TWO ARGUMENTS In PARLIAMENT, THE FIRST CONCERNING THE CANNONS, THE SECOND CONCERNING THE PRAEMUNIRE Upon those CANNONS.  
By EDWARD BAGSHAWE Esquire.  
LONDON, Printed by George Miller, M.DC.XLI.   

THE FIRST ARGUMENT CONCERNING THE CANNONS.  
Mr. SPEAKER,  
THE order this day is to debate the legality of the Cannons only and not the Praemunire, 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 speak, but when an order is made thereof I shall declare my opinion.  
I hold three illegallities, 1. In the Cannons, Primae Classis.  
2. In the Oath contained in the sixth 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 King's Writs or Commissions to enable 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 mere 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 fundamental Laws and Statutes of the Realm: In proving all which, I will not insist upon any thing that hath been said before, as fearing that I shall otherwise trouble you too long.  
The first point that I shall endeavour to prove, 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 proving whereof I must make use of a Rule put in the 1. Book 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 prove this point, it being the main thing and of the greatest concernment to the liberty of the people.  
The first is from CHRIST'S time till the days of Constantine, above three hundred years after CHRIST, in all which time there was no distinction, betwixt causes civil and Ecclesiastical, but both were tried before the temporal Judges of Emperors and Kings, as appears plainly in the Imperial constitutions, neither will any Civilian deny it; for to speak properly no causes that come in Judgement are spiritual or temporal in respect of themselves: For what reason can any man give me, why murder tried at this day by the temporal Judge should be less spiritual than Adultery tried by the spiritual Judge, when the truth is that Adultery is fare more carnal and sensual than murder is; But the true reason of the difference is from the grant of Emperors and Kings, who have given Conusans of this to the Ecclesiastical Judge, and of the former to the Temporal.  
And the true Reason why Emperors and Kings in this first age had the Conusans of all causes whatsoever, as belonging to their temporal 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 do then to order the Churches by diligent and godly preaching, administering the Sacraments, beating down Heresies and Schisms, etc.  
And that this may not seem 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 only 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.  Rubric. Presbyter 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 Jewel in the defence of his Apology, approved 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, Archbishops, Arch-deacons and others, but CHRIST appointed not these distinctions of orders from the beginning; 
Epist. a●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 custom then by order of GOD'S 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 special privileges granted upon great and just considerations of the mere favour of the Prince: That a Priest being found negligent or otherwise offending in his Ministry should be convented and punished, not by the Temporal or Civil Magistrate, but by the discretion of the Bishop, yet you must remember (Mr. Harding) that all these and other like privileges passed unto the Clergy from the Prince, and not from GOD, and proceeded only of special favour and not of right; for from the beginning you know it was not so.  
The second Stage or Tract of time, is, from Constantine's days until the Conquest, in which time the Emperors of Rome, and the Kings here in England gave to Bishop's divers Jurisdictions and Privileges over the Priests, which they had not before, as you may see in the Code and Novels of justinian. They had likewise Conusans granted to them of all causes concerning Matrimony and Testaments, which I could tell you by what means they first obtained these two, were it directly pertinent to this Point. But the Power and Right of making Ecclesiastical Laws were ever reserved to Emperors and Kings with the assent of the people, and not to the Bishops and Clergy.  
To omit the Imperial Constitutions of Constantine, Theodesius, 
Put out by Lambert.  justinian, and other Emperors, it appears plainly in our Saxon Laws made long before the Conquest, by these several Kings, Ina, Alfred, Edgar, Canutus, Edward the Confessor, etc. that all Ecclesiastical Laws, both concerning Doctrine and Discipline were made by them, Cum consensu Aldermannorum & populi, in their Michael: Gimot, or great Assembly, which is all one with our Parliament. Nay, to their very Counsels and Synods, 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 Council or Synod at Winchester called in the 5t. year of King Canutus, it is there said, Personaliter existentibus in eodem concilio duobus Archiepiscopis & alys Episcopis cum ●orundem suffraganijs, septem ducibus cum tot comitibus nonnullis, Abatibus cum quam plurimis gregarijs militibus ac cum populi multitudine copiosa in eodem existentibus, votis regis unanimiter consentientibus praeceptum & Decretum est, etc. And this was no other than was usual in other places, for the Laity to be at Counsels, and Princes to send their Ambassadors to be there and to assent for them, if they could not be present themselves.  
The third Stage or Tract of time, was from the Conquest till the days of King Edward the first, in all which time there was a great conflict betwixt the Common Law and the Pope's Cannon Law: For the Conqueror coming in under the Pope's Banner, and under it winning that battle of Hastings in Sussex, wherein he obtained the Kingdom, did suffer the Pope's Cannon Law to be brought into the Land, which caused the Common Law until the days of Edw. 1. to suffer the fits of an ague; for in the reign of a stout and valiant King the Common Law prevailed, but in the Reign of a weak King the Cannon Law prevailed. In the conquerors time, though he admitted the Pope's 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 Archbishop of Canterbury (whom the Archbishop that now is, and other of the Clergy call S. Anselme, though the Records of that time make him a Traitor) He calls a Synod at London, takes away the investure of Bishops from the Crown, and brings in a Canonical 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, 1●8, etc.  and maketh other constitutions much prejudicial to the Crown and people. And no marvel, for this proud Prelate at his first being Archbishop of Canterbury, thus thanks the King for that favour, Domino Papae debeo obedientiam tibi consilium  
King Hen. 1. his Successor, though he struggled long with Anselme, and wrote sharply to Pope Pascall, yet he could not prevail all the days of Anselme, to undo those decrees at that Synod, but yet after the death of Anselme, to manifest his claim to the Investure of Bishops, given to him by the Cannon Law, he gave the Archbishopricke 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 ancient Laws and customs of the Kingdom, called his common Council of all his Nobility and Bishops, at Claringdon in Wiltshiere, where he made divers Constitutions, in reversal of those made by Anselme, these (Tho. Becket, whom this King had made Archbishop of Canterbury, from the mean son of a Jew) traitorously opposed, which bred great dissension in the Kingdom; All the Barons of that council crying out against Becket, in these words, saith Hovenden, quo progrederis proditor, expecta & audi judicium tuum. But that valiant King, by the unhappy kill of Becket, was quite defeated and stripped of the fruit and benefit of that Council, and himself put to a miserable penance, as it is at large described by Mat. Paris, and briefly touched in the case of praemunire in the Irish reports, 
Paris Rep. so. 91, 192  and Becket shortly after Canonised by the Pope for a Saint. viz. 19 Hen. 2.  
In all King John's time the son of Hen. 2. the waters of strife betwixt the King and his Clergy grew to a full sea, his Kingdom interdicted by the Pope, and himself at length forced to surrender his Kingdom to the Pope, and his own Clergy joining with the Pope against him: So that all his Reign, the Common Law was under hatches.  
But in Hen. 3. time his son, came the good Statute of Magna Charta, and then those waters mightily abated, and the Clergy were glad to receive all their liberties and Jurisdictions from the Crown, as by grant from that act of Parliament; as appears 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 form of a Charter, as the manner of penning Acts of Parliament was in those times, yet it was a Statute of the Realm made in full Parliament, by the consent of the Lords and Commons.  
And although the Clergy of England were again nibbling in the 20th. year of Hen. 3. against the Common Law, 
Sta●. 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 wedlock, telling the Peers of the Realm in the Parliament of Merton; that, Quantum ad successionem haereditariam Ecclesia tales habet pro legitimis, yet the Earls 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 Reign of this King the Clergy by help of the Pope, got head again, and the Pope's exactions upon the Crown and the people's liberties (for they always go together) were grown intolerable, and divers Legantine Constitutions of Otho and Othobon, burdensome to the people were introduced, insomuch that Matth. Paris a poor Monk that lived in those days and the Pope's Creature, yet by reason of the great oppressions which he then saw upon this Kingdom, called it Balaams' Ass. 
Mat. Paris  And when all the Peers and Barons of the Realm, persuaded this King to resist those incrochments upon him and his people, he out of the poverty and weakness 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 days of Edw. 1. 
4. Time.  to the 25th. year of Hen. 8. in which time the common Law began to Recover and get strength; in all which time the Clergy could make no Laws, Cannons or Constitutions, but what the common Law did allow.  
King Edw. 1. by the many confirmations which he made of M. 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 sharp Laws which he made against the Pope's exactions by the Statute of Carliel. 35. of his Reign, he was for all these rightly styled, vindex Anglicanae libertatis, in doing thus he strengthened mightily his Prerogative: for Prerogative and liberty are inseparable, 
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 people's 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 poor, and if you be happy, I cannot choose but he fortunate, etc. And these observations proved true, and were fulfilled in this King: For never any Prince, either before or after him was more victorious and successful than himself, through the riches and welfare of his people; who upon all occasions aided him in his wars with their purses and fought his battles in their persons.  
Till the 13th. year of this King, the Clergy had no jurisdiction in Ecclesiastical causes properly allowed to them, but in causes of Matrimony and Testament, as may appear by Fitz. Nat. Bre. Fo. 41. and by divers Records, which I have seen about the beginning of this King's time. But in the 13th. year of this King came the statute of Circumspectè agatis, wherein they had Conusans of many more things, as may appear by that Law, and though before this time they did attempt to put in ure their own Constitutions, yet the Judges being at that time stout and resolute, always sent out Prohibitions, as may appear 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, etc. 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 days the most pragmatical Bishop for the power of the Church, yet doth that Statute extend to all the Bishops of the land, and is so resolved in Plaits case, Plo. Com. fol. 36. b. And although this be set down in Lindwoods' Provincials, to be only 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 appear by the Statute of 2. Edw. 6. Cap. 13. Where it is expressly called a Statute, and so it is likewise resolved in the 4. rep. Palmer's 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 precious with the Clergy, that they are inserted verbatim in the Provincial Constitutions of Lindwood as the main 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 granted to them, as may appear by the Parliament of 25. Edw. 3. called Statutum pro Clero, a Statute which I have some cause to remember. It appears in the Parliament roll of that Statute, upon what ground they demanded those privileges which the King then granted 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 grant 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 appear by the Parliament Roll which I have, 2. Hen. 4. tit. 48. being styled; 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 appear likewise by the Latin Act printed in Linwood. For whereas the Act runs in this form of words; Qui quidem dominus Rex ex assensu Magnatum & aliorum Procerum ejusdem regni; &c. concessit & statuis, etc. there is no mention at all of the Commons, and therefore to help this, the words of aliorum procerum are thus rendered in the English Statute now in print (and other discreet men of the kingdom) whereby are employed 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 original from that cruel Statute quite taken away.  
In the days of Hen. 8. in that famous case of Dr. Horsey and George Hun, mentioned in 7. Hen. 8. Kelwayes rep.. 182. It was resolved by a kind of Committee of both houses of Parliament at Blackfriars, at which the King and all his spiritual and temporal Council were present (as it seems by that book) where it was resolved that no Ecclesiastical laws 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. until this very time. The Stat. of 25. Hen. 8. cap. 19 I hold to be nothing else 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 King's assent, which may be interpreted his assent in Parliament, as well as his assent and confirmation by his letters Patents.  
2. That they shall not make Cannons contrary to the King's Prerogative, the Laws, Customs and Statutes of the land, now what can they tell what is the King's Prerogative, the Laws and Customs of the Realm, unless the Laity who have more skill than they, to judge of those things, do give their assent. And that this seems to be the meaning of that Act, that the Parliament should have a power in establishing the Canons of the Clergy, it appears by that Act in the appointing of the 32. Commissioners for the making of Canons; whereof 16. were to be taken from the Temporality out of the upper and nether House of Parliament: and 16. more were to be taken from the Clergy. So that the Clergy had not that power to do it alone, without the Laity, though they had the King's Royal assent thereunto.  
And that the practice was always so, that the Acts and Constitutions of the Clergy had their determination and conclusion in Parliament, appears 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 appears 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 Laiety 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 Laity only against Transubstantiation, 
m l. 5 In S Th. Cottons library.  and Communion in one kind, as may appear in that Statute. Besides I have seen the Diary of King Ed. 6. written with his own hand, wherein he hath this passage, This day there was a notable debate in the Lower House of Parliament against the Communion in one kind.  
So the Statutes of 2. E. 6. cap. 21. and 5. E. 6. cap. 12. concerning marriage of Priests, gave a final 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 Kingdom, 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 practice of all ages in making Ecclesiastical Laws, and the reasons of their practice 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 fundamental 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.  
Liberty of Religion and Conscience, are as I take it, within the words of magna Charta, 
M Ch. cap. 29.  granted 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 break 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 lie in prison all the days of my life, and shall never be delivered by a Cautione admittenda, unless 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 therefore 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 lawful authority to make these by force of the Stat. of 25. Hen. 8. cap. 19 I think 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, etc. in their Convocations, and which always shall be assembled by authority of the Kings writ, unless the same Clergy may have the Kings most royal assent, to make, promulge and execute such Cannons upon, pain of imprisonment, and to make fine at the Kings will.  
By which it plainly appears, 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 King's royal assent.  
Whether this were so or no, comes now to be examined, wherein is to be observed, the several 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 forth two Writs more, called the Convocation Writs, directed to the several Archbishops of Canterbury and York, for the election of Clerks to the several 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 April following, and on the 15. of April issued out a Commission to the Archbishop of Canterbury, to alter, amend and change the old Canons, and to make new during the Parliament; the like went to the Archbishop of York.  
On the fift of May following, the Parliament was dissolved, whereby, 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 therefore the 12. of May following there went forth another Commission to the Archbishop of Canterbury, to make Cannons, etc. during the Kings will and pleasure, with a proviso contained in the said Commission, that the said Cannons should not be repugnant to the Rubrics in the book of common-Prayer, the 39 Articles, nor to the Doctrine, order and Ceremonies of the Church, The like Commission went to the Archbishop of York. In which Commission of 12. May, there was an express 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 merely by the Commission of 12. May.  
The 30. June following, comes the King's Letters Patents of Confirmation of these Canons made by the Commission of 12. Maij, in which Letters Patents, he doth in express words both give his Royal assent to the Cannons, and ratifies and confirms them according to that form 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 therefore 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 firm; for ex nihilo non fit quid, saith the Philosopher. And therefore the foundation failing, on which the confirmation should work, doth cause it thereby 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 lawful authority to make these Cannons, whether the said Cannons be not void in Law for the matter contained in them, and I think they are in that they are against the Laws and Statutes of the Realm, and so contrary to the laid proviso in the Statute of 25. Hen. 8.  
In the debate whereof I will first consider of the Cannons, primae Classis.  
2. Of the Oath contained in the sixth Cannon.  
3. Of the Benevolence granted by the Clergy, and contained in the second book of Cannons, all which I shall hold to be against the Laws and Statutes of the Realm.  
Concerning the first I will only insist upon three Cannons, for the rest have been fully spoken too, viz, 1, 12, and 13. Cannons.  
For the first Cannon in making determinations concerning Royal power and property of goods, they have done against Law, and have meddled 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, than the Judges have to expound Texts of Scripture. And therefore it was aptly spoken by the Attorney general in Harrisons case, who was indicted 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 Attorney general replied in these words, that the Prerogative of the King, and liberty of the Subject were given and defended by the Laws of the Realm, and that the Judges were the expounders of that Prerogative: And though the Clergy of England do seem in this Cannon to maintain this absolute power, yet we must know that the Kings of England never made Title to govern 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 only 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 poor widow challenged Philip of Macedon, Fac iustitiam aut ne sis Rex; 
Par speech An. 1609. A book condemned to the fire by both houses of Parliament 7 lac.  and then adds this, That those Kings are either Tyrants or perjured, that govern not according to their Law; and those that persuade them otherwise are vipers and pests, both to the King and Commonwealth: And I have now in my hand that King's Proclamation for the suppressing Dr. cowel's book, 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 Chancellors and Officials from executing any Excommunication in his own person or any censure against the Clergy, because they are Laymen, 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 look 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 Laymen: 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 think 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 custom of the Realm, which is no other than the common Law, or else by some Act of Parliament to warrant it: And herein the Clergy hath done more than the King doth at this day by his Prerogative Royal, by which he governs 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 than 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 Oaths by the Stat. of 43. Eliz. many more instances might be given, which I omit.  
Nay the Oaths we take to the King, 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 Oaths, 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 Oaths; for an Oath is no Cannon or Constitution, but a mere Collateral thing; just as if they should have enjoined a man to have entered into a bond of a 1000 pound to have observed their Cannons, this had been void, and a prohibition had lain at the common Law for it, because this is a Collateral thing, and a charge upon my goods, and so is an Oath upon my conscience, and therefore in pressing an Oath by virtue 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 sixth Cannon; divers exceptions have been taken by those learned Gentlemen that have argued before, which I will not remember, but add four which have not been yet spoken too.  
1. Exception is in these words, That I will not endeavour by myself 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 refer to the next Antecedent, being (Popish Doctrine) not mentioned in any part of the Oath before: So that, reddendo singula singulis, it runs thus in sense and in Construction, I will not endeavour myself 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 plain to them, that for the curing thereof, though this Oath with the word (Popish) in it, and the rest of the Cannons were confirmed by the King's letters Patents 30. junij 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 than 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, Deans and Arch-Deacons, etc. which I may fitly call a Covenant against the King's 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 preeminences and jurisdictions belonging to his Crown. 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 do, I am by this Oath not to assist him in it, I am not so much as to give my assent; whereby I do 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 Canonists 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 Archbishops, etc. as it stands now established, and as by right it ought to stand; now to speak properly, there is no government of this Church of England by Archbishops, Bishops, Deans, Arch-Deacons, etc. but only by the King, and they govern only by and under him. And why the King should be quite left out, seems a thing strange to me, unless they will say he is comprehended within the etc. 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 King's Supremacy, advancing it higher than the King himself would have them, touching the Subject's property of goods, but depressing it too low concerning his Ecclesiastical power. And this appeared lately before us by a very dangerous speech of Dr. 
V●d. D. cowel's book verbo Par. liament suppressed by K jams Proclamarion & lately printed without authority.  Cousins, who said that the King ought not to be called Supreme head of the Church, and seemed to colour it by Bishop jewels opinion, which is most false. For the Act of 1ᵒ. Eliz. Revives all the Statutes of Hen. 8. touching Supreme head of the Church: So that the King may as well be called Supreme 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 supreme governor. 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 erroneous.  
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 erroneous, for I do not only say it, but will prove it, that Bishops have no jurisdiction here, but from the King; for it is a known distinction among the Canonists (as that learned Civilian that spoke last doth well know) That in a Bishop there is a double power 

Potestas ordinis.  
Potestas Jurisdictionis.    
1. Potestas ordinis, to preach, to baptise, to administer the Sacraments, etc. 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 keep Ecclesiastical Courts, to call Sinods, to visit Churches: For which two latter we pay Sinodals and procurations to this day, and which if the ancient form were observed, would be of excellent use at this day, for the depriving of Arminians, 
D Bois Deane of Cant: in a vi●tation Sermon  Socinians.: and other Heretics; but as a learned Prelate writes, they are now become, Nummorum non morum visitationes.  
This power of jurisdiction, say the Canonists, 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 wholly from the King, and so it is acknowledged by themselves in express words in the Act of Parliament of 37. Hen. 8. cap. 17. an act in force at this day; That Archbishops, Bishops, etc. and all other Ecclesiastical persons have no manner of Ecclesiastical 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 juris 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-people, 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 O● 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 ●●●ing the Clergy do seem by this Oath to derive their 〈◊〉 ●on by any other right then from the King, they have hereby mightily entrenched upon the King's Prerogative.  
4. The fourth and last exception to the Oath i● 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, whereby it contains 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 Trespass; 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 Traitor, being a member of that Church, and therefore reconciled to it. Now the Sea of Rome is nothing else but the Papacy or Supremacy of the Pope, whereby by virtue 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 juramentum fidei, contained in the end of some of the editions, that I have seen of the Council 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 Pope's 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 lose, I have some reason to imagine, when I find 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 speak but a word, because I have troubled you too long: It is not a Subsidy, for than it should have been 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 pass 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 Majesty's pleasure by the Archbishop 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.  whereby the Clergy have power to make Cannons and decrees, compelling the payment of the same upon pain 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 Laws 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 illegal. 1. In point of original Jurisdiction. 2. In point of Derivative authority. 3. In the matter and form of them, or more briefly in the language of the Schools, they are illegal and void, in toto & in qualibet parte.  
FINIS.   

THE SECOND ARGUMENT CONCERNING THE PRAEMUNIRE. 
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 than Synod have forfeited and encurred: The time before I debated the illegallity of those Cannons, that was de culpâ; this dispute is de panâ.  
Illegal faults draw after them legal punishments: For there are no venial sins at the common Law; I was long in the debate of the Cannons, and I fear that the weightiness of this dispute concerning the punishment, will make me run into the same error. I was doubtful at first what punishment I should fix upon the Clergy: but considering the vote of this House, that the late Cannons were against the King's Prerogative royal, the Fundamental Laws of the Land, the liberty of the Subject, and divers Acts of Parliament, I settled my resolutions. There is a rule in the Schools, that potentes potenter punientan, great offenders shall receive great punishments; The English in short is this, I hold they have encurred a Praemunire, viz. All Arch-hishops, Bishops, Deans, Arch-deacons, etc. 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 Praemunire is.  
2. The original ground and cause of a Praemunire.  
3. The grounds and reasons in Law why the Clergy have in this case incurred a Praemunire.  
4. An Answer to the Objections that are made against a Praemunire; especially by three Civilians now in print.  
1. Concerning the first, it is a rule taken by that excellent Orator, 
Cic. 1. offic.  that omnis rei institutio à definitione proficiscitur, he that would handle a thing fully must define it truly.  
Now a Praemunire takes its name from the words of the Writ called Premu: 
V N●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, etc. qd. sint coram nobis à die pasche in quindecim dies, etc. ad respondend. nobis de contemptu, etc. in exhaeredationis Coronae nostrae periculum manifestum, which is in sense and meaning, though not so strong and significant as praemonere facias; For the expounders of the Civil and Cannon Laws confound both words according to the Proverb, premoniti sunt premuniti.  
But this Writ of praemu. is better understood by the Statutes on which the same is founded, viz. 25. Edw. 3. c. 22. & 27. Edw. 3. cap. 1. de provisoribus, 16 Rich. 2. cap. 5. which Statutes were made for the correction of the encroachment of the Pope and his Clergy upon the Crown and Laws of England, Upon all which Statutes and books of Law, I thus define a praemu.  
A praemu. 
Definition  is a defence of the Crown and Laws of the Land from the tyranny and oppression of spiritual Jurisdiction, either foreign in the Pope, taken away by the Stat. of 1. Eliz. or at home by the Clergy in the Ecclesiastical Courts, whereby is incurred this penalty of being put out of the King's Protection, loss of lands and goods, and perpetual imprisonment.  
This may seem a sharp and severe punishment to be inflicted on Clergy men, but when the reasons and grounds of Law are considered, and how the Kings of England were necessitated to it, the sharpness of the punishment will not seem strange to any, which is the second head of my division, and which I now come unto.  
2. Concerning the original cause and ground of the praemu. it ariseth from the opposition and Antipathy betwixt the Common and the Cannon Law, or the Law of God, and the Law of the Pope; the Common Law being derived from the one, and the Cannon Law from the other, which makes the opposition as great, as betwixt CHRIST and Antichrist, which hath in all ages (as I could show you) caused a hatred of our Law, and of the professors thereof, from the Clergy and professors of the Cannon Law.  
And that this may not seem strange, I will very briefly in honour to the Common Law, prove and maintain that it is derived from the Law of GOD, and is the nearest unto it of any Law in the world, which King James hath largely proved in a Parliament Speech of his, 1607. but yet I will give 2, or 3. instances more.  
It is thus said by Priset chief Justice of the Common-pleas, 
34 H. 6. f. 40.  ley denglitre est foundu sur le ley de dieu, which being translated out of our Law-French into better English is thus, the Law of England is founded upon the Law of God.  
Ley de tre & ley de dieu sont, 
7. H. 8.191 Kell.  tout un per Fineux chief Justice of England, that is, the Law of God, and the Law of the Land are all one.  
Pollard to the same purpose: But it will be said, 
12. H. 8 f. 2  that this was only the opinion of Lawyers, and every one will be ready to commend his own profession, and therefore I shall go much higher.  
In the year of CHRIST about 169. Lucius a King of England was the first Christian King, and the first anointed in all the world, and presently after he was converted to the Faith, sought how to govern his people by good Laws, and finding that the Roman Laws were then the most famous in all the world, sent by his Letter to Elutherius then Bishop of Rome, for a copy of those Laws; that godly Bishop (for so the Bishops of Rome then were, and long after) wrote an answer of his Letter to this effect, Petistis à nobis leges Romanas vobis transmitti, etc. leges Romanas reprobare possumus, legem Dei nequaquam, etc. Habetis penes vos in regno utramque paginam, ex illis sume legem, & per illam rege vestrum Brittanniae Regnum, vicarius enim Dei estis in regno, etc. as may appear more at large in the Laws of St. Ed. cap. 17. compiled by Lambert, where the letters are set down at large; and therefore King James had good cause to say, That the Laws of England were framed as near as could be to the Judicial Laws of Moses.  
And this affinity which our Law hath to the Law of GOD, hath been the cause (as I conceive) of that contention betwixt our Law and the Canon Law, which hath been like to that of Hagar contending with her Mistress, and hath received divers times the same doom, Cast out the bondwoman and her son, as I could prove by many precedents, which for brevity I omit. And as the contention and opposition increased, so did the punishment, as may appear in these four particulars.  
The first punishment upon the Clergy was prohibition only.  
The second was, a prohibition with a pain.  
The third was, by fine and imprisonment.  
The fourth and last (when none of the rest would do good) was by a Praemunire and there it ended.  
1. For the first, It is observable that the first news of the Canon Law here in England, was, Anno 1150. xuj. Steph. Reg. compiled by Gratian, and called the Pope's Decrees, but came to us here in England by a wile, under another name, called Rogationes, and entreated to be received of us under the pretext of Holiness, because of the fasting and ember-days, tending to fasting and prayer, which those Laws seemingly contained, and hence the Ember before Whit-suntide is called the Rogation week from that name: But King Stephen finding them pernicious to the native Laws of England, gave them this welcome and entertainment, for faith Roger Bacon, Rex Stephanus allatis legibus Italiae (meaning the Cannon Laws) publico edicto prohibuit ne ab aliquo retinerentur.  
2. When this prohibition would do no good, but other Cannon Laws were thrust upon us in the time of Hen. 2. as the Decretal Epistles, under Pope Gregory the ninth, from which that flaming Law of burning Heretics was first hatched, a sharper punishment was devised by Hen. 3.19. of his reign against the Civil and Cannon Laws, prohibiting the use of them here in England under a severe pain, as Laws that were derogatory to the supreme Majesty and independency of the Crown of England.  
3. After these Decretals, the Extravigants of Boneface the 8th. were brought into this Kingdom, which were so injurious to the Sovereignty of Kings, that whosoever shall but read one of those Laws, called unam Sanctam, will say that either a King of England must lay down his Crown, or quite abandon those Laws: Whereupon Edw. 1. taking care to preserve the Crown and the liberties of his people, did in the third and sixth year of his Reign issue out divers Inquisitions, to inquire of the Jurisdiction of the Clergy, 
Fitz. N. B. 40.  which at that time was limited chief to matters of Matrimony and Testament, until the Stat. of 13. Edw. 1. called Circumspectè agatis, enlarged their power and Jurisdiction in many more particulars.  
One of those Inquisitions, Ao. 6. Edw. 1. I will only mention instead of many, which was taken at Lawneston in Cornwall before Roger Loveday and Walter de Wyburne; These two were to inquire of Walter Bishop of Exeter, for drawing the King's Subjects into his Court, and holding plea, de debitis & catallis quae non sunt de Testamento & Matrimonio, and for making them enter into bond and a new Oath, quod sibi in omnibus adharebunt & per omnia (such another new fangled Oath as was in the late Cannons) and this is in the Record alleged to be in lasionem Coronae, exhaeredationem & depauperationem manifestam quae ulterius sustinere nolumus nec debemus, and it was adjudged that the Bishop should for this offence, make satisfaction to the King.  
21. Edw. 1. Par. Rolls pl. 17. m. 3. indors. Jo: Archbishop of York, excommunicated two of the Bishops of durham's servants, named William Willicon and John Rowman, for keeping possession of some of the lands of the Bishops of Durham, to which the Archbishop pretended a title. This being a high offence against the Stat. of Circumspect agatis, newly granted to the Clergy but a little before, received this Judgement in Parliament.  
First, That the Bishop should be imprisoned.  
Secondly, Should make a submission to the King, and  
Thirdly, Should pay 4000 Marks fine, which was a mighty sum, whenas in those days, the price of an Ox was but 5. sh. as appears in the end of the 25. cap. of the Stat. of Westm '. 2. made 13. Edw. 1. tit. assize.  
Fourthly, When the Clergy would take warning by none of these examples, the Kings of England were forced to make these sharp Laws of Praemunire that I mentioned before, and to say to them in the language of Solomon to railing Shimei, (for so was the Cannon Law to the Kings of England:) 
* 2 Kin. 2.  keep at home in your own place, if once you pass over the brook Kidron, your blood be upon your own head. So the Kings of England spoke by their Laws to the Clergy, Keep within your own bounds, given you by the Laws of England: if once you pass those bounds, and trench upon the prerogative of the Crown, and liberties of the people, your blood be upon your own heads. For that was the price of a praemunire in those days; for until 5ᵒ. Eliz. it was lawful for any man to kill one that was attainted in a Praemunire: as it was to kill a Wolf or a wild Dog: for saith our Law, a man attainted in a Praemunire; did caput gerere lupinum: but now by that merciful Stat. of 5. Eliz. cap. 1. it is unlawful for any to kill a man attainted in a Praemunire, and so I conclude the second part of the division.  
I come now to the third, which is the main and principal point of this Case, namely, to show the ground and reasons of Law, why the Clergy have in this particular case, in making Cannons, and forcing the execution of them upon the people by the censures of the Church, incurred a Praemunire: which Grounds of Law are three.  
First Ground is this, Clergymen which only by Law have a spiritual Jurisdiction, if they shall exercise a Jurisdiction within the Kingdom, which only belongs to the King's temporal Courts and not to their ecclesiastical Courts, they do an act herein against the King's Supremacy and Royal Prerogative, and so incur a Praemunire. The Books in our Law to prove this ground are many, which for brevity sake, I will only quote the authorities of Law, without putting the Cases at large, because I have much more to say: V N. Br. 152.5. Edw. 4. fob. 6.11o. Hen. 7. Bro. pram 12.44o. Ed. 3. fo. 36o. 15o. Hen. 7. per Fineux. 9 Edw. 4. D. & St. lib. 2. cap. 24. & cap. 32.  
The Reasons of this ground are three.  
reason 1 By this means an act is done against Royal Majesty, that is saith the Book, 5. Edw. 4. fol. 6. against the Common Law, wherein is to be noted, that there is a mutual dependence between the King's Prerogative and the Common Law, that to violate the Common Law, is to do an act against the King's prerogative, and to violate the Prerogative, is to do an act against the Common Law: with this agrees King James, in an excellent Parliament speech of his, Anno 1609. Wherein he takes an occasion to magnify the Common Law, as most beneficial to his Prerogative, and to despise it saith he, is to despise the Crown.  
2. Reason is given by D. St. lib. 2. cap. 32, that when debts and trespasses, and such other temporal matters are handled in the spiritual Courts, the King looseth his fines and amercements, and such other duties due to him upon original writs of Debt, Trespass, etc.  
3. Reason is given by the Stat. of 25. Edw. 1. cap. 4.34. Ean. 1. cap. 6. by which Stat. Magna Charta is appointed to be read in all Cathedral Churches twice every year, and excommunications are then solemnly to be denounced against all infringers of the same, now there is no such infringement of liberty, as to draw the subject into the Spiritual Courts by Cannons made by them, contrary to Law and the liberty of the Subject, granted to them by that great Charter. But the Rule is, longum iter per praecepta, breve per exempla. I will therefore give you some examples and precedents, Three against Bishops, and two against Convocations themselves in the point of Praemuniries.  
presi. 1 The first is Hill. 25. Hen. 8. Rot. 15. Cor. Rege Richard. Nix his Case, the blind Bishop of Norwich, who for citing ex officio Richard Cockerall Major of Thetford into his Court, for taking a presentment of a Jury in the Major's Court, who found that by an ancient custom and usage, none ought to be sued out of the Deanary of Thetford for any ecclesiastical matter, and that if any did sue any Citations elsewhere, he was to pay a noble, For receiving this presentment, the Major was sued in the Bishop's Court: for which Hales then the King's Attorney did prosecute the Bishop in a praemunire, of which he was attainted, part of whose fine did go to the glazing of the windows of the King's College Chapel in Cambridge.  
2. Precedent is, Trin. 36. Hen. 8. Rot. 9 Cor' Rege, Anthony Buckley Bishop of Bangor, was prosecuted in a Praemunire by Whorewood the King's Attorney general, for holding plea of right of Patronage, and of the sale of Corn and grain sold to Rice Ween, John ap Hugh and Tho. ap Hoell, and divers others, for 21 lb. upon several specialties, which are matters only triable in the King's Temporal Courts, did likewise incur a Praemunire, and was thereupon attainted, and his lands and goods forfeited.  
3. Precedent was likewise in the Case of another Bishop of Norwich, called William Bateman, who merely for visiting the Abbey of S. Edmundsbury, discharged anciently by divers Charters of Episcopal visitations (the Abbot thereof being mitratus Abbas) was for this offence fined to the King in 30. talents of gold, which amounted to the sum of 3000 lb. and here by the way, being upon the precedent of a Bishop of Norwich, I crave leave before I go to other precedents to observe this one note, I do find that in all ages, the Bishops of Norwich, above all other Bishops in the Kingdom, were most active and pragmatical, in advancing the ecclesiastical 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. foe. 170. Where the very Name of William Sawtree is expressed in the Writ, who was Parson of S. Margaret's in Linne, in the Diocese of Norwich, and was convicted before the Bishop for the Doctrine of CHRIST, which was then counted Heresy, and by him delivered over to Thomas Arundel Archbishop of Canterbury, who caused him to be burnt to ashes, and if the Bishops of Norwich do think this any praise to them, let them rejoice in it: I shall only say this for the honour of that William Sawtree, and of Pembrook-Hall in Cambridge, above any College 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 Pembroke Hall.  
I come now to give precedents, wherein the whole Convocation were attainted in a Praemunire, which are two,  
The first is 7. Hen. 8. Kell. Rep. fo. 181. The Abbot of Winscombs case, which hath been so often cited in this House, but I shall only urge it to this one point, That the Convocation for mere citing ex officio, Dr. Standish for maintaining the King's Prerogative and the Laws of the land, that Priests ought to answer before temporal Judges, contrary to the tenant of the Clergy and the Abbot's Sermon at Paules-Crosse, The whole Convocation for this very act incurred a Praemunire by the resolution of all the Judges of England assembled together by the King for their opinions in that Case.  
The second precedent is that of Cardinal Woolsey, which I first cited in Doctor Cousins his Case, and is full to this point, it is Mich. 21. Hen. 8. B. Roy. and the main point of the Praemunire 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 Praemunire, though he had the King's Commission for what he did, and the King made means to the Pope to make him a Cardinal, and gave way that two Crosses should be carried before him, one as Cardinal, and the other as Archbishop of York. These Leges Civiles mentioned in that Record, were the Legantine Constitutions exercised by the Cardinal and all the Bishops of England, in all their several Diocese, which though it had the countenance of the King's Commission to warrant, yet that was found no excuse for so unjust an act, for both Cardinal and all the Bishops of the land, were adjudged to have incurred a Praemunire, and therefore all the Bishops did for their pardon of the said Praemunire, in their Convocation being then assembled and in time of Parliament, pay the King a huge mass of money, namely the Province of Canterbury paid the King 100000lb. the Province of York, 18840lb. and the Cardinal himself forfeited to the King, all his goods and Chattles, and all his lands and tenements, as Whitehall, Hampton Court, Christ College in Oxford, etc.  
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 King's Prerogative, and the Laws and Statutes of the Realm, which I made appear in my Argument concerning the Cannons, and therefore I will not speak 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 Royal power and property 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 contained all things wherein the Commissioners were to meddle. And therefore it was impossible that these new Cannons, being made not a year ago, should be comprehended in those Letters Patents, of which the Framers thereof could not possibly take notice, unless they had the Spirit of prophecy, which is not to be imagined, and therefore it was a bold attempt upon the King's Prerogative, to order men to be punished by virtue 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, etc. with this clause added, omni appellatione semota, that is, without any manner of appeal to be allowed, which is a flat denial of the King's Subjects to have the benefit of Law, for in their own Law appeals are to be allowed from the Ordinaries Court to the Metropolitan, from the Metropolitan to the Pope, and such authority in appeals as the Pope had, is now given to the King and his Judge's Deligats by the Statutes of 24. Hen. 8. cap. 12.25. Hen. 8. cap. 19 But in this case all appeals to the King are denied, and his Subjects must not only be excommunicated, but deprived of their free holds, and denied all benefit of appeal to help them, which is a high point of Usurpation upon the Crown and the Laws of the land, and an exercising of an Arbitrary power of their own, above and against Law.  
The Second ground of Law, 
2 Ground  why the Clergy in the Convocation have incurred a Praemunire, is this, If the King by his Commission gives power to spiritual Judges to do 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, do acts contrary to such provisoes and limitations, they do hereby incur a Praemunire.  
As for example, the King by his Letters Patents, appoints one to be a Bishop, and limits the Dean and Chapter to Choose, and the Archbishop to consecrate him within 12. days and they do contrary to this limitation, they do hereby incur a Praemunire, as may appear by the Stat. of 25. Hen. 8. ca 20.  
So by the Stat: of 1. Edw. 6. cap. 2. before the Stat. of 1. Queen Marry, which repealed that Sta. of Edw. 6. all Bishops were to keep their Courts by Commission from the King, and not in their own names, and the acts of the Court, to be under the King's seal, and not under the Bishops, and if they did the contrary they were to incur fine and imprisonment in nature of a Praemunire.  
To apply this to our case, the King's Commission for the Clergy to make Cannons in their pretended Synod, did bear date 12. May last paste, being seven days after the dissolving of the last Parliament, in which Commission there was an express proviso, that no Cannons should be made,  
1. Contrary to the Rubric.  
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 King's Commission, the Cannons that they made were contrary to all these.  
First, They were contrary to the Rubric, of which, because I will not be over-tedious, I will give but one instance, viz. the Rubric before the Communion, confirmed by Act of Parliament; where it is expressly said, that the Communion Table shall stand in the body of the Church or Chancel, 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 Chancel, to stand Altarwise, 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 enjoined to kneel at the Table, so removed, all contrary to the said Rubric; 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 appear 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 gross Idolatry, by holding the opinion of transubstantiation, and by upholding that abominable Idol of the Mass, in the Adoration of the Host, and the way then devised to reduce them from Idolatry, was by this means.  
First, King Edw. 6. did by his injunction cause all Altars to be pulled down, and movable 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 appear 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 Book, 5●. 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 sense and meaning of the Church of England, for the gesture of kneeling at the Communion, which is set down 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 boldness to read it to you word for word, as I find it in that Rubric, 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 else 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, therefore we willing to do 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 grateful acknowledging of the benefits of CHRIST given unto the worthy receiver, and to avoid the profanation and disorder, which about the holy Communion might else ensue, lest the same kneeling might be thought or taken otherwise, we do declare that it is not meant thereby, that any adoration is done, or aught to be done, either unto the Sacramental Bread and Wine, there bodily received, or unto any real and essential presence there being of CHRIST'S natural flesh and blood; for as concerning the Sacramental Bread and Wine, they remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored, for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians, and as concerning the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour CHRIST, they are in Heaven and not here, for it is against the Truth of CHRIST'S true natural Body to be in more 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 maintain the Books of Homilies to contain good and wholesome doctrine; now the seventh Cannon approving of the bowing in Churches and at Communion Tables is expressly 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 peril of Idolatry; In all which Homilies you shall find these passages,  
1. That Images and I dolls are all one.  
2. That Altars and Images are one.  
3. That Idolatry is to Images in Temples an inseparable 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, etc. and not by any outward Ceremonies, or costly and glorious decking of the House of GOD with gold, etc. occasioning men thereby to commit most horrible Idolatry.  
6. That the Church is called holy, not of itself, but because GOD'S people resorting thereunto are holy, with divers more passages in those Homilies to that purpose, whereupon I infer, that in as much 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 Chancel, to the end that the greater number may communicate at the Table, and the Minister may be the better heard and seen: But by the setting of the Table at the East end of the Chancel, the greater number cannot communicate, and the Minister in divers places cannot be heard or scarcely seen, 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 Praemunire.  
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 principals the justest Law in the world, should not in our case be just (the Clergy themselves being Judges) if they of the Convocation should not incur a Praemunire.  
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 do but observe what they do 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 Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, that in the said Constitutions, capite de panis, it doth appear, that if the King do by writ or other command call a Bishop to answer in his temporal Court, and the Sheriff● execute those writs by distress or attachment, etc. The King indeed is in point of good manners admonished by them, 1, 2, 3. according to form, 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 Manors, Castles, Cities, Burrows, etc. are hereby exposed to excommunication and interdiction, which how terrible it was to the Kingdom of England may appear in the example of King john, who was excommunicated, and his Kingdom interdicted by his own Bishops, all the Church doors in the Realm locked up, and marriages, christen and burials 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 Laws 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 encroach and entrench 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 main part of my Division and come to the fourth and last, which is the answer of Objections moved principally by three learned Civilians (for so I must account them) Doct. cowel in his Interpreter verbo praemunire, a book suppressed by Parliament, and King james Proclamation, but of late reprinted, Doct. Cousin's Dean of the Arches in the time of Queen Elizabeth in his Apology for Ecclesiastical proceed, and Doct. Ridley vicar general in the time of King james, in his view of the Civil and Cannon Laws.  
The Objections are six. 
Fourth part.  ob. 1 The first Objection is this; the Law of England, saith Civilians, doth not impute Praemunire to any spiritual Judge, dealing in a temporal matter, but only prohibition.  
answ. To this I answer, that it is a fallacy, ex ignoratione Elenchi, as Logicians call it, that is a mere mistake of the Question, for the difference in our Law, is this; where the spiritual Court hath jurisdiction and where not, as for example, The spiritual Court hath jurisdiction of Tithes, and yet if it hold plea, de grossis arboribus, that is of Timber-trees above 20. year's growth, contrary to the Stat. of silva caedua, 45. Edw. 3. cap. 3. there a prohibition only doth lie, because the Court hath jurisdiction of Tithes; but when the spiritual Court hath no jurisdiction at all, as in debt, trespass, etc. there a praemunire doth lie. 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 Pope's Courts, which he kept sometimes at Rome, sometimes at Avignion in France, and sometimes at Bonony in Italy, and therefore must be meant of those Courts, which the Pope kept beyond Sea, and not at Rome.  
answ. It is a vain Objection, for alibi doth not refer to the place, but to the Court; for whersoever the Pope is, let him be at Rome, at Avignion, at Bonony or in England, etc. There is Curia Romana whersoever he is, and therefore alibi must needs be meant of some other Ecclesiastical Court then the Pope's 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 appear by the pleading in the old book 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 King's Subjects for temporal matters to a trial in the Ecclesiastical Courts of which they had no cognizance.  
ob. 3 The spiritual Courts should in this case, say they, be worse than an inferior Court Baron, for there no Praemunire doth lie, 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. foe. 153. is to the contrary.  
2. Besides, if the Law were otherwise, yet a Court Baron is a Court of Common Law and ancient, and the spiritual Court is a Court of the Cannon Law and not ancient.  
ob. 4 The Ecclesiastical Courts say they are now become the King's Courts, by the Statute of 1ᵒ. Eliz. Cap. 1. as other Courts in Westminster Hall, and therefore the King cannot have a Praemunire against himself.  
answ. I deny this, For they are the King's Courts now, no more than they were before, for the Stat. of 1ᵒ. Eliz. did not give the King any new power, but only restored the old which he had before: and this answer did Chancellor Audley give to Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester, who made this objection; telling him withal, that the Praemunire was a Rod that the Common Law had to keep 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 keep their ecclesiastical Courts in their own 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 keep Courts in their own 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 fare from excusing, that it aggravates their offence, for hereby the King, which by Law can do 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 hypocrisy of the heart, which doubles the sin. So in acts of Injustice countenanced by Law, there is added to the Injustice a deceit to the King, which doubles the offence. Many examples may be given in this kind, I will only name three,  
1. Cardinal 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 Praemunire, 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 King's Bench, who was a Commissioner of the Sewers, which Commission is grounded upon the Statute of 23ᵒ. Hen. 8. who by virtue of his Commission, did cause one to be distrained for a fine imposed upon him by virtue of the Commission of Sewers, who brought an action of trespass against the party that distrained him, and had judgement to recover, Sr. Anthony Mildmay by an order from the Sewers, caused him to be imprisoned till he had released the judgement, for which offence, Sr. Anthony Mildmay was sued in a Praemunire in the King's Bench, to which he pleaded, and was feign to procure a pardon from the King for his discharge.  
ob. 6 The last and greatest Objection is this, The Bishop of Exeter, and divers Divines more, hold that the Jurisdiction of Bishops is jure divino, whereupon it follows, that neither prohibition nor Praemunire, can restrain 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, only 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. etc. and Co. 5. Rep. Cawdries case.  
The Common Law doth agree with these Statutes, for the Canonists as heretofore I have told you, do observe a double power to be in a Bishop,  
Potestas ordinis, common with other Ministers, as to Preach, Baptise, etc. and  
Potestas Jurisdictionis, as to admit, institute, deprive, excommunicate, etc. 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 do I speak of the Common Law, for the very Church of England seems to be of this opinion, for in our Book of Common prayer, no more is allowed to Bishops, in point of divine right, than what is common with Pastors, Ministers and Curates, for there are but three prayers for Bishops in all the Book of Common prayer, and they all run 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 show it accordingly, wherein nothing is mentioned but their knowledge of GOD'S word, their good life and doctrine.  
The next prayer for them, is after the prayer for the King and his Children in these words, That God would send down upon all our Bishops and Curates, and all Congregations committed to their charge, the helpful spirit of his grace, that they may truly please him, etc. where the taking care of the cure of souls in Congregations committed to them, is the main thing which we pray for them on their behalf.  
The last is in the prayer for the militant Church, in these words, Give grace (O heavenly Father,) to all Bishops, Pastors and Curates, that they may both by their life and doctrine, set forth thy true and lively word, and rightly and duly 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, do I conclude my whole Argument, touching the penalty incurred by the Clergy for their illegal Cannons, made in their Synod at Paul's, concerning which, I will end all in these two Verses, which may be better applied to this Synod, than the Arminians applied them to the Synod at Dort, 
Paulinae Synodus nodus Chorus, integer aeger,  
Conventus ventus, Sessio stramen, Amen.   
FINIS.