their Lands either by an Earls Fee, or a Barons Fee, were to be summoned, and come to Parliament in regard of their Tenure.

3ly. Next, look we on the Chartularies of King Henry the first, recognized in full Parliament at Clarendon, under Henry the second, where they are called Avitas consuetudi­nes, which declare it thus, Archiepiscopi, Episcopi, & uni­versae Personae qui de Rege tenent in capite, habeant possessiones suas de Rege sic ut Baroniam, &c. Et sicut caeteri Barones de­bent interesse judicijs Curiae Regis cum Baronibus, quosque pervenierat ad dimmutionem membrorum vel ad mortem Math. Paris in Hen. 2. The meaning is in brief, that Archbishops, Bishops, and all other Ecclesiastical persons which hold in Capite of the King, are to have and hold their Lands in Barony, and that they ought as Barons to be present in all Judgments with the other Barons in the Court of Parliament, until the very Sen­tence of Death or Mutilation (which was very common in those times) was to be pronounced. And then they com­monly did use to withdraw themselves, not out of any inca­pacity supposed to be in them by the Law of England, but out of a restraint imposed upon them by the Canons of the Church of Rome.

[Page 3] 4ly. In the Great Charter made by King John, in the last of his Reign, we have the form of summoning a Parliament, and calling those together who have Votes therein, thus ex­pressed at large. And Habendum commune concilium Regni de auxilio assidendo, &c. Et de scutagijs assidendis, faciemus summoneri Archiepiscopos, Abbates, Comites, & majores Ba­rones Regni sigillatim per litter as nostras: & preteria summone­ri faciemus in generali per Vice-Comites & Ballivos nostros om­nes alios qui in Capite tenent ad certum diem, scil. ad termi­num 40 dierum ad minus, & ad certum locum, &c. Id in Job. In which we have not only a most evident proof, that the Bishops are of right to be called to Parliament, for granting Subsidies and Escuage, and treating of the great Affairs which concern the Kingdom, but that they are to be sum­moned by particular Letters, as well as the Earls and Ba­rons or either of them; A form or copie of which Summons issued in the time of the said King John, is extant on Record, and put in Print not many years since in the Titles of Ho­nour.P. 1.20.5.

5ly. We have it thus in the Magna Charta of King Henry the 3d. the birthright of the English Subject, according as it stands translated in the book of Statutes. First we have granted to God, and by this our present Charters have confirmed for us, and our Heirs for ever, That the Church of England, shall be free, and shall enjoy all her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable, Magna Charta cap. 1, But it is a known Right and Liberty of the Church of England, that all the Bishops, and many of the greater Clergy (and peradventure also the Inferiour Clergy in the said Kings time) had their Votes in Parliament; and therefore is to be preserved inviolable by the Kings of England, their Heirs, and Successors for ever. Which Char­ter, as it was confirmed by a solemn Curse denounced on all the Infringers of it, by Boniface Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, Math. Paris in Hen. 3. and ratified in no fewer, then 80. succeeding Parlia­ments: So was it Enacted in the raign of Edward the first, That it should be sent under the great Seal of England, to all the Cathedral Churches of the Kingdome, to be read twice a year before the people;28. Edw. 1. c. 1. That they should be ready four times every year in a full County Court,28 Edw. 1. c. 2. and final­ly [Page 4]that all Judgements given against it should be void and null;28. Edw. 1. c. 3. the application or which last clause I refer to those, to whom the rectifying of the Error (which to the contrary thereof hath been committed) doth of right belong.

6ly. We have the protestation of John Stratford, Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, in the time of King Edward the 3d. who being in disfavour with the King, and denied entrance in to the House of Peers, Challenged his place, and suffrage there, as the first Peer of the Realm, and One that ought to have the first voice in Parliament, in right of his See.

But hear him speak his own words, which are these that follow, Amici (for he spake to those that took witnesse of it) Rex me ad hoc Parliamentum scripto suo vocavit, & ego tanquam major par Regni post Regem, & primam vocem ha­bere debens in Parliamento, jura Ecclesiae meae Cantuarensis vendico, & ideo ingressum in Parliamentum peroAntiqui, Britan in Gati. Stratford. which makes it plain enough, that the Arch-Bishop did not chal­lenge a place in Parliament, as the first Peer of the Realm, either by way of favour, or of custome only, but as a power and privelege as he ought to have (habere debens are the words) in the Right of his See.

7ly. And lastly, there is the protestation on Record of all the Bishops in the raign of King Richard the 2d. at what time William Courtney was Arch-Bishop of Canterbury: who being to withdraw themselves from the house of Peers, at the pronouncing of the sentence of death on some guilty Lords, first made their Procurators to supply their rooms, and then put up their protestations to preserve their Rights; the sum whereof, for as much as doth concern this businesse in their own words thus. De jure, & consuetudine Regni Angliae ad Archiepiscopum Cantuarensem, qui pro tempore fuerit, nec non cateros Suffraganos, confratres, & compatres, Abbates & Priores, Aliosque Prelatos quoscunque per Baroniam de Do­mino Rege tenentes, Pertinet, in Parliamentis Regis quibus­cunque, ut Par [...]s Regni predidi personaliter interesse ibidem­que de Regni negotiis, ac aliis tradari consuetis cum caeteris didi Regni patibus, & aliis ibidem jus interessendi haben­tibus Consulere, & Tradare, Ordinare, Statuere, & Diffinire, [Page 5]ac caetera facere quae Parliamento ibidem iminent facionda. In vita Gu. Courtney. It appertaines say they, both by Right and Custome to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury for the time being. As also unto all the rest of his Compeers, as well the Suffragan Bishops, as to the Abbots, Priors, and other Prelates whatsoever, which hold their Land by Barony of our Lord the King, to be personally present at all Parliaments as Peers of the Realm, and three together with the rest of the Peers, and all other which have Right to be therein present to Consult, Treat of, and Ordain, and finally to determine and establish all such things, and matters, as are accustomably handled, and ordained in Parliaments. Which sets the matter as I take it beyond all dispute, as to the first of these two heads, or sorts of Arguments, whereby I was to prove this point, which were those de jure.

Let us next see whether this Right of theirs be confirmed, and countenanced by continual practise, and that they have not lost it by Discontinuance; which is my second kind of Argument, those I mean de facto. And in this way of proof, we can goe as high, as the first preaching of the Gospel to the English Saxons, and so descend unto those last times without interruption. By which it will appear, that Christi­anity in this Nation, and the Bishops Votes in Parliaments, and Common Councils, are of like Antiquity.

For first, no sooner had King Ethelbert received the Gos­pel, but presently we read, that as well the Clergy, as the Laity, were summoned to the Common Council: which the Saxons sometimes called Mycell Synoth, the great Assembly, and sometimes Wittenegemote, the Counsell or Assembly of the Wise men of the Realm. Anno 605. Ethelbertus Rex in fide corroboratus Catholicâ &c. Cantuariae convocavit Com­mune Consilium tam Cleri, quam popusi; KingH. Spel­mon in Concil. p. 116. Ethel­bert as my Author hath it, being confirmed in the Faith in the year 605. (which was but nine years after his Conver­sion) together with Berha his Queen, their Son Thalbald, the reverend Arch-Bishop Augustine, and all the rest of the Nobility, did solemnize the Feast of Christs Nativity in the City of Canterbury; and did there cause to be assembled on [Page 6]the 9th. of January, the Common Council of his Kingdome; as well the Clergy, as the Lay-Subject, by whose Consent, and Approbation, he caused the Monastery by him built to be dedicated to the honour of God Almighty, by the hand of Augustine.

And though no question other examples of this kind may be found amongst the Saxon Heptarches, yet being the West Saxon Kingdome did in fine prevail, and united all the rest into one Monarchy; We shall apply our selves unto that more punctually, and with greater care.

I. And first we read of Egbert, who first united the seven Kingdomes of the Saxons under the common name of Eng­land, that he caused to be convened at London his Bishops, and the Peers of the highest rank, pro consilio capiendo adver­sus Danicos Pyratas, Charta whitlagi [...] mercyo [...]um Re­gis ap. Ingulph. to advise upon some course a­gainst the Danish Pirates, who infested the Sea-coast of Eng­land.

II. Another Parliament or Council (call it which you will) called at Ringbury, Anno 855. in the time of Ethel­wolph, the Son of Egbert, pro negotiis Regni, Charta Bertult mer. Regis ap. In­gulf. to treat of the affairs of the Kingdome: the Acts whereof are ra­tified and subscribed by the Bishops, Abbats, and other great men of the Realm.

III. We find that the same King Ethelwolph in a Parlia­ment, or Assembly of his States at Winchester, Anno 855. Cum consilio Episcoporum, & Principum, Ingulf Croyland hist. by the Ad­vice and Councel of the Bishops, and Nobility, confirmed unto the Clergy the tenth part of all mens Goods; and or­dered that the Tythe so confirmed unto them should be free ab omnibus Secularibus Servitutibus, from all secular Ser­vices, and Impositions.

IV. The two Charters were issued out by Athelstone, a­bove mentioned, Consilio Wifelmi Archiepiscopi mei, & ali­orum Episcoporum meorum, Ap Eund. p. 402, 403. by the advice of Wifelme his Arch-Bishop, and his other Bishops.

And 5ly. That Ina in the year 902. caused the great Council of his Realm to be Assembled, consisting ex Epis­copis, Principibus, Proceribus, &c. of Bishops, Princes, No­bles, Earls, and of all the wise men, Elders, and people of [Page 7]the whole Kingdom, and there Enacted divers Laws for the Weal of his Realm.ap. cund. p. 219. We also read this in the Reign of Edrid, Anno 948. viz. In festo igitur nativitatis Beatae Mariae cum universi Magnates Regni per Regium edictum summoniri, tam Archiepiscopi, & Episcopi, ac Abbates, quam caeteri totius Regni proceres & optimates Londiniis con­venissent ad tractandum de negotijs publicis totius Regni; Id ibid. p. 497. edit. Lon. That in the Feast of the Nativity of the blessed Virgin, the great men of the Realm, that is to say Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Nobles, Peers, were summoned by the Kings Writ to appear at London, to handle, and conclude about the publick Affairs of the Kingdom. Mention of which Assem­bly is made again at the foundation and endowment of the Abby of Crowland; M. id p. 500. and afterwards a confirmation of the same by Edgar, Anno. 966. Praesentibus Archiepiscopis, Episcopis, Abbatibus, & optimatibus Regni; Id p. 5. p. 1.50. In the presence of Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, and Peers of the Realm. The like Convention of Estates we find to have been called by Canutus the Dane, after the death of Edmund Ironside, for the setling the Crown on his own head, of which thus the AuthorRog. Heveden An­nal. pag. prior p. 250. Cujus post mortem Rex Canu­tus omnes Episcopos, & Duces, nec non & Principes, cun­ctosque optimates gentis Angliae, Londoniae congregari jussit. Where we still find the Bishops to be called to Parliament, as well as the Dukes, Princes, and the rest of the Nobility; and to be ranked and marshalled first, (which clearly shews that they were alwayes reckoned for the first Estate) before the greatest, and most eminent of the secular Peers. And so we find it also in a Charter of King Edward the Confessor, the last King of the Saxon Race) by which he granted certain Lands, and Privileges to the Church of Westminster, Anno 1066. Cum Concilio, & deereto Archiepiscoporum, Episco­porum, Comitum aliorumque optimatum; ap. H. Spel. in Concil. p. 630. with the Counsel and Decree of the Archbishops, Bishops, Earls, and others of his Nobles. And all this while the Bishops and other Prelates of the Church did hold by no other Tenure, than in purô & perpetuô Eleemosynâ; Camden in Brit. or frank Almoigne, as our Lawyers call it: and therefore sate in Parliament in no other capacity than as spiritual persons meerly; who [Page 8]by their extraordinary knowledge in the Word of God, and in such other parts of Learning, as the world then knew, were thought best able to direct and advise their Princes in all points of difficulty. But when the Norman Conquerour had possest the State, then the case was altered. The Pre­lates of the Church were no longer suffered to hold their Land in frank Almoigne, as before they did, or to be free from secular services and commands, as before they were. Although they kept their Lands, yet they changed their Te­nure, and by the Conquerour were ordained to hold their Lands, sub militari servitute, Mat. Pa­tis in will. 1. An. 1070. either in Capite, or by Baronage, or some such military hold, and thereby were compellable to aid the Kings in all times of War, with Men, Arms, and Horses, as the Lay-Subjects of the same Tenures were required to do.

Which though it were conceived to be a great disfran­chisement at the first, and an heavy burthen to the Prelacy; yet it conduced at last to their greater honour, in giving them a further title to their place in Parliament, than that which formerly they could pretend to. Before, they claim­ed a place therein, ratione Officij, only by reason of their Offices, or Spiritual Dignities; But after this, by reason also of those Baronies which were erected, and annexed to their several Dignities; En respect de lour possessions L' anti­ent Baronies annexes a lour dignities Stanford Pleas. l. 3. as our Lawyers have it. From this time forwards we must look upon them in the House of Parliament, not as Bishops only, but as Peers and Barons of the Realm also; and so themselves af­firmed to the Tempotal Lords in the Parliament holden at Northampton, under Henry the second. Non sedimus hic Episcopi, sed Barones Pares hic sumus; Selden titles of hon. p. 2.18. We sit not here say they, as Bishops only, but as Barons; we are Ba­rons, and you are Barons; here we sit as Peers. Which last is also verified terminis, by the words of a Statute, or Act of Parliament, wherein the Bishops are acknowledged to be Peers of the Land.

But to proceed more particularly to our proofs de facto, after the alteration of their Tenures by the Norman Con­queror, we find a Parliament assembled in the fifth year of [Page 9]that King wherein are present Episcopi, Abbates, Comites, & primats totius Angliae, Math. Paris in willi­elmo 1. the Bishops, Abbats, Earls, and the rest of the Baronage of England.

And 3ly. In the ninth year of William Rufus, an old Au­thor telleth us, de regni statu acturus, Episcopos, Abbates, & quoscunque regni proceres in unum praecepti sui sanctione egit, that being to consult of the Affairs of the Kingdom, he called together by his Writ the Bishops, Abbots, and all the Peers of the Realm,Eadmer hist. Nov. l. [...].

And 3ly. During the raign of King Henry the first (for we will take but one example out of each Kings raign, though each Kings raign would yeild us more) a Parlia­ment was called at London, wherein were many things dis­patched, as well of Ecclesiastical, as Secular nature, the Bish­ops, and Abbots being present with the other Lords; Coact [...] apud Londoniam Magno Episcoporum, & Procerum, Ab­batumque consilio, multa Ecclesiasticarum, & Secubarium re­rum ordinata negotia, dieisa Litigia, saith the Monk of Malmsbury Mal [...]b. Hist. Reg. Ang. l. 5. And of this Parliament it is, I take it, that Edmor speaketh Hist. Novel. l. 4. p. 91.

Proceed we 4ly. to King Henry the second (for King Stephens Raign 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 Alphonso King of Castile and Sancho King of Navarre, re­ferred by compromise to the King of England, and here determined by King Henry amongst other things, Habito cum Episcopis, Comitibus & Baronibus cum deliberatione Consi­lio, as in Roger Hoveden. Hoveden Annal. pac. Rose in H n. 2.

5ly. Next time comes Richard the first, his Son; du­ring whose Imprisonment by the D. of Austria, his Brother John then Earl of Moriton, endeavoured by force and cun­ning in Normandy to set the Crown on his own head: which caused Hubert the Archbishop of Canterbury, to call a Parliament (Convocatis coram eo Episcopis, Comitibus & Baronibus Regni, Id. in I [...]h. wherein the Bishops, Earls, and Ba­rons, did with one consent agree to seize on his Estate, and suppresse his power, the better to preserve the King­dome [Page 10]in Wealth, Peace, and Safety.

6ly. After succeeded John and he calls a Parliament, wherein were certain Laws made for the defence of this Kingdome, Communi ascensu Archiepiscoporum, Episcopo­rum, Comitum, Baronum & omnium fidelium suorum Angliae, by the Common Counsel and Assent of the Archbishops, Bi­shops, Earls, Barons, and the rest of his Lieges. (Remem­ber what was said before touching the Writ of Summons in the said Kings time) from this time till the last Parliament of King Charles, there is no Kings Reign of which we have not many, (though not all) the Acts of Parliament still in Print amongst us. Nor is there any Act of Parliament in the Printed Books, to the Enacting of which the Bishops Approbation and Consent is not plainly specified, either in the general Proeme set before the Acts, or in the body of the Acts themselves, as by the Books themselves doth at large appear.

7ly. And to this kind of proof may be further added the Form and Manner of the Writ, by which the Prelates in all times have been called to Parliament, being the very Law Verbatim, with that which is directed to the Temporal Ba­rons, save that the Spiritual Lords are commanded to at­tend the Service, in fide & dilectione, the Temporal in fide & Homagio, and of late times in fide & Ligeantia quibus nobis tenemini. A Form or Copie of which Summons as antient as King Johns time, is still reserved upon Record, directed Nominatim to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury; Titles of Hon. part 2. cap. 1. and then a scriptum est similiter to the residue of the Bishops, Abbates, Earls, and Barons. Then adde the Privilege of Parliament for themselves and their Servants, during the time of the Sessions; the Liberty to kill, and take one or two of the Kings Deer, as they passe by any of his Forests in com­ming to Parliament upon his Commandment, Charta de foresta cap. their in­joying of the same immunities, which are and have been heretofore injoyed by the Temporal Barons;Camden in Britania. and tell me if the Bishops did not sit in Parliament by as good a Title as the Temporal Lords, and therefore certainly Essential, Fundamental parts of the Court of Parliament.

By this discourse it may appear, that the Bishops Sit and [Page 11]Vote in Parliament by a double capacity; as Bishops first in reference to their several Sees, and secondly as Peers in re­gard of their Baronies. In both respects accounted one of the three Estates, and the first also of the three, as from the Premises may be gathered without any great trouble. But in so nice a point as this, we shall not only build upon gene­ral Inferences, but particular Evidences.

And first it is affirmed by Titus Livius, in his relation of the Life and Reign of King Henry the 5th. That when his Funerals were ended, the 3 Estates of the Realm of England did assemble together, and declare his Son King Henry the 6th. being an Infant of 8 Months old, to be their Soveraign Lord, Tit. Liv. M. S. in Bibl. Bodl. as his Heir and Successor. And three Estates there could not be to perform that service, unlesse the Bish­ops were acknowledged to be one of the number.

2ly. ‘In the Parliament Roles of King Richard the third, there is mention of a Bill, or Parchment presented to that Prince, being then Duke of Gloucester, on the be­half, and in the name of the 3 Estates of the Realm of England, that is to wit, of the Lords Spiritual, and Tem­poral, and of the Commons by name: which for as much as neither the said 3 Estates, nor the persous which deli­vered it on their behalf, were then assembled in form of Parliament, was afterwards in the first Parliament of that King, by the same three Estates, assembled in this present Parliament (I speak the very words of the Act it self) and by Authority of the same enrolled, recorded, and ap­proved;An. Speed in K. Rich. 3. And at the request and by the assent of the three Estates of this Realm, that is to say, the Lords Spi­ritual, and Temporal, and Commons of this Land Assem­bled in this present Parliament, and by Authority of the same it be pronounced, decreed, and declared, that our said Soveraign Lord the King was, and is the very and un­doubted Heir of this Realm of England, &c.’

And 3ly. So it is acknowledged in a1 Eliz. Cap. 3. Statute of 1 Eliz. cap. 3. where the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the Commons in that Parliament Assembled, being said ex­presly and in terminis to represent the three Estates of the Realm of England, did recognize the Queens Majestie to be [Page 12]their true, Lawful and Undoubted Soveraign Leig'd Lady and Queen. And in a Statute of the 8th. year of the said Queens Reign, the Bishops and Clergy are declared to be the greatest Estates of the Realm; and called the High Estate of Prelacy, in another place.

It may perhaps be thought unnecessary, or impertinent to adde the Testimony and Authority of a private person, to that which hath been said by our Laws and Statutes. But be­ing it is such a Person as was accounted for the Oracle of Law when he served in Parliament his Judgement may be taken for a creditable and sufficient Evidence in the present Case. It is the Testimony and Authority of Sir Edward Coke, successively Chief Justice of either Bench; who in his book concerning the Jurisdiction of Courts, speaks thus of Parliaments,Coke of Parl. Fol. 1. ‘This Court (saith he) consisteth of the Kings Majesty sitting there as in his Royal Politick Capa­city, and of the three Estates of the Realm, viz. of the Lords Spiritual, Archbishops, and Bishops, who sit there by Succession in respect of their Counties, Baronies, parcel of their Bishopricks which they hold also in their Politick Capacity; And every one of these when any Parliament is to be holden, ought ex debito Justitiae to have a Writ of Summons. Secondly, the Lords Temporal, Dukes, Marques­ses, Earls, Viscounts, and Barons, who sit there by rea­son of their dignities, which they hold by Discent or Crea­tion, and likewise every one of these being of full age, ought to have a Writ of Summons Ex debito Justitiae. The 3d. Estate is the Commons of the Realm, whereof there be Knights of Shires or Counties, Citizens of Cities, and Burgesses of Burghes. All which are respectively Elect­ed by the Shires or Counties, Cities and Boroughs, by force of the Kings Writ ex debito Justitiae, and none of them ought to be omitted: And these represent all the Commons of the whole Realm, and are trusted for them.’ So He, and this is plain enough beyond all exception.

Adde hereunto ex abundanti, that in all Christian King­domes of the Gothick Model, there are no more nor fewer than three estates, convented at the will and pleasure of the Supreme Prince, for their assistance and advice in Affairs of [Page 13]consequence; that is to say, the Bishops and other Ecclesi­astical persons who are alwayes one, the Nobles for them­selves, and the Commissioners for the Commons of their seve­ral Provinces; For so we find it in the Constitution of the Roman Empire and the Realms of Spain, the Kingdoms of France, Poland Hungary, together with those of Dane mark, Sweden, and the Realm of Scotland. And it were strange if in the Constitution of the English Parliaments, or con­ventus ordinum, the Bishops should have been left out and none at all elected to present the Clergy. But being admit­ted with the rest in those publique meetings, and being look­ed on as the first Estate in the Stile of that Court; it must needs be, that their exclusion shakes the very fundamentals of the said Assemblies, and makes the whole Body to be maimed and mutilated for want of such a principal Member, so necessary to the making up of the whole Composi­tum.

But against all this it is objected, first, that some Acts have passed in Parliament, to which the Prelates did not Vote, nor could be present in the House when the Bill was passed; as in the sentencing to death, or mutilation of a guilty person: as doth appear both by the Laws and Consti­tutions recognized at Clarendon, and the following practice. This hath been touched upon before, and we told you then, that this restraint was laid upon them, not by the common Law of England, or any Act or Ordinance of the House of Peers, by which they were disabled to attend that service. It was their own voluntary Act, none compelled them to it, but only out of a conformity to some former Canons, ad Sanctorum Canonum instituta, Antiqui. Britan. in Gul. Courtney. as their own words are) by which it was not lawful for the Clergy men, to be either Judges or Assessors in causa sanguinis Constitut. Oth [...]lb [...]n. Fol. 45.. 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 protestations, with a salvo jure, for the preserving of their Rights for the time to come: Jure Pari­tatis & interessendi in dicto Parliamento Antiqu. Britan. in Gul. Courtaey. quoad omnia & singula ibi exercenda in omnibus semper salvo, as the manner was. Examples of the which are as full and frequent, as [Page 14]their withdrawing themselves on the said occasions.

But then the main Objection is, that as some Acts have passed in Parliamen, absentibus Prelatis, when the Bishops did absent themselves of their own accord; so many things have been transacted in the Parliament Excluso Clero, when the Clergy have been excluded or put out of the House by some Act or Ordinance. A President for this hath been sound and published by such as envied that poor remnant of the Churches honour: though possibly they will find them­selves deceived in their greatest hopes, and yet the evidence will not serve to evince the cause. The Author of the Pam­phlet entituled, the Prerogative and practice of Parliaments, first layes this Tenet for his ground, that many good Acts of Parliament may be made, though the Archbishops, and Bishops should not consent unto themPrinted at London, 1628 p. 31. (which is a point that no man doubts of, considering how easily their Nega­tive may be over-ruled by the far greater number of the se­cular Peers.) Then he adds that in a Parliament holden at St. Edmunsbury, 1196. in the Reign of Edward the first, a Statute was made by the King, the Barons, and the Com­mons, excluso Clero, and for the proof hereof referres us un­to Bishop Jewill.

Now Bishop Jewill saith indeed, ‘That in a Parliament holden at St. Edmunsbury by King Edward the first, Anno 1296. the Archbishops and Bishops were quite shut forth, and yet the Parliament holden, and good and wholesome Lawes were there Enacted, the departing or absence of the Lords Spiritual notwithstanding.Defence of the Apolog. part 6. c. 2. S. 1. In the Records whereof it is written thus, Habito Rex cum Baronibus suis Parliamento, & Clero excluso, statutum est, &c. The King keeping the Parliament with his Barons, the Clergie, (that is to say, the Archbishops, and Bishops,) being shut forth, it was enacted, &c.’ Wherein who doth not see, if he hath any eyes, that by this reason, (if the proof be good) many good Acts of Parliament may be made, though the Commons either out of absence or opposition should not consent unto the same: of whose consent unto that Statute (whosoever it was) there is as little to be found in that Record, as the con­currence of the Bishops. But for answer unto so much of this [Page 15] Reeord so often spoke of, and applauded, as concerns the Bi­shops, we say, that this (if it be truly senced, as I think it is not) was the particular Act of an Angry and offended King against his Clergy, not to be drawn into example as a proof or argument against a most clear, known, and undoubt­ed Right.

The cause stood thus, A Constitution had been made by Boniface the eighth: Ne aliqua collecta ex ecclesiastic is pro­ventibus Regi, aut cuivis alij Principi concedatur; Math. westm. in Edw. 1. that Clergie men should not pay any Tax or Tallage unto Kings or Princes out of their Spiritual preferments, with­out the leave of the Pope. Under pretence whereof, the Clergy at this Parliament at St. Edmunsbury, refused to be contributory to the Kings occasions, when the Lay-Mem­bers of the House had been forwards in it. The King being herewith much offended, gives them a further day to con­sider on it, Adjourning the Parliament to London, there to begin on the morrow after St. Hilaries day; and in the mean time commanded all their Barnes to be fast sealed up. The day being come, & the Clergy still persisting in their for­mer obstinacy, Excluso & Parliamento Clero Consilium Rex cum solis Baronibus & populo habuit, totumque statim Clerum protectione sua privavit Antiqu. Brit. in R. Winchels [...]y. the King (saith the Historian) excluding the Clergy out of the Parliament, advised with his Barons, and his people only, what was best to be done, by whose advice he put the Clergie out of his protection, and thereby forced them to conform to his will and plea­sure.

This is the summa totalis of the businesse, and comes unto no more but this, that a particular course was advised in Parliament on a particular displeasure taken by the King a­gainst the body of his Clergy then convened together, for their particular refusal to contribute to his wants and Wars, the better to reduce them to their natural duty. Which makes not any thing at all against the right of Bishops in the House of Peers, or for excluding them that House, or for the validity of such Acts as are made in Parliament during the time of such exclusion; especially considering that the King shortly after called his States together, and did excuse [Page 16]himself for many extravagant Act which he had committedWolsingh. in Edw. the 1. Anno 1297. against the Liberties of the Subject (whereof this was one) laying the blame thereof on his great occasions, and the necessity which the Warrs which he had abroad did im­pose upon him.

And so much as in answer unto that Record, supposing that the words thereof be rightly senced, as I think they are not, and that by Clerus there we are to understand Arch­bishops and Bishops, as I think we be not, there being no re­cord (I dare boldly say it) either of History or Law, in which the word Clerus serves to signifie the Archbishops and Bishops, exclusive of the other Clergy; or any writing what­soever, wherein it doth not either signifie the whole Clergy generally, or the inferiour Clergy only exclusive of the Arch­bishops Bishops, and other Prelates. Therefore in answer unto that so much applauded Cavill of Excluso Clero, from what Record soever it either hath been hitherto, or shall hereafter be produced, I shall propose it to the considera­tion of the sober Reader, whether by Clerus in that place or in any other of that kind and time, we must not understand the Inferiour Clergy, as they stand distinguished in the Laws from my Lords the Bishops.

For howsoever it be true that Clerus in the Ecclesiastical notion of the word doth signifie the whole Clergy generally, Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons: Yet in the Legal notion of it, it stands distinguished from the Prelates, and signifyeth only the inferiour Clergy. Thus do we find the Ecclesiasticks of this Realm divided into Prelates, men of Religion, and other Clerks, 3 Edw. 1. cap. 1. the Seculars either into Prelates and Clerks, 9 Edw. 2. cap. 3. 1 Rich. 2. cap. 3. or Prelates, and Clerks beneficed, 18 Edw. 3. cap. 2. or generally into the Prelates and the Clergy, 9 Edw. 2. cap. 15. 14 Edw. 3. cap. 1. and 3. 18 Edw. 3.2.7. and 25 Edw. 3.2.4. and 8 of Hen. 6. cap. 1. And in all Acts and grants of Subsidies made by the Clergie to the Kings or Queens of England since the 32 of Hen. 8. (when the Cler­gie Subsidies first began to be confirmed by Act of Parlia­ment.

So also in the Latin Idiom, which comes neerest home, [Page 17] Nos Prelati & Clerus, in the submission of the Clergy to King Henry the eighth,Regist. Watham. and in the sentence of divorse against Anne of Clere, Regist. Cranmer. and in the Instrument of the grant of the Clergy Subsidies presented to the Kings of England ever since the 27th. of Queen Eliz. and in the form of the Certificates (per Stat. 8. Eliz. c. 17. & ever fince Praelatos & Clerum) returned by e­very Bishop, to the Lord High Treasurer, and finally, Nos Episcopi, & Clerus Cantuatiensis Provinciae in hac Synodo more nostro solito, dum Regni Parliamentum celebratur, Congregati.Stat. 1. Phil. & Mary c. 8. in the Petition to K: K. Phillip and Ma­ry, about the confirmation of the Abby Lands to the Pa­tentees; So that though many Statutes have been made in these latter times, Excluso Clero, the Clergy, that is to say, the inferiour Clergy (who antiently had their place in Parliaments) being quite shut out, and utterly excluded from those publique Councils; Yet this proves nothing to the point, that any Act of Parliament hath been counted good, to which the Bishops were not called, or at the ma­king of which Act, they either were shut out by Force, or excluded by Cunning.

But then besides the so much celebrated Argument of Excluso Clero, the Author of the Pamphlet before remem­bred, hath told us somewhat on the credit of Kilbancies book; In which the Justices are made to say 7 Hen. 8. ‘That our Soveraign 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.’ But first, this is but the opinion of a private man, of no Authority or Esteem (for ought we can find) in the Realm of England, and therefore not concluding in so great a businesse. And 2ly. admitting him to be a man of more note and credit than perhaps he was, yet he must needs fall short in all respects, both for a­bilities and reputation, of Chief Justice Coke, whose Judg­ment to the contrary we have seen before. But 3ly. it runs crosse to the antient practice of the Saxon times, in which the Bishops sate in Parliament as Spiritual persons, without [Page 18]relation, to their Temporal possessions, or their Barons Fees, as afterwards in the raign of the Norman Kings. And final­ly admitting that Kilbancies plea were of weight enough, to keep the Bishops down from rising to their place in Parlia­ment, it must be strong enough to exclude all the Temporal Lords; The Temporal Lords being called to Parliament on no other ground, than for the Temporal possessions which they hold by Barony. Adeo argumenta ab absurdo petita, ineptos habent exitus, said Lactantius truly, It is the Fate (said he) of ill chosen Premises, that they produce ridicu­lous and absurd Conclusions.

There remains one Objection more, and indeed the greatest, not extant in the Pamphlet before remembred, though possibly promoted and occasioned by it; that is to say, that the Bishops are excluded from their Place and Vote by Act of Parliament, deliberately made and passed by the Kings consent. For answer whereunto, it will be neces­sary first to state this Question, viz. Whether that any two of the three Estates: confirming or agreeing together, may conclude any thing which tends to the Subversion of the third. Bodinus that renowned Statesman, hath resolved it negatively, and determined thus; Nihil a duobus ordinibus discerni posse, quo uni ex tribus incommodum inferatur, &c.Bodin de Rep. l. 3. s. 7. That nothing can be done by two of the three Estates, to the disprofit of the third, in case the point proposed be such as concerns them severally, And he resolved thus in favour of the Commons of the Realm of France, who were upon the point of being excluded from the Parliament, or Convention of the three Estates, if he had not notably be­stirred himself in their behalf (he being then a Delegate or Commissioner for one of the Provinces) and by his dili­gence and care preserved their Interests; And to preserve their Interest, he insisted chiefly on the antient customes of the Realm of France, as also of the Realms of Spain and England, and the Roman Empire; In each of which it was received for a ruled Case, Nihil a duobus ordinibus statui posse, quo uni ex tribus prejudicium crearetur, That nothing could be done by any of the two Estates, unto the prejudice of the third.

And if it were a ruled Case, then in the English Parlia­ments, there is no reason why it should be otherwise in the present times, the Equity and Justice of it being still the same, and the same reasons for it now as forcible as they could be then. Had it been otherwise resolved of in the for­mer ages, wherein the Clergy were so prevalent in all pub­lique Counsels, how easie a matter had it been for them, either by joyning with all the Nobility to exclude the Com­mons, or by joyning with the Comonalty to exclude the No­bles? Or having too much Conscience to venture in so great a change, and alteration, so Incompatible, Inconsistent with the Constitution of a Parliament; how easily might they have suppressed the Potency, and impair the Priveleges of either of the other two, by working on the humours or af­fections of the one to keep down the other?

Nor doth it help the matter in the least degree to say that the Exclusion of the Bishops from the House of Peers, was not done meerly by the procurement of some of the other two Estates, but by the Assent of the King, of whom the Laws say He can do no wrong, And by an Act of Parliament whereof our Lawyers say, que nul doit imaginer chose disho­nourable, Plowden in Commentar. that no man is to think dishonourable. For we know well in what condition the King was when he passed that Act, to what extremities he was reduced, on what terms he stood, how he was forced to withdraw from his City of London, to part with his dear Wife and Chil­dren, and in a word, so over-powred by the prevailing Par­ty in the two Houses of Parliament, that it was not safe for him (as his Case then was) to deny them any thing. And for the Act of Parliament thus insisted on, besides that the Bill had been rejected when it was first brought unto the Lords, and that the greater part of the Lords were frighted out of the House, when contrary unto the course of Parlia­ment it was brought again; it is a point resolved both in Law and Reason, that the Parliament can do nothing to the di­struction of it self, and that such Acts as are under a con­straint, are not good and valid, whereof we have a fair ex­ample in the book of Statutes.15 Ed. 3.

‘For whereas the King had granted certain Articles pre­tended to be granted in the Form of a Statute, expresly contrary to the Laws of the Realm, and his own Preroga­tive and Rights Royal (mark it for this is just the case) which he had yielded to escue the dangers, which by de­nying of the same were like to follow in the same Parliament,’ it was repealed in these following words; It seemed good to the said Earls, Barons, and other wise men, that since the Statute did not proceed of our free Will, the same be void; and ought not to have the name nor strength of a Statute, and therefore by their Counsell and Assent we have decreed the said Statute to be void, &c. Or if it should not be repealed in a Formal manner, yet is this Act however gotten, void in effect already by a former Sta­tute, in which it was enacted in full Parliament, and at the self same place where this Act was gained, That the Great Charter (by which, and many other Titles, the Bishops held their place in Parliament) should be kept in all points, and if a­ny Statute be made to the contrary, it shall be holden for none. 42 Ed. 3. c. 1.

More Arguments than these against the Bishops Place and Vote in Parliament I have no where found. And these being answered and refelled, I hope the point in question hath been fairly proved, viz. That the Bishops make a Fun­damental and Essential part of our English Parliaments.