Mr BAGSHAW'S SPEECH IN PARLIAMENT February the ninth, 1640. Concerning EPISCOPACY And the LONDON PETITION.  
LONDON, Printed for Francis Constable. 1641.   

Mr BAGSHAW'S SPEECH In Parliament Febr. 9th 1640. Concerning EPISCOPACY And the LONDON PETITION.  
Mr. Speaker,  
I Was yesterday and the time before, for the retaining of the London Petition, and am in the same mind still; and therefore do now rise up against the proposal of that question which is now called for; Whether Episcopacy itself be to be taken into consideration by the Committee: wherein I do distinguish of a twofold Episcopacy, the first, in Statu puro, as it was in the Primitive times: the second, in Statu corrupto, as it is at this day, and is so intended and meant in the London Petition. Now I hold that Episcopacy in this later sense is to be taken into consideration as a thing that trencheth not only upon the right and liberties of the subject, of which I shall have occasion to speak hereafter. But as it is now, it trencheth upon the Crown of England in these sour particulars, wherein I know, this House will willingly hear me.  
First, it is maintained by the Bishop of Exeter in a book which he hath writ to this purpose, that Episcopacy itself both in the office and in the jurisdiction is do jure Divino, of divine right; which position is directly contrary to the laws of England, of which I will cite but two or three in stead of many more. The Statute of Carlisle 35 Ed. 1. mentioned in Caudries case, in the fifth Report, saith, that the Church of England is founded in the state of Prelacy by the Kings of England and their Progenitors. Which likewise appears by the first Chapter in Magna Charta, in these words, Concessimus Deo & Ecclesiae Anglicanae omnes libertates, etc. and in the twenty fifth year of Edward the third, in the French Roll which I have seen, there the Archbishop and Clergy petition the King for their liberties, in these words, thus englished, That for the Reverence of God and holy Church, and of his grace and bounty, he will confirm all those liberties, privileges, and rights, granted and given by him and his noble Progenitors, to the Church by their Charters: which plainly showeth, that they have their Episcopal Jurisdiction from the Kings of England, and not jure divino by divine right: and this likewise is acknowledged by themselves in the Statute of 37 H. 8. cap. 17. that they have their Episcopal Jurisdiction, and all other Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction whatsoever solely and only, by, from, and under the King.  
The second thing that is trenching upon the Crown is this, that it is holden at this day, that Episcopacy is inseparable to the Crown of England; and therefore it is commonly now said, no Bishop, no King; no Mitre, no Sceptre: which I utterly deny; for it is plain and apparent, that the Kings of England were long before Bishops, and have a subsistence without them, and have done and may still depose them.  
The third is likewise considerable, as trenching upon the Crown, which is that was said under the Gallery, that Episcopacy was a third estate in Parliament, and therefore the King and Parliament could not be without them; this I utterly deny, for there are three estates without them, as namely, the King, who is the first estate; the Lords Temporal the second, and the Commons the third; and I know no fourth estate. Besides, the Kings of England have had many Parliaments wherein there have been no Bishops at all: as for example, Ed. 1.24. of his Reign, held his Parliament at Edmundbury, excluso Clero; and in the Parliament 7. R. 2. cap. 3. and 7. R. 2. cap. 12. it doth appear that they were enacted by the King with the assent and agreement of the Lords Temporal, and Commons, where the estates of Parliament are mentioned, and not the Clergy. Divers other Statutes might likewise be named to this purpose, which I omit.  
The fourth and last thing is of the Bishops holding of the Ecclesiastical Courts in their own names, and not in the name of the King, nor by Commission from him, contrary to the Statute of 1 Ed. 6. cap. 2. and contrary to the practice of Bishop Ridley, Coverdale, and Ponnet, who took Commissions from the King for holding their Ecclesiastical Courts, as may be seen at this day in the Rolls.  
And although it will be objected, that by a late Proclamation in 1637. wherein the opinion of the Judges is mentioned, it is declared upon their opinion, that the Act of the 1 Ed. 6. was repealed, and that Bishops may now keep Courts in their own names, and send process under their own seals; yet it is well known, that the Statute of 1 Q. Marry, which repealed the Statute of 1 Ed. 6. was itself repealed by the Statute of 1 jac. cap. 25. whereupon it was holden upon a full debate of this point in Parliament 7 jac. which I have seen, that upon consideration of the Statutes of 1 jac. and 1 Eliz. cap. 1. and 8 Eliz. cap. 1. that the Statute of 1 E. 6. was revived, and that Bishops ought not to keep Courts in their own names: So that for these Reasons so nearly concerning the right of the Crown of England in the point of Episcopacy, I am against the proposal of that question, and am for the retaining of the London Petition, and for a thorough reformation of all abuses, and grievances of Episcopacy mentioned in the Minister's Remonstrance, which Reformation may perhaps serve the turn without alteration of the Government of England, into a form of Presbytery, as it is in other Kingdoms of Scotland, France, Geneva, and the Low Countries, which for mine own part, had I lived in these Kingdoms, I should have been of the opinion of the Protestant party in point of Presbytery, because those Kingdoms are governed by the Civil Law, which maintains the Jurisdiction of the Pope and Papal Episcopacy, which the ancient Laws of England condemn, being likewise in themselves opposite to the Civil and Canon Laws. And if not withstanding all the Reformation that can be made by the Laws of this Land, a better form of government may evidently appear to us, concerning which there is no form now before us; it is to be taken by us into consideration, according to that imperial Constitution in these words, In rebus nobis constituendis evidens utilitas esse debet, ut ab eo jure recedatur quod diu equum visum est.  
And so Mr. Speaker, I shortly conclude, that for these Reasons, omitting divers more, the London Petition is to be retained.  
FINIS.