A

SPEECH

AGAINST THE

Bishops Voting

In Cafe of

BLOOD.

Ο

F all the things that were started to hinder the fuccefs of the laft Parliament, and is like to be fo great a ftumbling-block in the next, That of the Bishops Voting in Cafe of Blood was and will be the chief Now they that deny that the Bishops have right to Vote in Cafe of Blood, do labour under two great difficulties; firft, because this is a new thing, at least it is very long fince the like Cafe has come into debate: And next, because they are put to prove a negative, which is a great difadvantage. But Truth will appear from under all the falfe gloffes and umbrages that men may draw over it: And I doubt not to make it evident, that the Bishops have no right to Vote in Cafe of Blood, at least I hope I fhall not be guilty of obftiracy if I do not alter my opinion till what I have to say be answered.

It is strange the Bishops are so jealous of their Cause as not to adventure it on their great Diana the Canon Law; by which they are exprefly forbidden to meddle in cafe of Blood. Perhaps they would do by the Canon Law, as it is faid by the Idolaters in the Old Teftament, that part of the timber they made a god and fell down and worshipped it, the reft of it they either burnt in the fire,or caft it to the dunghil: For, they tell you that the Canon Law was abolifht by the Reformation, and that none but Papifts yeild obedience to it; and therefore now they are not tyed up by the Canon Law, but may fit and Vote in cafe of Blood if they please. I should be very glad if they were as averfe to Popery in every thing elfe, and particularly that they would leave Ceremonies indifferent, and not contend fo highly for them, whereby they make the breach wider,and heighten the differences among Proteftants; in the doing of which they do the Pope's work most effectually. I wish they would confent to have a new Book of Canons; for thofe that are now extant are the old Popish Canons. I like Bishops very well; but I wish that Bifhops were reduced to their primitive Institution; for I fear whilft there is in England a Lord Bifhop the Church will not ftand very steddily. But I will leave this (though I need fay no more) and proceed to other thingsthat are very clear as I conceive.

My Lord Cook in the Second Part of his Inftitutes, the first Chapter, treating of Magna Charta, when he reckons up the Priviledges of the Church, he tells us, that Clergy-men fhall not be elected or have to do in fecular Office; and therefore he tells us, that they are difcharged of fuch and fuch burdens that Lay perfons were fubject to; and good reafon

reafon it should be fo, that they might with greater ease and fecurity attend the business of their Function, that is, to govern and instruct the Church: But whether they had thefe Immunities granted them, that they might study the Pleas of the Crown and Law Cafes, or elfe that they might apply themselves to the work of the Ministry, let any Man judge; for faith he, Nemo militans Deo implicet fe negotiis fecularibus: And if to fit and judge in cafe of Blood be not a fecular Matter I have no more to fay; and I hope my Lord Cook's Authority will be allowed.

And because as I conceive that my Lord Cook's Authority may pass Muster in this point; I wil offer fome things out of him, that will make it evident that the Bishops are only Lords of Parliament, and not Peers, and if fo, it is against the Law of England for them to fit and judge upon any Peer for his Life; for the Law fays, that every Man fhall be tried by his Peers.

In the Second Part of his Inftitutes, the first Chapter, he tells us, that every Arch-Bishop that holds of the King per Baroniam, and called by Writ to Parliament, is a Lord of Parliament : But in the 14th. Chapter, when he reckons up who are Pares in the Lords Houfe, he fays not a word of the Bishops, but repeats all the other Degrees of Lords, as Dukes, &c. And without doubt he would not have made fo great an omiffion if the Bishops ought to have been taken into the number.

Besides this, if the Bishops be Pares, how comes it to pass that an Act of Parliament shall be good to which their confent is not had, paffed by the King, Lords Temporal, and Commons? But it was never allowed for an Act of Parliament where

the

the Lords Temporal had not given their VoteAnd for proof hereof fee my Lord Cook in his Chap. De Afportatis Religioforum, where he gives you feveral Inftances of Acts of Parliament that paffed and the Bifhops abfent.

But then in the Third Part of his Institutes he there puts the matter out of all controverfie, and fhews that Bishops are to be tried by Commoners; for fays he, in the fecond Chap. treating of Petty Treafon, None fhall be tried by his Peers, but only fuch as fit there ratione Nobilitatis, as Dukes, &c. and reckons the feveral Degrees; and not fuch as are Lords of Parliament ratione Baroniarum, quas tenent in Jure Ecclefiæ, as Arch-Bifhops, and BiShops, and formerly Abbots and Priors; but they (faith he) fhall be tryed by the Country, that is by the Free-holders, for that they are not of the Degree of Nobility. So that with fubmiffion this is as clear as any thing in the World.

If the point be fo clear that the Bishops may Vote in cafe of Blood, it would do well that fome Presidents were produced, by which it might appear that they have ever done it, at least that they have made use of it in fuch times when the Nation was in quiet, and matters were carried fairly; for Inftances from Times of Confufion or Rebellion, help rather to pull down than fupport a Cause: But my Lord Cook in his Chap. (that I mentioned even now) De Afportatis Religioforum, gives you feveral Presidents where the Bishops when Capital Matters were to be debated in the Lords House withdrew themselves, particularly 2 of Rich. II. the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury made a folemn protestation in the Parliament for himself and the Clergy of his Province, for that Matters of Trea

fon

fon were to be entreated of, whereat by the Canonical Law they ought not to be prefent; they therefore abfented themselves.

But in regard I have hitherto voucht my Lord Cook for what I have faid, I defire that it may be obferved that he wrote fince the Reformation, and what was Law when he wrote is Law at this day, unless it be changed by fome Act of Parliament made fince; and therefore he that denies my Lord Cook to have written Law must produce fome Act of Parliament whereby it does appear that the Law is altered fince his time. Besides this, the Bishops and other Clergy were called to Parliament very uncertainly, fometimes more, fometimes fewer, and fometimes none at all, as it was in Edw. I. time.

Therefore feeing the cafe to be thus, That the Bishops are not Peers but only Lords of Parliament, That an Act of Parliament is good though they be abfent, That they are to be tried by Commoners, And that when Capital Matters were to be debated, they have withdrawn themselves, declaring at the fame time that they ought not to have to do in fuch things, And also, that they have not fo abfolute a Right to fit and Vote in the House as the Temporal Lords have, because they are called to Parliament fo uncertainly; I fhall be glad to hear what can be said to make their Right unqueftionable But if all this were fet afide, yet it remains on their part to prove that they have fate in Judgment upon the Peers. I am apt to believe, they will be hardly put to it to produce any Prefident out of good Times, when the Nation was in quiet, and the Law had its courfe; Nay, I think they can fcarcey find any, that the Proceeds of

that