ca. 20. So by the Stat of 1. Edw. 6. cap. 2. before the Stat. of 1. Queen Mary which repealed that Sta. of Edw. 6. all Bishops were to keepe their Courts by Commission from the King and not in their owne names and the acts of the Court to be under the Kings seale and not under the Bishops and if they did the contrary they were to incurre fine and imprisonment in nature of a Premunire To apply this to our case the Kings Commission for the Clergy to make Cannons in their pretended Synod did beare date 12. May last paste being seven dayes after the dissolving of the last Parliament in which Commission there was an expresse proviso that no Cannons should be made 1. Contrary to the Rubrick 2. Contrary to the 39. Articles of Religion 3. Contrary to the Orders and Ceremonies already established and yet as if they would do things purposely against the Kings Commission the Cannons that they made were contrary to all these First They were contrary to the Rubrick of which because I will not be over-tedious I will give but one instance viz. the Rubrick before the Communion confirmed by Act of Parliament where it is expressely said that the Communion Table shall stand in the body of the Church or Chancell and the Priest shall officiate at the North-side of the Table by these Cannons viz. the 7. Cannon the Table is to be at the East end of the Chancell to stand Altar-wise and the sides of the Table are to stand East and West and not North and South and it is there called Altar and not Table and men are injoyned to kneele at the Table so removed all contrary to the said Rubrick and though this may seem but a light matter yet when I shall open to you the Reasons of this upon the first Reformation it will appeare to be a matter of great weight and consequence for the people were in the time of Edw. 6. who began our Reformation of Religion addicted to grosse Idolatry by holding the opinion of transubstantiation and by upholding that abominable Idoll of the Masse in the Adoration of the Hoast and the way then devised to reduce them from Idolatry was by this meanes First King Edw. 6. did by his injunction cause all Altars to be pulled downe and moveable Tables of wood to be in their Rooms Secondly he did appoint that the Sacrament should be no more called the Sacrament of the Altar but the Communion of the body and blood of CHRIST and that the Table on which the bread and wine did stand should be called a Table and not an Altar as may appeare by the Stat. of 1. Edw. 6. Cap. 1. Thirdly He did appoint the Table to stand in the body of the Church by his Common-prayer Booke 5â— Edw. 6. to the end that the people might forget their adoration at the place where it stood before Fourthly and lastly To take away all manner of Superstition he caused a declaration to be made of the sence and meaning of the Church of England for the gesture of kneeling at the Communion which is set downe at large in the Common-prayer Book which was set out 5. Edw. 6. which because it hath given satisfaction to the Consciences of many hundreds and is now left out of our Common-prayer Books I will take the boldnesse to reade it to you word for word as I find it in that Rubrick because it is of singular use Although no order can be so perfectly devised but it may be of some either for their ignorance and infirmity or els of malice and obstinacy misconstrued depraved and interpreted in a wrong part and yet because brotherly charity willeth that so much as conveniently may be offences should be taken away therfore we willing to doe the same Whereas it is ordained in the Book of Common-prayer in the administration of the Lords Supper that the Communicants kneeling should receive the holy Communion which thing being well meant for a signification of the humble and gratefull acknowledging of the benefits of CHRIST given unto the worthy receiver and to avoid the prophanation and disorder which about the holy Communion might els ensue least the same kneeling might be thought or taken otherwise we do declare that it is not meant therby that any adoration is done or ought to be done either unto the Sacramentall Bread and Wine there bodily received or unto any reall and essentiall presence there being of CHRISTS naturall flesh and bloud for as concerning the Sacramentall Bread and Wine they remaine still in their very naturall substances and therfore may not be adored for that were Idolatry to be abhorr'd of all faithfull Christians and as concerning the naturall Body and Blood of our Saviour CHRIST they are in Heaven and not here for it is against the Truth of CHRISTS true naturall Body to be in moe places then in one at one time Secondly the 7. Cannon to name no more is against the 39. Articles which are confirmed by the Parliament 13. Eliz. cap. 12. which I prove in this manner the 35. Article doth maintaine the Books of Homilies to containe good and wholsome doctrine now the seventh Cannon approoving of the bowing in Churches and at Communion Tables is expresly against 3 Homilies of the Church of Eng. viz. 1. The Homily of the right use of the Church 2. The Homily of repairing the Church 3. And the second and third Homilies of the perill of Idolatry In all which Homilies you shall finde these passages 1. That Images and I dols are all one 2. That Altars and Images are one 3. That Idolatry is to Images in Temples an inseperable accident 4. That in time of Common-prayer private devotion is not to be used 5. That the true ornaments of the Church consist in preaching prayer due administration of the Sacraments c. and not by any outward Ceremonies or costly and glorious decking of the House of GOD with gold c. occasioning men thereby to commit most horrible Idolatry 6. That the Church is called holy not of it selfe but because GODS people resorting thereunto are holy with divers more passages in those Homilies to that purpose whereupon I inferre that in asmuch as the 7. Cannon and other Cannons are opposite to these passages they have made Cannons against the 35. Article of Religion and so have done contrary to the Proviso in the Commission Thirdly By the 7. Cannon and other their new Cannons they have done against their Commission in that they are against the Ceremonies of the Church of England now established since the Reformation For by the 82. Cannon in the Cannons 1. Jaco the Table is to stand in the body of the Church or Chancell to the end that the greater number may communicate at the Table and the Minister may be the better heard and seene But by the setting of the Table at the East end of the Chancell the greater number cannot communicate and the Minister in divers
jurisdiction but by from and under the King Nay this power in Bishops to excommunicate is a power of jurisdiction and derived to them from the Pope say the Canonists Azorua Lanelot Instit Iuris can We say in our Law that they have this power from the King for though Kings cannot excommunicate ministerialiter by reason they are Lay-persons as saith Bracton l. 1. c. 8. yet they may do it authoritative by reason of their office by Commission from them Otherwise let any man tell me how Judges Delegate do at this day excommunicate but by Commission from the King grounded upon the Statutes of 24. H. 8. cap. 12. and 25. H. 8. cap 19. Oâ— how doth the high Commission at this day excommunicate but by the like authority grounded upon the Statute of 1. Eliz. And therefore I do conclude this third exception that â—â—â—ing the Clergy doe seem by this Oath to derive their 〈◊〉 â—on by any other right then from the King they have hereby mightily intrenched upon the Kings Prerogative 4. The fourth and last exception to the Oath iâ— in these words Nor shall you ever subject it meaning the Church of England to the usurpations and superstitions of the Sea of Rome and doth not say the Church of Rome wherby it containes a negative Pregnant That is to say you may not subject the Church of England to the superstitions and usurpations of the Sea of Rome but you may subject it to the usurpations and superstitions of the Church of Rome Now there is as much difference betwixt the Sea of Rome and the Church of Rome as betwixt Treason and Trespasse and this appears plainly by the Statute of 23o. Eliza. cap. 1. where it is said that to be reconciled to the Sea of Rome is Treason but to be reconciled to the Church of Rome is not Treason for then every Papist in England should be a Traitour being a member of that Church and therfore reconciled to it Now the Sea of Rome is nothing else but the Papacy or Supremacy of the Pope wherby by vertue of the Cannon unam sanctam made by Pope Boneface the 8th he challengeth a superiority of Jurisdiction and correction over all Kings and Princes upon Earth and those persons which take the Iuramentum fidei contained in the end of some of the editions that I have seen of the Councell of Trent which acknowledgeth this Supremacy are said to be reconciled to the Sea of Rome The Church of Rome is nothing else but a number of men within the Popes dominions or else where professing the religion of Popery and that the Clergy had an ill meaning in leaving this clause in the Oath thus loose I have some reason to imagine when I finde in their late books that they say the Church of Rome is a true Church and Salvation is to be had in it Concerning the Benevolence of 6. subsidies granted by the Clergy I will speake but a word because I have troubled you too long It is not a Subsidy for then it should have bin by the Convocation during Parliament as the books are 1. Hen. 7.21 Edw. 4. 28. Hen. 8. and as the use is at this day to passe in the Acts of Subsidy But it is called a Benevolence or free gift and yet if any refuse to pay it he shall be deprived which is a very Bull for if men be compelled to pay it how can it be said to be a free gift Besides the King was not well dealt with as I conceive in passing his letters Patents of confirmation of this Benevolence dated 3o. August 16. Carol. For upon a signification of his Majesties pleasure by the Arch-bishop of Canterbury the Docket is to this effect drawn up May it please your Majesty this doth contain your acceptance of this benevolence and your confirmation of the same and yet there is a clause in the letters Patents not mentioned to the King in the Docket Vid the Dock wherby the Clergy have power to make Cannons and decrees compelling the payment of the same upon paine of deprivation and so they did against all Law to annex deprivation to offences of such a nature De Minist Ecclesitit 8. when as by the late excellent Lawes of Reformation leg Ecclesiast tit de Deprivatione Ministers are not to be deprived but propter horrenda flagitia and so saith Duarenus an excellent Civilian And so M. Speaker I have done with the Cannons and conclude that they are illegall 1. In point of originall Jurisdiction 2. In point of Derivative authority 3. In the matter and form of them or more briefly in the language of the Schooles they are illegall and void in toto in qualibet parte FINIS THE SECOND ARGVMENT CONCERNING THE PREMVNIRE March 2. 1640. Mr. SPEAKER I Am by the order of the House to speak this day of the penalty which the Clergy by making their late Cannons in their late convention rather then Synod have forfeited and encurred The time before I debated the illegallity of those Cannons that was de culpâ this dispute is de panâ Illegall faults draw after them legall punishments For there are no veniall sinnes at the common Law I was long in the debate of the Cannons and I feare that the weightinesse of this dispute concerning the puâ—ishment will make me runne into the same errour I was doubtfull at first what punishment I should fixe upon the Clergy but considering the vote of this House that the late Cannons were against the Kings Prerogative royall the Fundamentall Lawes of the Land the liberty of the Subject and divers Acts of Parliament I setled my resolutions There is a rule in the Schooles that potentes potenter punientan great offenders shall receive great punishments The English in short is this I hold they have encurred a Premunire viz. All Arch-hishops Bishops Deanes Arch-deacons c. which consented to the making of them which that I may distinctly and clearly prove I will divide all that I have to say upon this matter into 4. parts 1. What a Premunire is 2. The originall ground and cause of a Premunire 3. The grounds and reasons in Law why the Clergy have in this case incurred a Premunire 4. An Answer to the Objections that are made against a Premunire especially by three Civilians now in print 1. Concerning the first it is a rule taken by that excellent Oratour Cic. 1. offic that omnis rei institutio à definitione proficiscitur hee that would handle a thing fully must define it truely Now a Premunire takes its name from the words of the Writ called Premu V. Nâ—br 152. facias about the end of the Writ videlicet Praecipimus tibi quod per bonos legales homines de balliva tua premu facias J. D. Abettores suos c. qd sint coram nobis à die pasche in quindecim dies c. ad respondend nobis de contemptu c.
their ecclesiasticall Courts in their owne names and not in the Kings having procured a Proclamation 1637. declaring the opinions of the Judges that the Stat. of 1o. Edw. 6. cap. 2. is repealed and of no force at this day and that Bishops may keepe Courts in their owne names ob 5 It is objected by the Clergy that these new Cannons were made by authority of the King by his Commission dated 12o. Maij last and therefore they had a warrant for what they did answ This is no excuse for if the Cannons which they made be contrary to the proviso in their Commission and contrary to Law which I have proved before this is so farre from excusing that it aggravates their offence for hereby the King which by Law can doe no wrong to his people is by this Commission made by them an instrument of injury to his people Divines say simulata sanctitas duplex iniquitas because to the outward breach of the Law there is added an inward hypocrisie of the heart which doubles the sinne So in acts of Injustice countenanced by Law there is added to the Injustice a deceipt to the King which doubles the offence Many examples may be given in this kind I will only name three 1. Cardinall Woolsey had a Commission from the King for keeping his Legantine Courts but yet this Commission was no excuse to preserve him from an attainder in a Premunire as I said before 2. Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester in his letter to the Lord Protector mentioned in the first Edition of the Acts and Monuments of the Church but left out in the latter doth cite the Lord Tiptofts case who had a Commission from the King to execute divers things which being found in the execution to be against Law he lost both his head and his Commission at Tower Hill 3. The third and last example is Sr. Anthony Mildmayes case 14º Jacob. in the Kings Bench who was a Commissioner of the Sewers which Commission is grounded upon the Statute of 23o. Hen. 8. who by vertue of his Commission did cause one to be distrained for a fine imposed upon him by vertue of the Commission of Sewers who brought an action of trespasse against the partie that distrained him and had judgement to recover Sr. Anthony Mildmay by an order from the Sewers caused him to be imprisoned till hee had released the judgement for which offence Sr. Anthony Mildmay was sued in a Premunire in the Kings Bench to which he pleaded and was faine to procure a pardon from the King for his discharge ob 6 The last and greatest Objection is this The Bishop of Exceter and divers Divines more hold that the Jurisdiction of Bishops is jure divino whereupon it folowes that neither prohibition nor Premunire can restraine that Jurisdiction which derives from the Law of GOD. answ This indeed is true if their Jurisdiction were of that nature but I have proved before by divers Acts of Parliament that their Jurisdiction is acknowledged by the Law of England onely to be jure humano so are the Statutes of 35. Edw. 1. called the Statute of Carliel 25o. Edw. 3.25o. Hen. 8.26 Hen. 8.37 Hen. 8. 1o. Eliz. c. and Co. 5. Rep. Cawdries case The Common Law doth agree with these Statutes for the Canonists as heretofore I have told you doe observe a double power to be in a Bishop Potestas ordinis common with other Ministers as to Preach Baptize c. and Potestas Jurisdictionis as to admit institute deprive excommunicate c. The former they say is de jure divino the latter is de jure Canonnico or positivo which is agreeable to the Statutes I cited before but what doe I speake of the Common Law for the very Church of England seemes to be of this opinion for in our Booke of Common prayer no more is allowed to Bishops in point of divine right then what is common with Pastors Ministers and Curats for there are but three prayers for Bishops in all the Booke of Common prayer and they all runne to the same purpose The first is in the Lettany in these words that it may please thee to illuminate all Bishops Pastors and Ministers of the Church with true knowledge and understanding of thy word that both by their preaching and living they may set it forth and shew it accordingly wherein nothing is mentioned but their knowledge of GODS word their good life and doctrine The next prayer for them is after the prayer for the King and his Children in these wordes That God would send downe upon all our Bishops and Curats and all Congregations committed to their charge the helpefull spirit of his grace that they may truly please him c. where the taking care of the cure of soules in Congregations committed to them is the maine thing which we pray for them on their behalfe The last is in the prayer for the militant Church in these words Give grace O heavenly Father to all Bishops Pastors and Curats that they may both by their life and doctrine set forth thy true and lively word and rightly and duely administer thy holy Sacraments where there is not so much as a word mentioned of their Jurisdiction but of their true preaching good living and due administration of the Sacraments And so Mr. Speaker doe I conclude my whole Argument touching the penalty incurred by the Clergy for their illegall Cannons made in their Synod at Paules concerning which I will end all in these two Verses which may be better applied to this Synod then the Arminians applied them to the Synod at Dort Paulinae Synodus nodus Chorus integer aeger Conventus ventus Sessio stramen Amen FINIS