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 Queen Mary which repealed that Sta.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
this seems to be the meaning of that Act that the Parliament should have a power in establishing the Canons of the Clergie it appeares by that Act in the appointing of the 32. Commissioners for the making of Canons whereof 16. were to be taken from the Temporalitie out of the upper and nether House of Parliament and 16. more were to be taken from the Clergy So that the Clergie had not that power to do it alone without the Laity though they had the Kings Royall assent thereunto And that the practise was alwaies so that the Acts and Constitutions of the Clergy had their determination and conclusion in Parliament appeares by these examples The 6 Articles mentioned in the Stat. 31. Hen. 8. cap. 14. 31. H. 8. cap. 14. were debated in the Synod or Convocation of the Clergy but were not binding to the people without confirmation in Parliament as appeares clearly by that Act. 32. Hen. 8. cap. 26. The institution of a Christian man compiled in a book by all the Clergy of England containing matter of doctrine as likewise the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church were not binding to the people without the approbation and confirmation of the Parliament of 32. H. 8. c. 26. as appears by that Statute And whereas it was said under the Gallery that the Laietie have nothing to do to meddle with matter of Religion If he had pleased to have cast his eyes upon the Stat. of 1. Ed. 6. ca. 1. he would have found there a notable debate and dispute in Parliament by the Laitie onely against Transubstantiation m l. 5 In S Th. Cottons library and Communion in one kinde as may appeare in that Statute Besides I have seene the Diary of King Ed. 6. written with his owne hand wherein he hath this passage This day there was a notable debate in the Lower House of Parliament against the Communion in one kinde So the Statutes of 2. E. 6. cap. 21. and 5. E. 6. cap. 12. concerning marriage of Priests gave a finall determination to that point by a binding Law upon a debate had first in the Convocation The Canons and Constitutions made by the 32. Commissioners upon the Statutes of 27. H. 8. cap. 15.35 H. 8. cap. 16. and 3. Ed. 6. c. 11. were compiled 6. E. 6. and afterwards printed and published and all the Commissioners names I have seen under king E. 6. own hand and although they be singular good Laws and written in excellent language yet because they have not had the allowance of Parliament are not received as binding Laws at this day Lastly the 39. Articles of Religion made in the Convocation 1562. were not binding Laws to the whole Kingdome till they had their approbation and confirmation by the Stat. of 13. Eliz. cap. 12. Thus have I as briefly as I could run over the practise of all ages in making Ecclesiasticall Laws and the reasons of their practise are briefly these A comparatis by an argument a minori ad majus If property of goods cannot be taken from me without my assent in Parliament which is the fundamentall Law of the land and so declared in the petition of right why then property and liberty of Conscience which is much greater as much as bona animi are above bona fortunae cannot be taken from me without my assent Libertie of Religion and Conscience are as I take it within the words of magna Charta M Ch. cap. 29. graunted to me as mine Inheritance cap. 29. Nullus liber homo imprisonetur aut disseisetur de libertatibus vel liberis consuetudinibus suis And liberty of Conscience is the greatest liberty It is by a necessary Consequence and deduction within the words Imprisonetur for put the Case that the Clergy make Cannons to which I never assented and I breake these Cannons whereupon I am excommunicated and upon a significavit by the Bishop my body is taken and imprisoned by a writ de excommunicato capiendo now shall I lye in prison all the dayes of my life and shall never be delivered by a Cautione admittenda unlesse I will come in parere mandatis Ecclesiae which are point blank against my conscience And thus have I proved the first and chiefest point that no Cannons can bind the Laiety and Clergy without consent in Parliament and therfore these Cannons made against the Laiety as well as the Clergy without their assent cannot bind Point 2 I come now to the 2d. point which is this Admitting the Clergy have power to make Cannons without common assent The question is whether they had lawfull authority to make these by force of the Stat. of 25. Hen. 8. cap. 19. I thinke they had not The words of the Statute by which the Clergy have power to make Cannons 25. Hen. 8. cap. 19. are penned in the negative That they shall not enact promulge or execute any Cannons or Constitutions c. in their Convocations and which alwayes shall be assembled by authority of the Kings writ unlesse the same Clergy may have the Kings most royall assent to make promulge and execute such Cannons upon paine of imprisonment and to make fine at the Kings will By which it plainly appeares that the Clergy have no power to make Cannons but in their Convocation and that to the making of these Cannons there must be the Kings royall assent Whether this were so or no comes now to be examined wherin is to be observed the severall writs and Commissions which they had for the making of these Cannons The first writ that issued forth About the first of Feb. 1639. was the Parliament writ directed to every Bishop for calling them and their Clergy which had this clause in the latter end Ad consentiendum ijs quae tunc ibidem de communi concilio regni nostri divina favente clementia contigerint ordinari The 20. of February following went foorth two Writs more called the Convocation Writs directed to the severall Arch-bishops of Canterbury and Yorke for the election of Clerks to the severall Convocations which had these words in the writs Ad tractandum consentiendum concludendum super praemissis alijs quae sibi clarius exponentur tunc ex parte nostra The Parliament began the 13th of Aprill following and on the 15. of Aprill issued out a Commission to the Arch-bishop of Canterbury to alter amend and change the old Canons and to make new during the Parliament the like went to the Arch-bishop of Yorke On the fift of May following the Parliament was dissolved wherby as I conceive the Law to be the Convocation was likewise dissolved and determined which being so and no Cannons made by them all this time then could there be no Cannons made in the Convocation according to the words of the Statute And therfore the 12. of May following there went foorth another Commission to the Arch-bishop of Canterbury to make Cannons c. during the Kings will
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.
places cannot be heard or scarcely seene whereupon I conclude this second ground of Law that because the Clergy have done so directly against their Commission from the King they have thereby incurred a Premunire The third Ground of Law wherewith I will conclude the third part of my division is this 3 Ground The Common Law of England which as King James saith is in its own principalls the justest Law in the world should not in our case be just the Clergy themselvs being Judges if they of the Convocation should not incurre a Premunire As it is a rule in Art Contrariorum contrariaest ratio in respect of the Subject so there is another rule in Art Contrariorum eadem est ratio in respect of the Analogy and proportion for doe but observe what they doe against us in the Provinc Constitut cap. de sententia excom which is good Law with the Clergy you shall find these words Excommunicantur omnes illi qui literas impetrant à quacunque curia laicali ad impediend processum Ecclesiast Judicum in causis qua per sacros Canones ad forum Eccles pertinent Nay so high they go in their advancement of their Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction that in the said Constitutions capite de panis it doth appeare that if the King do by writ or other command call a Bishop to answer in his temporall Court and the Sheriff◠execute those writs by distresse or attachment c. The King indeed is in point of good manners admonished by them 1 2 3. according to forme but if he will not then desist but in sua duritia perseverare for such rebellious words they have the King his Officers and Ministers his Mannors Castles Cities Burrows c. are hereby exposed to excommunication and interdiction which how terrible it was to the Kingdome of England may appeare in the example of King Iohn who was excommunicated and his Kingdome interdicted by his owne Bishops all the Church doores in the Realme locked up and marriages christnings and burialls denied to all his people To apply this to our case If the King and his people are thus used by the Clergy for the maintenance of their own Lawes as to exclude them from Heaven from the Church and from Salvation for so are excommunicated persons tanquam Ethnici publicani it is then most just for the King to exclude the Clergy from the protection and benefit of his Laws when they so incroach and intrench upon them according to that ancient rule of Law Frustra legis auxilium invocat qui in legem committit And so Mr. SPEAKER I have done with the third and maine part of my Diuision and come to the fourth and last which is the answer of Objections mooved principally by three learned Civilians for so I must account them Doct. Cowell in his Interpreter verbo praemunire a booke suppressed by Parliament and King Iames Proclamation but of late reprinted Doct. Cosins Deane of the Arches in the time of Queene Elizabeth in his Apology for Ecclesiasticall proceedings and Doct. Ridley vicar generall in the time of King Iames in his view of the Civill and Cannon Laws The Objections are six Fourth part ob 1 The first Objection is this the Law of England sayth Civilians doth not impute Premunire to any spirituall Judge dealing in a temporall matter but onely prohibition answ To this I answer that it is a fallacy ex ignoratione Elenchi as Logitians call it that is a meere mistake of the Question for the difference in our Law is this where the spirituall Court hath jurisdiction and where not as for example The spirituall Court hath jurisdiction of Tithes and yet if it hold plea de grossis arboribus that is of Timber-trees above 20. yeares growth contrary to the Stat. of silva caedua 45. Edw. 3. cap. 3. there a prohibition onely doth lye because the Court hath jurisdiction of Tythes but when the spirituall Court hath no jurisdiction at all as in debt trespasse c. there a premunire doth lye So is Dr. and St. which I quoted before and 24. Hen. 8. B. Prem 16. and divers other authorities in Law ob 2 It is said by the Civilians that Curia Romana aut alibi mentioned in the Statutes of Premunires which I cited before must not be meant of any Courts here in England but of the Popes Courts which he kept sometimes at Rome sometimes at Avignion in France and sometimes at Bonony in Italy and therefore must be ment of those Courts which the Pope kept beyond Sea and not at Rome answ It is a vain Objection for alibi doth not referre to the place but to the Court for whersoever the Pope is let him be at Rome at Avignion at Bonony or in England c. There is Curia Romana whersoever he is and therfore alibi must needs be ment of some other Ecclesiasticall Court then the Popes Court and so is it expounded in old N. B. fol. 152. 5. Edw. 4. fol. 6. and divers other books of Law and therefore in some of the Records which I cited before the word alibi is thus interpreted In Curia Romana aut aliqua alia Curia Christianitatis and that is certainly the meaning of the word alibi as may appeare by the pleading in the old booke of Entries 430. Praedict I. R. machinans Dominum Regem nunc coronam dignitatem suam exhaeredare cognitionem quae ad curiam Domini Regis pertinet ad aliud examen trahere for that indeed was the only mischief to draw the Kings Subjects for temporall matters to a tryall in the Ecclesiasticall Courts of which they had no cognizance ob 3 The spirituall Courts should in this case say they bee worse then an inferiour Court Baron for there no Premunire doth lye if the Lord doth hold plea of actions above 40s. answ This is another fallacy which Logicians call petitio principij a begging of the question for old Nat. B. fo 153. is to the contrary 2. Besides if the Law were otherwise yet a Court Baron is a Court of Common Law and antient and the spirituall Court is a Court of the Cannon Law and not antient ob 4 The Ecclesiasticall Courts say they are now become the Kings Courts by the Statute of 1o. Eliz. Cap. 1. as other Courts in Westminster Hall and therfore the King cannot have a Premunire against himselfe answ I deny this For they are the Kings Courts now no more then they were before for the Stat. of 1o. Eliz. did not give the King any new power but only restored the old which hee had before and this answer did Chancellour Audley give to Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester who made this objection telling him withall that the Premunire was a Rod that the Common Law had to keepe the Bishops in awe and to reduce them to good order otherwise men would have no quiet for them They cannot now make this Objection because they keepe
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