We must consider the ground of the law:1 for Ratio legis, anima legis. The reason of the law, is the soul of the law. Why? what is the reason and end of the law? It is this, that no man should be injured. A man may in his attaintment have no more wrong done him then if he answered for him self. Ah then I am not able to say, that in no wise, and arraignment may be turned in to attaintment. A man may have wrong (and that in open judgement) and in form of law, and yet allowed to answer for him self, and even so is possible he may have right, though he never answer for him self. I will not say but that the parliament ⟨image 126⟩houses both high and low, may err, and yet they may do well, & christen subjects must take all things to the best,2 and expound their doings well, although they can not yield, a reason for it, except their proceedings be manifestly wicked, For though they can not attain to see for what purpose things be done, it is no good reason that they be called evil done therefore.3 And is this a good argument, he is not allowed to answer for him self in this place or that place, where he will appoint: Ergo, he is not allowed to answer for him self? No. He might have answered the best he could for him self before a great many, and have had moe to, if he had required ⟨image 127⟩them. Yea, and was commanded upon his allegiance to speak for him self, and to make answer, but he would not needs he would come out to Judgement, and appoint the place him self.
We must consider the groūd of the lawe:1 for Ratio legis, anima legis. The reason of the lawe, is the soule of the lawe. Why? what is the reason and ende of the lawe? It is thys, that no man shoulde be iniured. A man may in hys attayntmente haue no more wronge done hym then if he aunswered for hym selfe. Ah then I am not able to saye, that in no wise, and arrainemēt maye be tourned in to attaintement. A mā maye haue wronge (and that in open iudgemente) and in forme of lawe, and yet alowed to aunswere for him self, and euen so is possible he maye haue ryghte, thoughe he neuer aunswere for hym selfe. I wyll not say but that the parliament ⟨image 126⟩houses both hye and lowe, may erre, and yet they may do wel, & christen subiectes must take all thynges to the beste,2 and expounde theyr doynges well, althoughe they can not yelde, a reason for it, except their proceadings be manifestli wicked, For though they can not attayne to se for what purpose thynges be done, it is no good reasone that they be called euell done therefore.3 And is thys a good argumente, he is not alowed to answer for hym selfe in thys place or that place, where he wyll appoynte: Ergo, he is not alowed to answere for him selfe? No. He myght haue aunswered the beste he coulde for hym selfe before a greate meanye, and haue hadde moe to, if he had requyred ⟨image 127⟩theym. Yea, and was commaunded vpon his allegiaunce to speake for hym selfe, and to make aunswere, but he woulde not nedes he woulde come oute to Iudgemente, and appoynte the place hym selfe.
- 1The reason of the law is the soul of the law.The reason of the law is the soule of the lawe.
- 2How we must take the doings of the parliament.How we must take the doynges of the parliamente.
- 3An untrue argument.An vntrue argument.
