Some considerations on Doctor Kennet's second and third letters. Wherein his misrepresentations of Mr. Collier's Ecclesiast. history are lay'd open; and his calumnies disprov'd. By Jeremiah Collier, M.A. 1717
Collier, Jeremy
ec ö * *4 4 = 2 > . 8 —— 8 .- R 8 | " —_— © = . ve —— „ | | 4 ' 2 . * »-- ey + wed " . . h L 9 . : # 5 . —— 2 wow, . . 4 * 4 #F =. Foun, 3 1 : | __— ry _— 9 * — a * — 2. * 1 L » 4 Ws * — - — 830 4 * : „ „ 9 n 8 4 1 p — oy ——— —— a+. v-- W 4 + a 1 , X 2 EY 22 —— —„— : , J \ * a 4 " * _ „ * 5 * * 11 — 8 4 & CT 4%. „ * * 95 * „ „80 „ — FYL EO | "oy — 8 —̃ — ̃̃¶ b1X « * . „ * 5 F 1 . , as ,. | L F SD . - * A ,. — 1. *, a * I 2 25 k : * 4 7 0 * * 6 7 4 T / * _ =. - : + -# 2 k «4 ws — 9 e * - "PT. F 2 ; - a. by > 4. " 4 2 IS 4a _ ,'—. ö 5 197 Cn ' — __—_ 2 1 — 2 ' - z ® - 7 - 4 PF 5 % a — M * * I, „ F *'* * % T - N 8 * * * : 9 - 4 9 1 — — ©. 1 | ' ö 7 * * *. © - C * "I. : 4 C - — ” 4 ” "S Fe «2 * 2 * UW 4 - Ld - * - * — * 1 * - a 4 * 1 » 0 ” 2 * 8 8 * — — ” _ - 2. * * — % 2 * i "4 p * + ww : 'S wy >, - ” —> F * 5. — — : — * 1 1 —, 3 : a, * —. : 1 9. p oy. v a * 1 0 * : " — 4 1 * — * D * _. * o * 1 £ 1 86 12 2 noo „ n : a ; cy A 5 *. E; _—_ * A FX Arne **. 5 60 N 1 8 4. * * 14, FL * 7 — * = ; X — 3; 3 — ” 2 1 % *. p - a - 7 1 a = * * — 1 oe — : » - A * 2 — 8 -.. * 4 : *. * 1 * — > * 4 4 o Ly * Ca + * 2 „ - : - N * * * s 89 » \ l R * 1 5 „ * _ _ + 7 . * * _ =_—_ 8 * * * & * * wo N * - _ / * . * \»e | 2 : a. | het n? by g * > LE 1 " n * Fa - * . * 1 ' 75 7 - pe” 2 LO my ” —_— » — 3 1 1 - 4 * 4 * ' \ 1 5 * Lax 34 * — k 4 a - = 8 * me - * % = * ;. 1 4 - - v : 1 $$ > ws s Han nk 4 $68 © : 80 * w UE #7 *. * 4 * by - 8 4 Y.. + * 1 1 - 1 = Pd £ £ 1 : » - 7 p £ =_ 2 of 88 * 4 48 8 5 ". * af * # : _ 4 4 = << P 4 7 > 4. ” 42 - = — + A \ * i # 4 Fl 4 +bo * 1 oP * } "= e on br 4 *'*S ag * +4 k +. :'* : 1 1 > 9 4. / 2 * 1 * 8 x 1 1 „ 70 q'# — = < I p pe 5 - " 3 5 = by : : — 5 =. 1.+ 7. <4 14 * _ * 7 32 * 0 ** |'3 7 | 5 2'by | | : of th % www 4 * 9 r 4 Y * 1 - = * 9 63 1 * -. * * , — 4 9 1 4 * = = 4 © * - Li Tale = * - | o - , # = == 4 — m.. „ 1 - 1 - e. * \ * „ a. a | { ”. * * * > — — A - £$% = ol _ * oY * ” * - * A . * . — * 7 e 4 , 1 4 — 7 — a, 11 * —— = 'T k $ m + 8 4... SZ \ = = — *. by ol Oo „ — v 7 * 7 * BY 3 „ — — £ * * = | 'S. 1 * Ty %., _ : :. s! = N ? ' : - a 9 & „ _ 2 . Ip < — | * © N * - ——_ <= - CH 4 3 — > . » : N - . +0 „ Et 85 * Cel __ III { Letters, Kr. RA: Ken, in his Second Letter, was pleas d to charge my Church 2 ſtory ic Partiality Y., The Articles I con- Is run High, and touch an Authors 12 5 in he molt ſenſible. Part: weyer,. the Inſtances being few, I hoptd the r would: | not. take che Doctor upon Coment, AAIWO7 2 55 hüt 6x the Books, knew, was ſufficient to diſcover and diſappoint the, DoRor.. I. choſe therefore to ſay 1 under ill Uſage, racher than publickly ge in a Squabble. But ſince the Decor has rinted a Letter upon the ſame Subject, en- r men, and gone farther in his ilence Will be conſtrued Guile, es Fs no longer : He has dragg d me 25 > the Quatrel, and I muſt enter the 22 ke b. ſo kg Oy” PA, octor rmi ing their Cbureb- men gain erg 20 55 Ther barb Hiſt florian, ial. Fave 21 Dol. ud the Prelate againſs ihe King, 4 who all a not only.s in 5 iy She F Anſelm, 1 of that greater Incen- Thomas "Bec et, whale ya ine Ill pon the J Lords, was, I ſay, Breach of 5 Faith to the Kin e ping Mater to „ To this I enfives FS 3 — am — — 2 r. 4 br. Kennet's Second Litter, 8 Kc. 4.. ag; A | 2 Fi 2. "3 : # % * . ” 911 Os A arp d hs ag their l * oil 2 eint N | * Some knee, Pon, Kenner the Evidence. The bare in suspecting | ing Contenders and Cham- T Princes, is the gliſb Biſhops used to enter upon their Office with- — — jo N * * 6 | + 1 *, 2 ; - © - g - * ON 9 « * %,... £ * 10 * R 2 we * - * » 2 — * * N71, As to Anſelm, tho Fox diſcommends himi for | coming with K. William Rufas, about the on- ing Pope Urban II. yet that Anſeim held the right side of the Question; I have endeavored to make good by several Arguments, which the | LE Doctor should have disapproved, before the preferring his Complaint. And as for the Diſpute between the Crown, and this Archbishop in the next Reign, about the Inveſtitures, the King was with the Pope's Temper for adjusting the Difference, gave up his Claim as to the main, and was perfectly reconciled to Anſelm. And thus, excepting the stretch of the Popes Pretences, there was nothing unprimitive delict: For that the first Envoyance an Authority from the Crown, shall be proved I come now to the Second Branch of the Domédém Charge, where he tells the Reader, that Incendiary Thomas Beckets Inſolence and Breach of Faith to the King and Lords, is often at least to an Excuse, and gently reproved only with a may be, was publishing Matters too far. Now to know the Doctors Talent in Quotations; I shall bring the Point to the Test, and cite the Passage in Question, somewhat at length. And here he is reported inexcusable for traversing the Ground; moving backwards and forwards, engaging and retracting, with respect to the Articles of Clarendon. He was likewise to blame, for quitting the Kingdom without the Kings leave, this being a direct Breach upon the fourth Article of those Constitutions. * Ecclef, Hift. pag. 297. + Dr. Kennet's Second Letter, pag. to. & sujourn. N. C3.) 1 cc fut Father, his Tenant, that the Civil Government had its Authority from the Church, a grand mistake, and misguided his Practice His refusing to return to his See upon the most advantageous Precedents, and the best Terms enjoyed by any of his Predecessors; and father, his breaking off the Accommodation only for being denied the Rights of Peace, are indefensible lengths of Incomprehensible lengths of Incomprehensible lengths. And so, for His sustenance in these Points, he is blamed even by Newbriggers of Thus we see, there's a direct Cure upon several Parts of his Conduct: His Memory is loaded with Inconvenience and Breach of Faith, with respect to the Articles of Clarendon: He is with maintaining a false Principle of dangerous ness, not to repeat the rest: And all this without any questioning the faults, without any softening it may be, or abatements for mitigation. Now since these Remarks upon Archbishop Becker were laid down all together, the Doctors misrepresenting them in so lamentable a manner, must be extremely surprizing. And to mention only one Part of the Cure, I can assure him, I reckon On the Breach of Faith to a King, &c., a Crime of no ordinary use; and if I had diluted the Charge, and left the Misbehavior in Becker, with an it may be, that punishing Matters too far, I should have deserved what the Doctor would put upon me. But since all this is affirmed without any Colour of Truth, since the Looking upon my History is demonstrative, the Article of misrepresenting will fall to his own Share, and the Charge rebound strongly upon himself. + The  1. pag. 374 1 Ibid. 66 at ut ip ſaying the moſt-uhexceptianable Parts of Beule, Conduct, may be ſaid; to have been © more the Faults of the Age, than of the Man. That ckis Remark is no Complement to the Arch- biſhops Memory, iby - what I abſerv d, from che Privileges granted the Glergy by the Theodoflary and Juſtiaimm Codir, by tha! Canon Law in Gratiaw's. Droretum und by ſeveral. Precedents cc ſci and Authorities in the Old & ngliſh Conſtitution. acco From all — — ibng Colours to th to miſlead an honeſt Mind an dean, then ¶ ther -debnted ; that is the Exe of Clerks from be- ing try can Tempra Qourts. And now if ¶ diner the Decor wonders: at any Bodies Art or Igno- rance, in repreſenting the "Caſe; it muſt be his own. The next Articleinins ſtäll higher: For For if the Doctor may be believidy I not onip/peat {mooth- rr 2 geen Mary be burner df Hereticks, fi wen Elizabeth; b i really | 2 — Gardiner amd Bonner, * Fox and cher, ban ef Craniner & + - YO, The Parse I drew between the Two Queens with reſpe& to the Church; was one of Biſhop Burner's Objections: And to the Anſwer I then return'd, 'T ſhall refer the Reader. ¶ And what ſnooth Things I ſpealł of the burning Hereticks, the Doctor knew de fy well, if he has read my Book; and if he has not, I chink Juſtice ſhould how ' kept. him filent; - Howevet; ſince he proſecutes with ſo much Warmth prey (Aſſurance, I muſt tranſcribe one Paſſage among others for coun- ter Evidence. Rt Words  Hiſt. 2 t. pag. 373, 10 375. + Dr. Kennet's Second Leiter. pag. 11. An Answer for some Exceptions, in Bishop Burnet's Third Part of the History of the Sea, Sc. Page 5. The proceedings against the Reformers in this Reign, were extremely Bloody and Barbarous barots: To destroy People for Points of mere Speculation, and which have no ill effect upon Practical and Civil Government, seems very remote from the Spirit of Christianity. Supposing Truth on the persecuting Side, yet to burn a Man because he will not bely his conscience; and turn Hypocrite, is strangely unaccountable: I might go on much farther to the same purpose. But this may serve for another Proof of the Doctor's clear Dealing. And whereas he says, "Speak really better of Gardiner and Bonner, than of Cranmer &c. I shall only desire the Reader to consult the History, where at first sight, he will plainly discover the Falstaff and Unbene volence of this Affirmation." His joyning my Historical Performance with a Book under public censure, without distinguishing upon the Qua, and assigning the Proportion to each: His making these Books most remarkably calculated for softening Popery, and bringing in Tyranny of Church and Crown; is another instance of the Doctor's Temper. But all this coming without any pretence of Proof as to my particular: And that which follows being nothing but naked invective; nothing but Rambling and Railing; I shall consider it no farther. And as I have meddled with nothing in the Doctor's second Letter, but what relates to myself, I shall confine my Remarks upon his Time within the same Compass. Collier's Eccles. Hift. vol. 2. 2. 207. 282. Dr. Kennet 7 Second Letter, page 37. 38. And when the first thing I shall observe, His Glory upon Witliffs, Charatter, commends him for his Honeysuckle, but makes it out: He lays he left several sudicious and extravagant Followers, meaning the Lollards maintain their Opinions with a great deal of Zeal, or Heat, is beyond dispute: Their Remonstrance to the Parliament; the Rebellion under Sir Tom Oldenple, to mention nothing more, is sufficient Warrant for this part of their Character. But that their Judgment was far short of their Vigour, is pretty plain from their declaring War, and can be utterly unlawful. Besides, their orienting Divine Contention for publishing this false R bs ed Evidence for their Honeysuckle. The Doctor goes on with his Commentaries, and makes Warble the Glory of our Nation, and the Honour of our Mother Oxford; with some other exalted strains of Panegyric: Now not to repeat the Heterodoxies charged upon Wickliff, and the Authorities for proof, which the Reader sees in the 1st. Volume of my Church History; not to repeat this, I can't help observing, that notwithstanding. Standing all the honor and Glory, the Doctor That was that little beareth upon Wick; it is plain he knew in the 1. Communion of the Church of Rome. The Doctor in his next Courtezony to Wellesley, by on affirms, that the University of Oxford gave public attention to his and Merits, even his Death, etc. Arg 2 1512 2 ji 07 "Boa" Dr. Kennet's Third AO: &c. pag. 7 3 ww 44 f. fag. pag. 598, N. $4566.74. 10. pelman. Concil. Vol.. 2 Pay: 646, & 6 deine. Pr Anis | 11 e s Ecelel. Hift. vol I. pag. 586. He means a Letter published in the Name of that University, in which Commendation: This was done in the Reign of King Henry IV. But that this Testament is plainly counterfeited, and little better than a Beggars Pass made under a Hedge, I have fully proved from Wood's Antiquities, etc. Indeed the Marks of Forgery with explicit to Hicklis's Character, and many other Circumstances, are so glaringly apparent, that unless the Readers prejudice makes him wink Hard, this next to impossible to miss them. However, the counterfeiting this Testament, is a good Argument, (if We had no other) that Wickliff died in the Communion of the then Eucharistic, that is of the Roman Church; for had he lived, he would have perished himself, or been excommunicated by his Bishop, the recommending his Memory, and dilating upon his Merit, would have laid open, the Cheat at first sight, and hindered it from passing upon the subject. Understanding: The Univergiversities venturing to flourish upon so dangerous a Subject, would have looked like a Roman trick Story; especially, considering the Ad for burning Hereticks was so lately made, and executed. Dedicated too. But this Statute is now repealed, and herefore no more needs be said about it. I proceed, the Doctor affirms, our Archbishops and Biſhops were at first nominated and appointed by our Christian Rings. And why not our Hea-then Kings too? What makes the difference between a Christian and a Pagan Prince? Nothing really but Baptism, I desire to know then. Es iy. 4; C14, * 29. Car. 2. Cap. 3. De. Kennet's Third Letter, page 1. Whether a King's Baptism implies more Privilege than that of a Subject: Is not this Sacrament administered to every Body with the same Matter, Form and Ceremonies? If therefore a Prince is baptized a Church Governor, all his Subjects must be so too. But this Supposition is big with Contradiction, destroys the Doctors Regale, and the Nature of a Society: For if every Body is to govern, where shall we find People bound to obey? But in the next Place, the Doctor is mistaken in his matter of Fact: For at first, our Bishop were not nominated and appointed by our Christian Kings. For at the first Conversion of the Saxons, Augustine Archbishop of Canterbury, appointed Laurentius for his Successor. And thus the Person Archbishop of Canterbury, offered to settle that See upon Bishop Wilfrid after his Death. The same may be collected, he suggests the expedient of a Synod to form the Project, and adjué. The Measures But A of this more afterwards. The Doctor ventures to say, that it is non-sense to a servant that Bishop depriv'd by a Lay-Power, had felt a right to the Sees taken from them: And that nothing like this appears, in the British, Saxon, Danish, and first Norman Times: Now to make this out, the Doctor should have produced some instances of Bishop depriv'd by a Lay-Power, long within the Pericd mentioned. But notwithstanding, In his information, nothing of this kind is at hand. Was it not? Bede Eil., c. 4; Eddius cap. 42. Epist. Bede ad Egbert. Ant. For the sake of the Doctors under, understanding, I'm willing to suppose, that he knows that neither the British, Saxon, or Danish Reigns, must afford him so much as a single President. And as for the rest of the Norman Times, even here he'll find no Relief. To begin with William the Conqueror. The Prince, it may be, strained his Prerogative to much upon the Church in some Cases, yet he never carried the Point so far, as to depose many Bishop upon the strength of the Regale. These, matters as far as it appears, were always left to the management of Ecclesiastics. Thus Stigand, Archbishop of Canterbury, Agelrick Bishop of Selcey, by and Agelmar of Helmam, were all deprived at the Synods of Wincheister and Windsor. And when Mulstan Biſt. hop of Worcester, had like to have met with the same Fate, upon pretence of insufficiency, the Charge was brought in by Lanew Franc Archbishop of Canterbury, and managed before the rest of the Bishop, at the Council of Pe-to-rede. And in the succeeding Reigns, though the Archbishops Anselm and Becker, were for some time as to the Church of England, by the Kings Henry I. and II. and neither of these Princes pretended to deprive them of their Sees, or put any others in their place. The Doctor cites a public Remonstrance to prove the Right of filling Sees and Churches, before, longs to those who endowed and built them. But with Submission, this is a plain Mistake; as have elsewhere shown at large. Hoveden. Annal. fol. 260. Florent. Wigorn. ad An. 1070. Malms. De Geſt. Pontif. fol. 160. Dr. Kennet's Third Letter, page 18. Colliers Eccles. Hist. ol. 1. page 48, 8. The Doctor represents, the Prelates and Clergy as mercenary Vases to the Pope: That they were in Concert to betray the Church of England to the Church of Rome, and all retained on his Holiness's side. But Sir Edward Coke, who is never guilty of partial Favour to the Clergy, gives them a much fairer Character. This Learned Lawyer upon the Statute of Merton observes, that both before and after the Reign of King Henry III, many of the Judges, and great Officers of the Realm, such as Lord Chancellor, Treasurer, etc., were of the Clergy. After this, he gives them the Commandation of a general Integrity: That they were not overborn by any Partialities in the Court of Rome: That they were true to their Office, and the Constitution: That they constituted the Laws of England, so as no Encroachments or Breach was made upon them by any Foreign Power. And in this very Reign where the Doctor is concerned, Courtney Archbishop of Canterbury, protests in Parliament against the Popes Encroachments: His Protection stands at length in my Church History. Now from this Declaration of the Archbishop, it is evident he was no Valuable to the Court of Rome: He did not assert the Pope's Supremacy so far as to weaken his Allegiance, or make him an ill Subject. And now after some Introductory Dispute, we are gotten to Merks Bishop of Carlisle, And here the Doctor pretends to wonder at the grave. Dence of Dr. Brach, and Mr. Collier, who bring in in this Speech at by &c. 2 | 1 Dr. Kennet's Third Letter, page 18, 22. Coke. Institut. part 2. 98. and fol. 265. | Vol. 1. pag. 594. Rot. Pail. 16. Rich. 2, N. 20. Cottons Abridg. fol. 34 „ elle ©. 04 Kenner Third Letter, 1. 5r, ——_—— II Ler Ry. Let us then examine this Matter. The Doctor to disprove Bishop Merks making any Speech, observes that Mr. Hall, who died about 150 Years after the speaking, is able to give notice of any such Speech. He argues further, and says, that had any of the Spiritual Lords made a dissenting Speech, it would have been signified in the Roll itself; or at least the Writers of that Time would have been full of it. The first Part of this Argument, he is so kind as to confute himself: For he rightly observes, that the Names of the Lords Spiritual, who asserted to the confining King Richard, are only upon the Parliament Roll: And therefore that those who disputed, could not be entered among the other Names. To come to the last Reformer of his reasoning: Walgreen, he lived at that Time; and relates the proceedings of this very Parliament with great Exactness, drops not one Word; Bishop Merks speaking or appearing: But hear the Doctor vouches too far, for Walgreen's Exactness. For that this Historian omits a great many material Things done in this Parliament, is evident, by comparing his Narrative with Cotton's Abridgment of the Rolls. Besides, the Reason why this Speech is unmentioned, may probably be the Danger, or at least the unacceptableness of such a Story, during the Three successive Reigns of the Lancastrian Family, and that of Henry VII. soon after. For as soon as the two contending Branches were united, and the House of York settled upon the Throne, that is, when twice safe to report the Speech, we find it mentioned by Hall. And though this Historian, as Id. pag. 45. See Cotton's Abridg. fol. 391, Dr. Kennet's Third Letter, pag. 45, The Doctor hints, might Die about 150 Years after the speaking, yet he lived, and was grown up to Capacity, many Years before this Period: Neither can Hall be supposed to fail his Story, and invent this Speech as an Incence of Flattery to King Henry VIII. For this Prince was descended from the House of Lancaster by his Father, and therefore must be no less concerned for the Honour of that Family, than for the other of The. And to dismiss this Matter, the Doctor falls into a double mistake: For Hall does not dedicate his Book to Henry VIII. but to Edward VI. neither is there the least Flattery in the Address. And here the Doctor may take Notice, that Hall declares in his Dedication, that through the Seven succeeding Reigns after King Richard II. all the English Historians had been guilty of great Omissions: And though he makes somewhat of an Exception for Fabian, and another Anonymous Writer; yet even these, he says, "hot far wide from the Butt of an History." But, as the Doctor remarks, Hall pretends to me Manuscript Copy for Merk's Speech. (Dr. Renwick, Ibid.) No, it is not his custom to quote any Authorities either Manuscript or Printed. But then he takes Care, to vouch his Sincerity and good Faith. He tells the King, he did not make or invent his History; but compiled it out of Divers Writers, English and Foreign. To proceed, the Doctor infers from my inserting the Speech at large, that I would have the Reader take it for the Genuine Oratory of this Prelate. But this is concluding too fast; what have I done more than referred to Sir John Hayward's Authority? And if, as the Doctor says, Grafton refers benevolently to Hall's Testimony upon this Occasion, why is it not as honest for me to rest the Speech upon the Credit of Sir John Hayward? That Merritt did make a Speech in the Parliament House, and was arrested and imprisoned for it, is owned by Hall, Grafton, Holinghead, Coke, etc. That every Sentence of this Speech was delivered by Merks, is more than I affirmed, That Hayward might beat out the Matter into Length, enlarge upon the Circumstances, and put the Argument into a better Dress, is not improbable: But what is this to the main Business? As long as there's Evidence for the Bishop making a Speech against the deposing King Richard, and setting Henry in his Place; this is sufficient for inserting the Speech mentioned by Hayward upon this Subject. And if this Historian mended the Style, or dilated upon the Reaching, what necessity was there for me to dissect the Speech and run a Criticism upon one? Would not this have been somewhat of a tedious Digression, and foreign to the Work in Hand? Sir Edward Coke takes Merks's Speech for unquestioned History, and gives the Heads of it, which are the same, At this Time, says Sir Edward Coke, "Speak that worthy Prelate Merk, Bishop of Carlisle, and said, that they ought not to proceed to any Judgment against King Richard for four Causes." For the first, that the Lords had no Power to give Judgment upon him that was their Superior, and the Lord's anointed. Secondly, that they obey him for their Sovereign Lord and King. Twenty-two Years or more. Thirdly, if they had Power to give Judgment against him, they ought in Justice to call him to his Answer; for that,  thus after some shuffling and Chicane, he comes in Youchee for the Substance of Bishop Merks. We are now to come forward to the Bishop's Tryal: He was brought, as the Doctor observes, before the King's Justices, and charged with an Indictment of High Treason. And here the Bishop pleads to the Jurisdiction of the Court; and in his visits on the Exemption of his Character. This Plea being over-ruled, he makes a Protest for the saving Ecclesiastical Liberty, and the Privilege of a Bishop. That the Privilege of a Bishop, though the Doctor would not have it so, means the Privilege of a Peer, and implies more than Libertas. Ecclesiastical, is very probable, because the Bishop in the foregoing Reigns, insisted on their Peerage. A Coke Institut. pt. 2. fol. 635, 6. Edit. 1642, Dr. Kennet's Third Letter. p. 53. Idem p. 71, 2. This Gentleman says, that a stranger in Dr. Stillingfleet, to suppose that the English Bishop, as Lords Spiritual, had an equal Right with the Lords Temporal, to be tried by their Parliament. Mentary Peers only. That he was a servant of the Caſe of Bishop Merks, the only Precedent that proves that a Bishop, before the time of Henry VIII, did put himself upon common Fury. As for the most learned Dr. Stillingfleet's Grand visitation, I stand the strongest Attack. And besides, Self-defense is only my Business. And therefore, had not my Church History brought this Subject upon the Board, and occasion some Remarks, I should have passed over this Part of the Doctors' Letter. But since the Argument has engaged me, I must acquaint him, that he sets out somewhat only against Bishop Stillingfleet. He says, that Bishop Merks Case was not the only President of a Bishop putting himself upon a Common Court for no Man could be tried by such a Fury, if he is not put himself upon it. But should not the Doctor consider, that when Man is tried before the Kings Justices, there must be a Jury in Court before Judgment can be given? And if any Man indicted for treason, or causes to plead, and put himself upon his Counsel, his standing Mute shall bring him under all the Forfeitures for that Crime. And if he stands upon an appeal of Murther, he shall be attainted of the Murther, and forfeit. Life, G. hus, there's no pleading, a Jury is necessary. Id. pag. 70. + Id. pag. 73. Coke Toſtirur. pt. 3. cap. 1. fol. — WE Dr, and Student cap. 41. 2 #7 _—. wow we. ee — i PHE ws” ; 5 33 "4 = - * — — 4 \ 4 — — —— FTA ny Sw Bn. ——é——ͥIᷣ̃ —— ¶ —H—H—̃ 2 eee — 10 mug; - - — + @ com _ — L * - =— 7 - — - — ü a CEE CES - — — _ — ?Qñq—d— ——— UZ::: — — ——. Lords Spiritual, alledges, that Adam de Orlton, i n e to qualify the Bench, to give Sentence upon the Malefactor. And whether the Priſoner put. Bimself upon his Country or not, the Trial will go on; and it is the Juries being There which brings him to his Doom. The Doctor, to pursue his Blow against the Bishop of Hereford charged with treason in Parliament, was tried out of Parliament by a lawful Inquisition. In answer to this, I shall only observe, that this Bishop was prosecuted before the Peers: That he refused to take his Trial in the House of Lords: That he instructed upon the Privilege of the Canons: That the Archbishop of Canterbury, York and Dublin came with their Crosses erected, and took him from the King's Bench-Bar, without his answering to the Indictment: That the King provoked with this extraordinary Freedom, commanded the Jury to bring in their Verdict, though the Bishop was not in Court. This Adam de Orton, as a learned Antiquary, observes, was the first of any Bishop in England, who was brought to a Trial of this Kind, in the temporal Courts. The Doctor offers at another Precedent in Stephen Bishop of London. But here Cotton's Administration says nothing of any Complaint made against this Prelate in Parliament for Treason. Onable Words, nor any of his being referred for his Trial to the King's Council. This Abridgment, which takes Notice of many things of less Concern, only  London, Impeached for the delivery of Edward II. Mould be acquitted, and restored to all their Lands And Goods. Further, the Doctor seems to fail in his Authority. He cites Term. Paſch. IV. Ed. III. But having examined the Year Book for this Year, I find Pothing about this Matter. Lastly, The Doctors' Instance confutes his Argument. He says this Stephen was complained of in this Wor, farmer for Treasonable Words; and then referred to the Kings Bench. But here he should have considered that 25. E. 3. cap. 2. the posterior to this Works Trial, was Declaratory of the Ancient But Sir Edward Coke observes, that "I took the Kingdom of the Bakers of this Law, would not make Two Ends only to be Treason, For the Workshops Trial, was Declaratory of the Ancient But Sir Edward Coke observes, that "I took the Kingdom of the Bakers of this Law, would not make Two Ends only for Treason, But since, the Lord the Doctor puts the Case, this Bishop was not tried only for Treasonable Words, it's no wonder that he referred to the Kings Bench. For Words without an overt Deed, are but high Mil- - That is High Miſdemeanors. Now in Caes below Treaſon and Felony, a Peer is to be Fried by a Common Jury. Ste-Hide or Lice, Bishop of Eh, is the Doctors 148. Pext Inſtance. This Bishop, in the Reign of almost Edward III, was prosecuted for being accessory to 8 Murther. + He was summoned to appear at the 2c Kings Bench-Bar, and the Summons; the Arch 771 Piushop of Canterbury, and the Bishop of Rochester 2 7 Cotton's Abridgment, 4. E. III. 1 Dr. Kennet Pag. 74. || Coke Institut. pt. 3. fol. 14. Coke Institut. Pt. 3 Fol 14. and 36. Institut. pt. 2. fol. 49. & Collier's Eccles. Hist. Vol. 1. Pag. 557. C 2 going 8 am (20). | going along with him: Here he denied the Charge, and offered to put himself upon a Trial by his Peers. But the Parliament not sitting, and the Biſhop lying under the Kings' countenance, the Motion was over-ruled, and a Jury of Commoners empaneled to try the Matter. The Bishop brought the Bishop in Guilty of receiving and harbouring the Malefactor. The Bishop complained both of the Injuſtice of the Verdict, and Of his being determined the Privilege of being tried by his Peers. And now to restore his Affairs, he desires to be admitted to Canonical Purgation. From hence, I observe, that Lylde's instructing Wefulſt so strongly upon being tried by his Peers, is a Cha. 