concerning his Supremacy and our own allegiance to which we are tied by a bond of nature as his Liege people yet for the imposing of these two Oathes there are two Acts of Parliament provided viz. 1. Eliz. c. 1. 3. Jaco c. 4. Besides the Clergy have no power by the Sta. of 25. Hen. 8. which gives them power to make Cannons and Constititutions to impose Oathes for an Oath is no Cannon or Constitution but a meere Collaterall thing just as if they should have enjoyned a man to have entred into a bond of a 1000. pound to have observed their Cannons this had beene void and a prohibition had lyen at the common Law for it because this is a Collaterall thing and a charge upon my goods and so is an Oath upon my conscience and therefore in pressing an Oath by vertue of their 6 Cannon they have exceeded their authority The second thing is whether the matter of the Cannons be good Concerning the matter of the Oath contained in the sixt Cannon divers exceptions have beene taken by those learned Gentlemen that have argued before which I will not remember but adde foure which have not beene yet spoken too 1. Exception is in these words That I will not indeavour by my selfe or any other to bring in any Popish Doctrine contrary to that which is so established now That and So being words of Relation do referre to the next Antecedent being Popish Doctrine not mentioned in any part of the Oath before So that reddendo singula singulis it runnes thus in sence and in Construction I will not indeavour my selfe to bring in any Popish Doctrine contrary to that Popish Doctrine which is so established Ergo some Popish Doctrine is established by the Church of England This construction was so evident and plaine to them that for the curing therof though this Oath with the word Popish in it and the rest of the Cannons were confirmed by the Kings letters Patents 30. Iunij 16. Car. yet 5 to Julij after they got a Commission from the King to give this Oath leaving out the word Popish whereby they have made the remedy worse then the disease by giving an Oath which was never confirmed by the King 2. The second Exception is in these words Nor will I ever give my consent to alter the government of this Church by Archbishops Bishops Deanes and arch-Arch-Deacons c. which I may fitly call a Covenant against the Kings supremacy which I thus make good It is a part of my Oath of Supremacy Stat. 1o. Eliz. c. 1. that I shall assist the King in all preheminences and jurisdictions belonging to his Crowne Now it is a part of his jurisdiction to alter this government by his Parliament and to appoint and establish another which if he shall be so minded to doe I am by this Oath not to assist him in it I am not so much as to give my assent wherby I doe unavoidably fall upon this Rock that for the saving of my oath I must deny my obedience to the King Azor. de juramento or by obeying the King I must fall upon perjury For though it be true as the Cannonists say that when a Law is changed to which I am bound by oath Though I am thereby materially discharged yet formally I am bound in respect of my will For if ever I actually assent to the alteration I am really perjured 3. The third Exception is in these words I will not consent to alter the government of this Church by Arch-bishops c. as it stands now established and as by right it ought to stand now to speake properly there is no government of this Church of England by Arch-bishops Bishops Deanes arch-Arch-Deacons c. but only by the King and they governe onely by and under him And why the King should be quite left out seems a thing strange to me unlesse they will say he is comprehended within the c. which is a most unworthy place for so great a Majesty And that the Clergy had some ill meaning in this omission of the King out of this Oath I have some reason more then to suspect when I cast my eye upon some dangerous passages that are in their writings about the Kings Supremacy advancing it higher then the King himselfe would have them touching the Subjects property of goods but depressing it too low concerning his Ecclesiasticall power And this appeared lately before us by a very dangerous speech of Dr. Vâ—d D. Cowels book verbo Par. liament supprâ—ssed by K Iams ProclamarioÌ„ lately printed without authority Cosins who said that the King ought not to be called Supreame head of the Church and seemed to colour it by Bishop Iewels opinion which is most false For the Act of 1o. Eliz. Revives all the Statutes of Hen. 8. touching Supreame head of the Church So that the King may as well be called Supreame head of the Church on Earth for so are the words of the Statute of 26. Hen. 8. cap. 1. 37. Hen. 8. cap. 17. as supreame governour Besides the distinction that he used in this place That Bishops had their jurisdiction from God ratione officij but ratione exercitij they had it from the King which is both absurd and erronious It is absurd for he will not allow that Bishops and Ministers should be all one but by this distinction they should for neither of them can exercise their functions but by permission from the King It is erronious for I doe not only say it but will proove it that Bishops have no jurisdiction here but from the King for it is a knowne distinction among the Cannonists as that learned Civilian that spake last doth well know That in a Bishop there is a double power Potestas ordinis Potestas Jurisdictionis 1. Potestas ordinis to preach to baptize to administer the Sacraments c. this power is iure divino agreeable with all other Ministers 2. Potestas Jurisdictionis as to admit institute and give mandates to induct into Church-livings to keepe Ecclesiasticall Courts to call Sinods to visit Churches For which two latter we pay Sinodals and procurations to this day and which if the ancient forme were observed would be of excellent use at this day for the depriving of Arminians D Bois Deane of Cant in a viâ—tation Sermon Socinians and other Hereticks but as a learned Prelate writes they are now become Nummorum non morum visitationes This power of Iurisdiction say the Cannonists is de iure humano and from the Pope for so is their rule Episcopi descendunt à Papa tanquam membra à capite we in our Law say that their jurisdiction is wholy from the King and so it is acknowledged by themselves in expresse words in the Act of Parliament of 37. Hen. 8. cap. 17. an act in force at this day That Arch-bishops Bishops c. and all other Ecclesiasticall persons have no manner of Ecclesiasticall
TWO ARGUMENTS In PARLIAMENT THE FIRST CONCERNING THE CANNONS THE SECOND CONCERNING THE PREMVNIRE Vpon those CANNONS By EDWARD BAGSHAWE Esquire LONDON Printed by George Miller M.DC.XLI THE FIRST ARGVMENT CONCERNING THE CANNONS Mr. SPEAKER THE order this day is to debate the legality of the Cannons only and not the Premunire which divers have argued that the Clergy have encurred by making and publishing these Cannons but of that of the Praemunire I shall not now speake but when an order is made therof I shall declare my opinion I hold three illegallities 1. In the Cannons Primae Classis 2. In the Oath contained in the sixt Cannon 3. In the Cannons Secundae Classis 1. In that they are against Clergy and Laity without their common consent 2. That they were not well created by any of the Kings Writs or Commissions to inable them to make Cannons which were not made in a Convocation or in a new Synod derived out of an old Convocation as was wittily observed by a noble Lord but they were made in a meere convention of the Clergy who had no warrant or authority to do as they did 3. The matters contained in the said Cannons are against the fundamentall Laws and Statutes of the Realme In prooving all which I will not insist upon any thing that hath bin said before as fearing that I shall otherwise trouble you too long The first point that I shall endeavour to proove is that the Clergy neither since nor before the Sta. of 25. Hen. 8. cap. 19. could ever make Cannons and Constitutions that should bind the Clergy and Laiety without their common consent For the prooving whereof I must make use of a Rule put in the 1. Booke of the Pandects of Justinian Tit. De origine iuris Inconveniens est omissis principijs origine non repetita illotis manibus materiam tractare He doth not handle but slubbers a question who deduceth it not from the fountain And therefore I will cast the whole Clergy into five Stages of time from CHRIST to this very day and in them all I shall proove this point it being the maine thing and of the greatest concernement to the liberty of the people The first is from CHRISTS time till the dayes of Constantine above three hundred years after CHRIST in all which time there was no distinction betwixt causes civill and Ecclesiasticall but both were tryed before the temporall Judges of Emperours and Kings as appeares plainly in the Imperiall constitutions neither will any Civilian deny it for to speake properly no causes that come in Judgement are spirituall or temporall in respect of themselves For what reason can any man give me why murther tryed at this day by the temporall Judge should be lesse spirituall then Adultery tryed by the spirituall Judge when the truth is that Adultery is farre more carnall and sensuall then murther is But the true reason of the difference is from the graunt of Emperours and Kings who have given Conusans of this to the Ecclesiasticall Judge and of the former to the Temporall And the true Reason why Emperours and Kings in this first age had the Conusans of all causes whatsoever as belonging to their temporall Courts is For that in those times there was no difference betwixt Bishops and Priests in point of Jurisdiction but they were all one and had then no more to doe then to order the Churches by diligent and godly preaching administring the Sacraments beating down Heresies and Schismes c. And that this may not seeme strange because I say it though I could backe it with a multitude of Authorities both old and new Yet because I am loath to spend time I will onely cite two which are of good credit with the Clergy The first is out of the decrees of the Cannon Law compiled by Gratian distinct 95. cap. olim Rubricke Presbiter idem est qui Episcopus ac sola consuetudine praesunt Episcopi Presbiteris TEXT Olim idem erat Presbiter qui Episcopus antequam Diaboli instinctu studia vel schismata in Religione fierent disceretur in populis ego sum Pauli ego sum Apollo ego autem Cephae communi Presbiterorum concilio Ecclesiae gubernabantur postquam autem decretum est in toto orbe ut unus de Presbiteris supponerctur ut schismatum semina tollerentur Sicut ergo Presbiteri sciunt se ex Ecclesiae consuetudins esse subiectos Ita Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quam dispensationis Dominicae veritate Presbiteris esse maiores in communi debere Ecclesiam regere The second is out of Bishop Jewell in the defence of his Apology approoved by both Houses of Parliament and commanded to be in Churches 2 Par. ca. 3. Divis 5. In St. Jeroms time saith he there were Metropolitans Arch-bishops Arch-deacons and others but CHRIST appointed not these distinctions of orders from the beginning Epist aâ—l Tit c. 3. these names are not found in all the Scriptures This is the thing that we defend St. Jerome saith Let Bishops understand that they are in authority over Priests more by custome then by order of GODS Truth These be St. Ieromes words truly translated And Part. 6. cap. 9. Divis 1 2. he hath these words I grant there be many speciall priviledges granted upon great and just considerations of the meere favour of the Prince That a Priest being found negligent or otherwise offending in his Ministry should be convented and punished not by the Temporall or Civill Magistrate but by the discretion of the Bishop yet you must remember Mr. Harding that all these and other like priviledges passed unto the Clergy from the Prince and not from GOD and proceeded only of speciall favour and not of right for from the beginning you know it was not so The second Stage or Tract of time is from Constantines dayes untill the Conquest in which time the Emperours of Rome and the Kings here in England gave to Bishops divers Jurisdictions and Priviledges over the Priests which they had not before as you may see in the Code and Novels of Iustinian They had likewise Conusans graunted to them of all causes concerning Matrimony and Testaments which I could tell you by what meanes they first obtained these two were it directly pertinent to this Point But the Power and Right of making Ecclesiasticall Lawes were ever reserved to Emperours and Kings with the assent of the people and not to the Bishops and Clergy To omit the Imperiall Constitutions of Constantine Theodesius Put out by Lambert Iustinian and other Emperours it appeares plainly in our Saxon Lawes made long before the Conquest by these severall Kings Ina Alfred Edgar Canutus Edward the Confessor c. that all Ecclesiasticall Lawes both concerning Doctrine and Discipline were made by them Cum consensu Aldermannorum populi in their Michel Gimot or great Assembly which is all one with our Parliament Nay to their very Councels and Synods
Chart. and the many liberties which he granted to his people by the Statutes of 25. Edw. 1.33 Edw. 1. and 34. Edw. 1. as likewise by the sharpe Laws which he made against the Popes exactions by the Statute of Carliel 35. of his Raigne he was for all these rightly stiled vindex Anglicanae libertatis in doing thus he strengthened mightily his Prerogative for Prerogative and liberty are inseperable 3. Caroli Petition of Right as King CHARLES truly observes in his answer to the Petition of Right that the Prerogative is to maintain the peoples liberty and their liberty strengtheneth the Prerogative In his Parliament speech 1607. And King James his father declaring that Kings were given for the welfare of their people hath this passage If you be rich I can never be poore and if you be happy I cannot choose but he fortunate c. And these observations proved true and were fulfilled in this King For never any Prince either before or after him was more victorious and successefull then himselfe through the riches and wellfare of his people who upon all occasions aided him in his warres with their purses and fought his battels in their persons Till the 13th yeare of this King the Clergy had no jurisdiction in Ecclesiasticall causes properly allowed to them but in causes of Matrimony and Testament as may appeare by Fitz. Nat. Bre. Fo. 41. and by divers Records which I have seen about the beginning of this Kings time But in the 13th year of this King came the statute of Circumspectè agatis wherin they had Conusans of many more things as may appeare by that Law and though before this time they did attempt to put in ure their owne Constitutions yet the Judges being at that time stout and resolute alwaies sent out Prohibitions as may appeare by the Preamble of the Statute Rex talibus Judicibus salutem circumspectè agatis de negotijs tangent Episcopum Norwici eius Clerum non puniendo eos si placitum tenuerint in Curia Christianitatis de his quae sunt merè spiritualia vix c. and there reckons the particular things they shall hold plea of and of no more and although it mentioneth only the Bishop of Norwich who was in those dayes the most pragmaticall Bishop for the power of the Church yet doth that Statute extend to all the Bishops of the land and is so resolved in Plats case Plo. Com. fol. 36. b. And although this be set downe in Lindwoods Provincials to be onely an ordinance of the Church which was the cause that the Gentleman under the Gallery said it was only an ordinance of the Church yet the truth is it was an Act of Parliament as may appeare by the Statute of 2. Edw. 6. Cap. 13. Where it is expressely called a Statute and so it is likewise resolved in the 4. rep Palmers case and in the 5. report Jefferies case In Edw. 2. time the Clergy by petition to the King but not otherwise got jurisdiction in many other Causes not specified in the Statute of Circumspectè agatis as you may see in the Statute of Articuli Cleri made 9◠Edw. 2. too long to remember These two Statutes were so pretious with the Clergy that they are inserted verbatim in the Provinciall Constitutions of Lindwood as the maine part of the Church law as in truth it is In King Edward 3. time the Clergy got further Jurisdiction in 9. particular points not formerly graunted to them as may appeare by the Parliament of 25. Edw. 3. called Statutum pro Clero a Statute which I have some cause to remember It appeares in the Parliament roll of that Statute upon what ground they demanded those priviledges which the King then graunted to them not out of right but by an humble supplication to the King in these words mentioned in the Roll being in French That pur breverence de dien de St. Esglis de sa benignity he would graunt them all those liberties they petitioned for In Henry 4th time the Clergy got some power with that King and made a Constitution called constitutio Tho. Arundel contra Hereticos but this Constitution they never durst put in ure till they had coloured it with that bloody Statute of 2. H. 4. Cap. 15. called Statutum ex officio which in truth was no Statute as may appeare by the Parliament Roll which I have 2. Hen. 4. tit 48. being stiled petitio Cleri contra Hereticos And where it is said in the Act praelati clerus supradicti ac etiam comunitates dicti regni supplicarunt these words ac etiam comunitutes dicti regni are not in the Parliament Roll and so was the truth that the Commons did never assent to that Act as may appeare likewise by the Latine Act printed in Linwood For whereas the Act runnes in this forme of words Qui quidem dominus Rex ex assensu Magnatum aliorum Procerum ejusdem regni c. concessit statuis c. there is no mention at all of the Commons and therefore to helpe this the words of aliorum procerum are thus rendred in the English Statute now in print and other discreet men of the kingdome whereby are implyed the Commons and whereby hundreds of Martyrs were cruelly put to death by mistaken law Vide N. Br. de Heret Comburend fo 170. of which greevance the Commons from time to time complained in sundry Parliaments and never rested till that bloody Statute was hereupon quite revoked by the Stat. of 25. Hen. 8. cap. 14. and the oath ex officio which had his originall from that cruell Statute quite taken away In the daies of Hen. 8. in that famous case of Dr. Horsey and George Hunne mentioned in 7. Hen. 8. Kelwayes rep 182. It was resolved by a kind of Committee of both houses of Parliament at Black-Friers at which the King and all his spirituall and temporall Councell were present as it seemes by that booke where it was resolved that no Ecclesiasticall lawes did bind the people but what they assented unto And now I come to the 5 th and last stage or tract of time viz. 25. Hen. 8. untill this very time The Stat. of 25. Hen. 8. cap. 19. I hold to be nothing els but a declaration of what the Common law was before and not introductive of a new law which is the reason as I conceive that the Statute is penned in negative words that they shall not make Constitutions and Cannons without the Kings assent which may be interpreted his assent in Parliament as well as his assent and confirmation by his letters Pattents 2. That they shall not make Cannons contrary to the Kings Prerogative the Lawes Customes and Statutes of the land now what can they tell what is the Kings Prerogative the Laws and Customes of the Realme unlesse the Laity who have more skill then they to judge of those things do give their assent And that
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