the Laiety did come if any matter was there handled which concerned them Of this I could give likewise many instances I will only name one the Councell or Synod at Winchester called in the 5t. yeare of King Canutus it is there said Personaliter existentibus in eodem concilio duobus Archiepiscopis alys Episcopis cum â—orundem suffraganijs septem ducibus cum tot comitibus non-nullis Abatibus cum quam plurimis gregarijs militibus ac cum populi multitudine copiosa in eodem existentibus votis regis unanimiter consentientibus praeceptum Decretum est c. And this was no other then was usuall in other places for the Layty to be at Councels and Princes to send their Ambassadours to be there and to assent for them if they could not be present themselvs The third Stage or Tract of time was from the Conquest till the dayes of King Edward the first in all which time there was a great conflict betwixt the Common Law and the Popes Cannon Law For the Conquerour comming in under the Popes Banner and under it winning that battell of Hastings in Sussex wherin he obtained the Kingdome did suffer the Popes Cannon Law to be brought into the Land which caused the Common Law untill the dayes of Edw. 1. to suffer the fits of an ague for in the raigne of a stout and valiant King the Common Law prevailed but in the Raigne of a weak King the Cannon Law prevailed In the Conquerours time though he admitted the Popes Law yet saith Roger of Chester Nullam Pontificis authoritatem in hoc regno admitti voluit nisi quatenus ipse assensum praeberet nil de rebus Ecclesiasticis discerni voluit nisi ipse non solum interesset sed praefuisset In K. William Rufus time the Cannon Law prevailed more for that K. making Anselme Arch-bishop of Canterbury whom the Arch-bishop that now is and other of the Clergy call S. Anselme though the Records of that time make him a Traytour He cals a Synod at London takes away the investure of Bishops from the Crown and brings in a Canonicall Institution and Confirmation of them from the Pope takes away the marriage of Priests ipse saith Matthew Paris sacerdotibus uxores prohibuit antea non prohibitas Vide Antiquit ' Britan. p. 116 117 1â—8 c. and maketh other constitutions much prejudiciall to the Crown and people And no marvell for this proud Prelate at his first being Arch-bishop of Canterbury thus thanks the King for that favour Domino Papae debeo obedientiam tibi consilium King Hen. 1. his Successor though he strugled long with Anselme and wrote sharpely to Pope Pascall yet he could not prevaile all the dayes of Anselme to undoe those decrees at that Synod but yet after the death of Anselme to manifest his claime to the Investure of Bishops given to him by the Cannon Law hee gave the Arch-bishopricke of Canterbury to Rodolph Bishop of London Et illum per annulum Pastoralem Baculum investivit contra novi concilij statuta saith Mat. Paris King Hen. 2. to the end he might revive the antient Lawes and customes of the Kingdome called his common Councell of all his Nobility and Bishops at Claringdon in Wiltshiere where he made divers Constitutions in Reversall of those made by Anselme these Tho. Becket whom this King had made Arch-bishop of Canterbury from the meane sonne of a Jew traiterously opposed which bred great dissention in the Kingdome All the Barons of that councell crying out against Becket in these words saith Hovenden quo progrederis proditor expecta audi judicium tuum But that valiant King by the unhappy killing of Becket was quite defeated and stript of the fruit and benefit of that Councell and himselfe put to a miserable pennance as it is at large described by Mat. Paris and briefly touched in the case of premunire in the Irish reports Paris Rep. so 91 192 and Becket shortly after Canonized by the Pope for a Saint viz. 19. Hen. 2. In all King Johns time the sonne of Hen. 2. the waters of strife betwixt the King and his Clergy grew to a full sea his Kingdome interdited by the Pope and himselfe at length forced to surrender his Kingdome to the Pope and his own Clergy joyning with the Pope against him So that all his Raigne the Common Law was under hatches But in Hen. 3. time his sonne came the good Statute of Magna Charta and then those waters mightily abated and the Clergie were glad to receive all their liberties and Jurisdictions from the Crowne as by graunt from that act of Parliament as appeares in the first Chapter of that Stat. 9 H. 3. c. 1. Concessimus Deo hac praesenti charta confirmavimus pro nobis haeredibus nostris in perpetuum quod Ecclesia Anglicana libera sit habeat omnia jura sua integra libertates suas illaesas And though it is penned in forme of a Charter as the manner of penning Acts of Parliament was in those times yet it was a Statute of the Realme made in full Parliament by the consent of the Lords and Commons And although the Clergy of England were again nibling in the 20th yeare of Hen. 3. against the Common Law Staâ— Merton 20 H. 3. cap. 9. and would fain have brought in that part of the Canon Law concerning the legitimation of children borne out of wedlocke telling the Peeres of the Realme in the Parliament of Merton that Quantum ad successionem haereditariam Ecclesia tales habet pro legitimis yet the Earles and Barons would not hearken to them but as saith that Statute Omnes Comites Barones una voce responderunt quod nolunt leges Angliae mutare quae hucusque usitatae sunt approbatae In the latter end of the Raigne of this King the Clergy by helpe of the Pope got head againe and the Popes exactions upon the Crowne and the peoples liberties for they alwaies goe together were growne intollerable and divers Legantine Constitutions of Otho and Othobon burthensome to the people were introduced insomuch that Matth. Paris a poore Monke that lived in those dayes and the Popes Creature yet by reason of the great oppressions which he then saw upon this Kingdome called it Balaams Asse Mat. Paris And when all the Peeres and Barons of the Realme perswaded this King to resist those incrochments upon him and his people he out of the poverty and weakenesse of his spirit makes them this answer Nec volo nec audeo domino Papae in aliquibus contradicere The 4th stage or tract of time is from the daies of Edw. 1. 4. Time to the 25th yeare of Hen. 8. in which time the common Law began to Recover and get strength in all which time the Clergy could make no Lawes Cannons or Constitutions but what the common Law did allow King Edw. 1. by the many confirmations which he made of M.
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
and pleasure with a proviso contained in the said Commission that the said Cannons should not be repugnant to the Rubricks in the booke of common-Prayer the 39. Articles nor to the Doctrine order and Ceremonies of the Church The like Commission went to the Arch-bishop of Yorke In which Commission of 12. May there was an expresse Revocation and making void of the Commission of 15o. Aprilis So that the Commission of 15. Aprilis being determined in Law by the Parliament to which it referred as likewise by the Commission of 12. May which absolutely revoked it All the Cannons that were made and now printed were made out of Parliament and so consequently out of Convocation and meerly by the Commission of 12. May. The 30. June following comes the Kings Letters Patents of Confirmation of these Canons made by the Commission of 12. Maij in which Letters Patents he doth in expresse words both give his Royall assent to the Cannons and ratifies and confirmes them according to that forme of the said Statute or Act of Parliament of 25. Hen. 8. Now that Statute doth only give power to the King to assent unto and confirm Cannons made in Convocation and therfore there being no Cannons made in Convocation but afterward the assent and confirmation of things not then in being must needs be void for in our Law confirmare is firmum facere which presupposeth an entity or being of the thing that is to be made firme for ex nihilo non fit quid saith the Philosopher And therefore the foundation failing on which the confirmation should worke doth cause it therby to be absolutely void according to that rule of Law Sublato fundamento destruitur opus And so I conclude this second point also that the Authority which should give life and being to these Cannons is void in Law The third and last point is this Point admitting that the Clergy had power and lawfull authority to make these Cannons whether the said Cannons be not void in Law for the matter contained in them and I thinke they are in that they are against the Lawes and Statutes of the Realme and so contrary to the laid proviso in the Statute of 25. Hen. 8. In the debate wherof I will first consider of the Cannons primae Classis 2. Of the Oath contained in the sixt Cannon 3. Of the Benevolence granted by the Clergy and contained in the second booke of Cannons all which I shall hold to be against the Laws and Statutes of the Realme Concerning the first I will only insist upon three Cannons for the rest have bin fully spoken too viz 1 12 and 13. Cannons For the first Cannon in making determinations concerning Royall power and property of goods they have done against Law and have medled with things of which they have no Conusans for the exposition of them belongs to the Judges of the Land and they have no more right to expound them then the Judges have to expound Texts of Scripture And therefore it was aptly spoken by the Atturney generall in Harrisons case who was indited in the Kings-Bench Trin. 14. Car. for calling Judge Hutton Traitor who there said that it was his opinion and the opinion of all Orthodox Divines that if the King thought he might with a safe conscience take my goods I was to let him have them and it was high Treason in me to deny him or make resistance To whom the Atturney generall replyed in these words that the Prerogative of the King and liberty of the Subject were given and defended by the Laws of the Realme and that the Judges were the expounders of that Prerogative And though the Clergy of England do seeme in this Cannon to maintaine this absolute power yet wee must know that the Kings of England never made Title to governe by it For though king James in his book of free Monarchies dives further in this point then any before him yet he determines it thus that this absolute power is onely between God and him not in relation to his people in point of their government for the same King saith in another place that a Subject of England may challenge the King in the same language as the poore widdow challenged Philip of Macedon Fac iustitiam aut ne sis Rex Par speech An. 1609. A booke condemned to the fire by both houses of Parliamēt 7 lac and then adds this That those Kings are either Tyrants or perjured that govern not according to their Law and those that perswade them otherwise are vipers and pests both to the King and Common-wealth And I have now in my hand that Kings Proclamation for the suppressing Dr. Cowels booke called The interpreter for advancing his absolute power to the overthrow of all Parliaments Concerning the 12. and 13. Cannons touching the freeing and discharging of Chancellours and Officials from executing any Excommunication in his own person or any censure against the Clergy because they are Lay-men I say that in doing and enacting this Stat 29 H 8. c 17. they have done quite contrary to an Act of Parliament still in force in taking from them this power of exercising the censures of the Church which that Statute gives them which I did looke when some Civilians now in the house should have maintained And although it were to be wished that only Clergy men should have this power of Excommunication and other Censures of the Church yet seeing an Act of Parliament hath given this power to Lay-men It is a high presumption in them to make Cannons against it Concerning the Oath mentioned in the 6 Cannon two things fall into question 1. Whether the Clergy can impose a new Oath I thinke they cannot For I hold it for a ground in Law that no Oath can be imposed upon the Subject but what is warranted either by the custome of the Realme which is no other then the common Law or els by some Act of Parliament to warrant it And herein the Clergy hath done more then the King doth at this day by his Prerogative Royall by which he governes his people and is part of the common Law and differs no more from it then pars à toto called by Bracton privilegium Regis by the Sta. of West 1. Droit du Roy by the Register Jus regium Coronae Now the King doth not by his Prerogative in any of his Commissions or Letters patents which are of greater force then Cannons impose an Oath without some Act of Parliament to warrant it As for example by the Commission of Sewers there is power to give an Oath but that is warranted by the Sta. of 23. Hen. 8. The Commission of Bankrupts gives an Oath but that is backed by the Statutes of 13. Elizab. Cap. 13. and 21. Jaco So the Commission of Charitable uses is warranted to give Oathes by the Stat. of 43. Eliz. many more instances might be given which I omit Nay the Oathes we take to the King
the summe of 3000 lb. and here by the way being upon the president of a Bishop of Norwich I crave leave before I goe to other presidents to observe this one note I doe finde that in all ages the Bishops of Norwich above all other Bishops in the Kingdome were most active and pragmaticall in advancing the ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction and persecuting the Ministers of GOD To give you one instance instead of many it was a Bishop of Norwich that was the first author of spilling the blood of the first Martyr we had here in England named William Sawtree that was burnt to death by the Writ de Heretico cumburendo mentioned in the Register in Fitz. N. B. fo 170. Where the very Name of William Sawtree is expressed in the Writ who was Parson of S. Margarets in Linne in the Diocesse of Norwich and was convicted before the Bishop for the Doctrine of CHRIST which was then counted Heresie and by him delivered over to Thomas Arundell Archbishop of Canterbury who caused him to be burnt to ashes and if the Bishops of Norwich doe thinke this any praise to them let them rejoyce in it I shall only say this for the honour of that William Sawtree and of Pembrook-Hall in Cambridge above any Colledge either in Oxford or Cambridge that Martyrum primus which was this William Sawtree Martyrum doctissimus which was Bishop Ridley and Martyrum pijssimus which was John Bradford were all of Pembrook Hall I come now to give presidents wherein the whole Convocation were attainted in a Premunire which are two The first is 7. Hen. 8. Kell Rep. fo 181. The Abbot of Winscombs case which hath beene so often cited in this House but I shall only urge it to this one point That the Convocation for meere citing ex officio Dr. Standish for maintaining the Kings Prerogative and the Lawes of the land that Priests ought to answer before temporall Judges contrary to the tenent of the Clergy and the Abbots Sermon at Paules-Crosse The whole Convocation for this very act incurr'd a Premunire by the resolution of all the Judges of England assembled together by the King for their opinions in that Case The second president is that of Cardinall Woolsey which I first cited in Doctor Cosens his Case and is full to this point it is Mich. 21. Hen. 8. B. Roy. and the maine point of the Premunire was this Quia ipse intendebat antiquissimas Ang. leges penitus subvertere enervare universumque regnum Angl. legibus Civilibus earundum legum Canonibus in perpetuum subjugare This was found against him and he was attainted in a Premunire though he had the Kings Commission for what he did and the King made meanes to the Pope to make him a Cardinall and gave way that two Crosses should be carried before him one as Cardinall and the other as Archbishop of Yorke These Leges Civiles mentioned in that Record were the Legantine Constitutions exercised by the Cardinall and all the Bishops of England in all their severall Diocesse which though it had the countenance of the Kings Commission to warrant yet that was found no excuse for so unjust an act for both Cardinall and all the Bishops of the land were adjudged to have incurr'd a Premunire and therefore all the Bishops did for their pardon of the said Premunire in their Convocation being then assembled and in time of Parliament pay the King a huge masse of money namely the Province of Canterbury paid the King 100000lb. the Province of Yorke 18840lb. and the Cardinall himselfe forfeited to the King all his goods and Chattles and all his lands and tenements as Whitehall Hampton Court Christ Colledge in Oxford c. This case doth justly agree with this Case before us for here the Convocation have made Cannons and added severe punishments to them contrary to the Kings Prerogative and the Lawes and Statutes of the Realme which I made appeare in my Argument concerning the Cannons and therefore I will not speake of them now but will give you two instances which I did not mention then The first is in the first Cannon by decreeing men to be punished in the High Commission for teaching contrary to their explanations of Royall power and propertie of goods being two things of which the interpretation doth not belong to them but to the Common Law and to the Judges which are the expounders thereof Besides they had no authority in the world to punish men in the High Commission for such things for the last Letters Pattens of the High Commission were Mich. 9. Car. in which are conteined all things wherein the Commissioners were to meddle And therefore it was impossible that these new Cannons being made not a yeare agoe should be comprehended in those Letters Pattents of which the Framers thereof could not possibly take notice unlesse they had the Spirit of prophesie which is not to be imagined and therefore it was a bold attempt upon the Kings Prerogative to order men to be punished by vertue of his Comimssion which gave them no such authority The second Instance is in the Cannons which they made for the payment of the Benevolence of the 6. Subsedies which they ordered Clergy men to pay upon the severest censures of the Church as suspension deprivation excommunication c. with this clause added omni appellatione semota that is without any manner of appeale to be allowed which is a flat deniall of the Kings Subjects to have the benefit of Law for in their owne Law appeales are to be allowed from the Ordinaries Court to the Metropolitan from the Metropolitan to the Pope and such authority in appeales as the Pope had is now given to the King and his Judges Deligats by the Statutes of 24. Hen. 8. cap. 12.25 Hen. 8. cap. 19. But in this case all appeales to the King are denied and his Subjects must not only be excommunicated but deprived of their free holds and denied all benefit of appeale to helpe them which is a high point of Usurpation upon the Crowne and the Lawes of the land and an exercising of an Arbitrary power of their owne above and against Law The Second ground of Law 2 Ground why the Clergy in the Convocation have incurr'd a Premunire is this If the King by his Commission gives power to spirituall Judges to doe such and such acts qualified by a proviso to be done in such and such a manner and with such restrictions and limitations as are contained in that proviso and those Judges will by colour of such Commission doe acts contrary to such provisoes and limitations they do hereby incurre a Premunire As for example the King by his Letters Pattents appoints one to be a Bishop and limits the Deane and Chapter to Chuse and the Arch-bishop to consecrate him within 12. dayes and they do contrary to this limitation they do hereby incur a Premunire as may appeare by the Stat. of 25. Hen. 8.
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