by the First of Edw. 6. it is declared that It 's contrary to Common-Law for any to Hold Courts in any other than the KING's Name So that whatever becomes of this Statute whether Repeal'd or in Force seeing the Common-Law remains the same the Bishops must have a Commission from the KING and Hold Courts in His MAJESTY'S Name or be affirm'd to make an Invasion on the Common-Law which is no less than a Premunire However the Bishops have held Courts in their own Names ever since King Edward's Days and as the Old Puritans did imagin their Courts were Illegal their Bishops Premunir'd and several Demurr'd to their Jurisdiction For which Reason Charles the First call'd all his Judges together commanding them to give in their Opinion touching this Matter which they did in these Words According to Your Lordships Order made in His MAJESTIES Court of Star-Chamber the 12th of May last We have taken Consideration of the Particulars wherein our Opinions are required by the said Order and We have All agreed That Processes may Issue out of Ecclesiastical Courts in the Names of Bishops and that a Patent under the Great Seal is not necessary c. By this it appeareth That the Whole Power of the Bishop's Jurisdiction depends upon the Opinion of these Judges and if these Judges Opinion be not more prevalent than the Common-Law the Jurisdiction of Bishops is gone If it be the Dispensing-Power grounded on the Late Opinion of the Judges is Valid So that the last Result will be this the Bishop's Power must be Destroyed or the KING's Dispensing-Power must be Recogniz'd But although the Matter is so fully cleared up in Defence of His MAJESYT's Commissioners and Visitors yet the Insolence of the Magdalen-Fellows and their Contempt of the Regal Authority exceeded all Bounds For as they contrary to the Royal Mandate proceed to Elect Dr. John Hough and although his Election was made null and void by the Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes yet the Dr. refused to submit thereunto whereby he put the Commissioners under a necessity of Expelling him the House which being done the Doctor makes his Protestation against their Proceedings as Illegal and Unjust and Null and this Protestation accompanied with a Tumultuous Humm or Acclamation as if the Whole House had been engaged in a Conspiracy against His MAJESTY and had design'd the Depriving the CROWN of One of its Richest Jewels viz. The Ecclesiastical Supremacy The Fellows also at first refused to submit unto the Bishop of Oxford who was by His MAJESTY made their President but at last gave in this Answer in Writing viz. Whereas His MAJESTY has been Pleas'd by His Royal Authority to cause the Right Reverend Father in GOD Samuel Lord Bishop of Oxford to be Installed President of this Colledge We whose Names are hereunto Subscribed do Submit as far as is Lawful and Agreeable to the Statutes of the said Colledge The Chaplains and all the Members of the Society except the Under-Porter gave in a Paper to the same Effect But Dr. Farefax who would not Submit unto the Suspension he had incurr'd Disowned the Jurisdiction of the Court for which Reason he was Deprived of his Fellowship And notwithstanding the above-mention'd Submission these same Fellows within three Days brought in a Paper with all their Hands Subscribed of the Tenor following May it Please Your Lordships WEE have Endeavoured in all Our Actions to Express Our Selves with all Humility to His MAJESTY and being Conscious to Our Selves That in the whole Conduct of this Business before Your Lordships We have done nothing but what Our Oaths and Statutes Indispensably oblig'd Us to We cannot make any Declaration whereby We acknowledge that We have done Amiss as having Acted according to the Principles of Loyalty and Obedience to His Sacred MAJESTY as far as We could without doing Violence to Our Consciences or Prejudice to Our Rights one of which We humbly Conceive that of Electing a President to be from which We are Sworn upon no Account whatsoever to depart We therefore humbly Beg your Lordships to represent this Favourably with Our Utmost Duty to His MAJESTY Whom GOD grant Long and Happily to Reign over Us. On the Tuesday October 25. 1687. they Submit but on the Friday following October 28. they can't in Conscience do it A very sudden but a prodigious Change. Their Submission was as much as the Visitours expected for as it was to the Bishop of Oxford their President Installed by His MAJESTY's Royal Authority as far as is Lawful and Agreeable to the Statute of the said Colledge this was enough For according to Church of england-England-Law the KING can Dispense with their Statutes To talk of an Indispensable Statute is to suppose it design'd for the Limitation of the KING's Power in Ecclesiastical Causes whereby it becomes Ipso Facto void and null but there being no such Statute the Method His MAJESTY took was such as capacitated the Fellows to Obey His Authority without laying their Consciences under a Violence 'T was all Fair and Legal and their Complying so far satisfied the KING's Visitors But as we may well conjecture the Fellows having consulted the Under-Porter who had either more Sence or Honesty than the Doctors for he refused to submit so far perhaps knowing that this was a full Submission they tack about and presume to justifie all that they had done in this Affair Though they had declared That they denyed the Jurisdiction of the Court and thereby endeavoured to Ravish from the KING a peculiar Part of His Supreme Authority Though they applauded Dr. Hough for his Protesting against the Proceedings as Illegal Void and Null Yet they arrive to the Boldness of Averring That in the Whole Conduct of this Business they did nothing but what their Oaths and Statutes Indispensably obliged them to and therefore cannot declare That they have done any thing Amiss and make Use of what they have oft call'd the Old Seditious Cant of Regulating the Principles of their Loyalty to the KING by the Conscience of an Oath to the Statutes of the Colledge and with a Salvo to their own Rights Though the poor Dissenters did Plead Conscience of Duty unto GOD Only as what they Judged sufficient to exempt them from Obeying their Prince in those Instances which Interfer'd with the KING's Command yet 't was enough to provoke the Prelatists to censure them Seditious Factious and Rebellious But these Gentlemen plead Conscience not that they are bound by an Heavenly Decree they can go no higher than to insist on the Obligation of a little Colledge-Statute that has been Dispensed with and the Sacredness of their University-Rights as if greater Regard must be had to the Pretended Rights of the Church of England-Clergy and Schoolmen than to those of the CROWN and a greater Deference must be paid to the Vacated Statutes of their Colledge than the Puritans might give to the Commands of Jesus Christ Thus these Magdalen-Gentlemen go on with a
Let this be Printed Sunderland P. WHITE-HALL Decemb. 21 st 1687. A Vindication OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF His Majesties Ecclesiastical Commissioners Against the Bishop of London and the Fellows of Magdalen College LONDON Printed by Tho. Milbourn and Published by Richard Janeway in Queens-Head-Alley in Pater-Noster-Row MDCLXXXVIII A Vindication OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF His Majesties Ecclesiastical Commissioners c. The Introduction THE Proceedings of His MAJESTY's Ecclesiastical Commissioners being Made the Common Talk of the Town especially since the Fellows of Magdalen Colledge have been suspended and Expelled for their Disobedience and Contempt to His MAJESTY it 's become Necessary to give the World a Just and Naked State of this whole Affair to the end they may see what Manner of Men Our Censorious Clergy and their Creatures are For on an Impartial Disquisition into the Whole of this Matter 't will appear that His MAJESTY has taken special Care that His Commissioners do not Exercise the Regal Power in that severe Way the Church of ENGLAND has done against Protestant Dissenters The KING Remembreth the Promise He has made of Protecting the Church of England as by Law Established and hitherto has done Nothing that Contradicts it but has been so very Tender in this Point as not to go so Far as Justly He might and whoever will but Consult the Sense Our Church of England Divines and Lawyers have had of His MAJESTY's Ecclesiastick Supremacy will soon see that it 's not easie for the Church of England to Speak against the Authority of His MAJESTY's Commissioners or the Legality of their Proceedings without Condemning Themselves for what they have done against the Puritans The Case in short will be brought to this Either the Church of England has most Unjustly Depriv'd the Old Puritans Or the KING has very Righteously Suspended the Bishop of London and Expell'd the Fellows of Magdalen Colledge The Agreement between what the KING has done and the Church of England-Law is so Exact and Full that it 's impossible for Our Church-Men to Vindicate the Practices of their Bishop and Magdalen Gentlemen without Tearing up the very Foundations of Their Own Ecclesiastick Constitution And notwithstanding the Clamour these Men make the Court Held by the KING's Commissioners and Visitors will appear to be Grounded on the Church of England-Law and so are the Proceedings in the Instances before Us. Section I. The Legality of the Court Held by His MAJESTIES Ecclesiastical Commissioners AS for the COURT Held by the KING 's Ecclesiastical Commissioners though it 's Said to be Contrary to the Express Words of a Law lately Made yet on a Considerate Examination of the Whole Matter the Case plainly is thus Before the 1st Eliz. it is Agree'd That all Ordinaries and Ecclesiastical Judges whatsoever Ought in all Ecclesiastical Causes to have Proceeded according to the Censures of the Church and could not in any Case have Punished any Delinquent by Fines or Imprisonments unless they had Authority so to do by Act of Parliament The Papal Authority did never Fine or Imprison in any Case but ever Proceeded Onely by Ecclesiastical Censures But in Queen Elizabeths Reign the Ecclesiastical Commissioners Proceeded to Fine and Imprison and that by Force as was then Suggested of the Statute 1st Elizabeth This Act was therefore Consulted and the Common-Lawyers Differ'd from the Civilians the Former Holding that This Law gave no Countenance to the Opinion of those who said that it Impowered the Ecclesiastick Commissioners to Fine and Imprison And My L d. Part 4. c. 74. Ch. Justice Coke in his Institutes doth with the greatest Clearness Demonstrate That the Express Letter and Meaning of 1st Eliz. is to Restore to the Crown the Ancient Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical and no Commissioner by Force of that Antient Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction could impose Fine and Imprisonment that these Commissioners having their Force from this Act of Restitution cannot Inflict any such Punishments However the Commissioners did Proceed in all Cases to Fine and Imprison and exceeding the Bounds of Ecclesiastical Censure did Oppress and Ruine so many thousand Families that the Parliament in the Seventeenth Year of CHARLES the First 17. Car. 1. c. 11. took Notice of it and Declared in the Preamble of that Statute That Whereas by Colour of Some WORDS in the Aforesaid Branch of First Eliz. whereby Commissioners are Authorized to Execute their Commission according to the Tenour and Effect of the KING's Letters Patents and by Letters Patents Grounded thereupon the said Commissioners have to the Great and Insufferable Wrong and Oppression of the KING's Subjects used to Fine and Imprison and to Exercise Other Authority not Belonging to Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction Restored by that Act and divers other Great Mischiefs and Inconveniencies have also Ensued to the KING's Subjects by Reason of the said Branch and Commissions Issuing thereupon and the Executions thereof Therefore for the Repressing and Preventing of the foresaid Abuses Mischiefs and Inconveniences for Time to come Be it Enacted c. Here it must be Noted that the Ecclesiastick Commissioners taking the Branch of 1st Eliz. in another Sense than the Common Lawyers did and that by Colour of some Words in it the Parliament Repeal'd this Branch thus Understood Forbidding all Ecclesiastical Judges to Proceed to Fine or Imprison the KING's Subjects or tender the Oath Ex Officio This Branch of 1st Elizabeth being thus Repeal'd and the High-Commission-Court put down and Care taken that No such Court be for the future Erected 'T was Generally Concluded That all Ordinary Iurisdiction was Taken from the Archbishops Bishops Vicar-Generals Or any other person or persons whatsoever Exercising Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Power Authority or Iurisdiction by any Grant Licence or Commission of the KING's Majesty But on the contrary it was Declared and Enacted 13 Car. 2. c. 12. That neither the said Act of 17 Car. 1. nor any thing therein Contained Doth or Shall take away any Ordinary Power or Authority from any Person or Persons Named as Aforesaid That is no Authority or Jurisdiction is or shall be taken from the Arch-Bishops Bishops VICAR-GENERALS or any Person or Persons Exercising Ecclesiastical Authority by any COMMISSION of the KING's Majesty But that They and every of Them Exercising Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction may Proceed Determine Sentence Execute and Exercise all manner of Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction and all Censures and Coercions appertaining and belonging to the same before the making of the Act 17 Car. 1. in all Causes and Matters belonging to Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction according to the KING's Majesty's Ecclesiastical Laws used and practised in this Realm in as ample Manner and Form as they did and might lawfully have done before the making of the said Act. Thus much is Express in this Statute 13 Car. 2. c. 12. whereby all Power and Ecclesiastical Authority which belonged to Archbishops Bishops Vicar-Generals or any other Persons exercising Authority by Commission of the KING's Majesty before the making of the 17 Car. 1. is
Bishop to Suspend that is To pronounce one Suspended without a Judicial Process is conform to the Constitutions embrac'd by the Church of England and in this Case the Bishop is bound to Obey if Commanded by the Supreme Ordinary And although some very boldly Affirm That these Suspensions are contrary to the Laws of GOD of Nature and of Nations yet nothing hath been more commonly practis'd by the Church of England in their prosecuting Dissenters than Ipso Facto Excommunications which are of a like kind with Ipso Facto Suspensions for both are without a Judicial Process and at this very time Ipso Facto Deprivations which are more than Suspensions ab Officio are established by our Laws By the Statute of 21 Hen. 8. If an Incumbent having a Benefice with Cure of Souls value Eight Pound per Annum take another with Cure immediately after Induction thereunto the former is void even without any Declaratory Sentence of Deprivation in the Ecclesiastical Court. And whoever neglects to Read The Articles of Religion within two Months next after Induction he is deprived Ipso Facto and upon such Avoidance there is no need of a Sentence Declaratory And if this be not contrary to the Laws of GOD nor of our Land How comes it to pass that an Ipso Facto Suspension should be such a hideous thing in the esteem of a Church of England-Man who has been so accustomed to treat the Dissenters after this very way and manner On the whole then I hope it 's sufficiently clear'd That the Bishop of London in the present case was bound to Obey His MAJESTY and Suspend the Doctor That the Capitulation he enter'd into with his Prince and the Contempt of His Authority deserv'd no less than a Suspension ab Officio Section III. A Just Account of the Proceedings of the Commissioners Appointed by His MAJESTY under the Great Seal for Visiting St. Mary Magdalen College in Oxford ON the Death of Dr. Clark President of St. Mary Magdalen in Oxford before the day of Election the KING sends down a Mandamus for the Electing another and whereas the Fellows were Sworn to observe the College Statutes which oblig'd them to Choose one of their Own or of New College His MAJESTY sends down a Dispensation with His Mandatory Letter notwithstanding which the Fellows pretending that they were bound in Conscience to observe the Statute because of their Oaths regard not the Mandatory Letter nor Royal Dispensation They make not a Choice as the KING Commanded and when cited before His MAJESTY's Commissioners and Visitours to Answer for their Disobedience they in a most Contemptuous Manner protest against the Proceedings The Great Points therefore to be Discussed may be Reduced to these two Heads I. Whether the KING by His Prerogative may not Dispense with the College Statutes II. Whether when there is a Dispensation Granted the Fellows are by their Oath Obliged to Act according to those very Statutes that are Dispensed with A Solution to These Questions will be Sufficient to Clear the Truth in this Affair for if the Dispensation according to the Church of England-Law be valid and the Fellows are not by their Oaths Bound to observe the Statutes after such a Dispensation 't will unavoidably follow That the Magdalen-Fellows have been most justly Suspended and Expell'd And thus much will be with much clearness evinced I. Touching the Dispensing Power The KING's Power in Matters Ecclesiastical is so very ample and extensive that it 's not easy for any one to set bounds or limits to it By our Common Lawyers it hath been often affirmed That whatever the Pope de facto formerly did within this Realm by the Canon Law that of Right belongs to our KINGS And on this Ground it has been adjudged That the Legislative Power in Matters Ecclesiastical is lodged in the KING The Pope made Laws for the Government of the Clergy and so may the KING And thus much Q. Elizabeth as supreme Head of the Church of England on the Request of Archbishop Whitgift exercised when she imposed a Subscription to the three Articles and depriv'd those who would not Obey The Statute of 13 Eliz. c. 12. required Subscription to the Articles of Faith and the Doctrines of the Sacraments onely and with this those who preached against Ceremonies and the Hierarchick Government complied Whitgift therefore and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners go further and by the Regal Power ordained Subscription to the Ceremonies and Government of the Church and depriv'd such as refused to Subscribe In the First of K. James I. these Articles are Established by the Canons without an Act of Parliament made in that Year on which occasion Deprivations were very Common and the Puritanick * We complain That we are put out from our Benefices which are a Freehold by the bare and sole Sentence of a Bishop whereas the Liberty of an English-man is this To be put from his Freehold by none but by the Verdict of Twelve Men. Parker on the Cross Part 2. Ch. 8. Sect. 3. P. 108. Clamours as great yea so great that the Clergy judg'd it necessary to beseech His MAJESTY to command all the Justices of England to confer together of this thing and give in their opinion which accordingly they did For it being demanded by the Lord Chancellour * See Crokes Reports an 2. Jacob 1. Whether the Deprivation of the Puritan Ministers for refusing to conform themselves to the Ceremonies appointed by the last Canons was Lawful They all answered That they had conferred thereof before and held it to be Lawful because the KING has the Supreme Ecclesiastical Power And they held it clear that the KING without a Parliament might make Orders and Constitutions for the Government of the Clergy and might deprive them if they Obey not The Civilians go higher affirming That the KING as Supreme is Himself instead of the Whole Law yea that he is the Law it Self and the Only Chief Interpreter thereof as in whose Breast resides the whole Knowledge of the same And that His MAJESTY by communicating His Authority to His Judges to Expound the Laws doth not thereby abdicate the same from Himself These with Borellus do hold * Dr. Ridley view p. 2. c. 1. sect 7. That Principum placita legis habent vigorem And as the KING by the Fulness of His Ecclesiastical Power can without a Parliament make what Laws He Please for the Government of the Clergy in like manner The Power of the KING in Matters Ecclesiastical is too ample to be limited by an Act of Parliament Thus much has been clear'd up by my Lord * part 4. Coke in his Institutes where he tells us That albeit the Acts of 24 Hen. 8. 25 Hen. 8. do upon certain Appeals make the sentence Definitive as to any Appeal for the Words be shall be Definitive and that no further Appeal should be had yet the KING after such a Definitive Sentence as Supreme Head
may grant a Commission of Review ad Revidendum c. for that after a Definitive Sentence the Pope as Supreme Head by the Canon Law used to grant a Commission ad Revidendum And such Authority as the Pope had claiming as Supreme Head doth of Right belong to the Crown and is annexed thereunto by the Statutes of the 26 Hen. 8. c. 1. 1. Eliz. c. 1. And so it was Resolv'd in the Kings-Bench Trin. 39 Eliz. where the Case was That Sentence being given in an Ecclesiastical Cause in the Countrey the Party grieved appeal'd according to the said Act of 25 Hen. 8. to the Archbishop before whom the first Sentence was affirmed Whereupon according to the Statute of 25 Hen. 8. he appeal'd to the Delegates And upon this matter a Prohibition was prayed in the King's-Bench pretending that the Commission of Review was against Law for that the Sentence before the Delegates was Definitive by the Statute of 25 Hen. 8. But upon Mature Deliberation and Debate the Prohibition was deny'd for that the Commission for the Causes abovesaid was resolv'd to be lawfully granted In this Case I being then saith Sir Edward Coke the Queens Attorney was of Counsel to maintain the Queens Power And Presidents were cited in this Court in Michelot's Case Anno. 29 Eliz. and in Goodman's Case and in Hewet's in 29 Eliz. also So far Sir Edw. Coke From whence it 's most manifest That an Act of Parliament can be no Bar to the Exercise of the Regal Power that is established by the Common Law as the KING's Supremacy in Matters Ecclesiastical is But further The Grant of Dispensations is a Peculiar and very Considerable Part of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction which is eminently Seated in the CROWN That the same Power the Pope claimed in this Land as Supreme Head doth of Right belong to our KINGS has been abundantly proved and in the Statute of 25 Hen. 8. c. 22. it is affirmed That the Pope claimed full Power to Dispense with all Humane Laws of all Realms in all Causes which he called Spiritual And my Lord Chief Justice Hobart delivering his Opinion about the Power of Dispensing in general holds it clear * Colt and Glover ver Bishop of Leitchfield That though the Statute of 25 Hen. 8. c. 21. says That all Dispensations c. shall be Granted in manner and form following and not otherwise that yet the KING is not thereby restrained but his Power remains full and perfect as before and He may still Grant them as KING for all Acts of Iustice and Grace flow from Him as 4 Eliz. Dier 211. The Commission of Tryal of Piracy upon the Statute of 28 Hen. 8 c. 13. is good tho' the Chancellor do not nominate the Commissioners as that Statute appoints and yet it is a New Law. And Mich. 5. 6. Eliz. Dier 225. The Queen made Sheriffs without the Iudges notwithstanding the Ninth of Edward 2. And Mich. 13. 14. Eliz. Dier 303. The Office of Alnager granted by the Queen without the Bill of the Treasurer it is good with a non obstante against the Statute of 31 Hen. 6. c. 5. For these Statutes and the like were made to put things in Ordinary Form and to case the SOVEREIGN of Labour but not to Deprive Him of Power Besides the Learned of the Law do with much Plainness aver and clear up thus much to Us That the KING can Grant out what ever Dispensations the Pope did so long as the things Dispensed with are not Mala in se In Ecclesiasticals the KING can Dispense not only with Canons but with Acts of Parliament yea with any thing that is but Malum prohibitum and seeing the Universities are for the Maintenance of Religion and fall under the Care of the Supreme HEAD as other Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Corporations do the KING can in like manner Dispense with their Statutes If with the Greater no doubt with the Lesser If an Act of Parliament may be Dispensed with it 's not to be question'd but a Provincial Canon may be so too and if Acts of Parliament and Provincial Canons cannot limit or confine or stand before the Dispensing Power How is it possible that a Colledge-Statute should do it To suppose that it can is to ascribe greater Power to One Man or to a little Corporation than to the greatest Body of the Nation than which nothing can be more absurd Besides the Laws enacted by the Founder of a Colledge can have no more Strength than they receive from the KING Nor can a Colledge be erected without His Leave Time would fail to produce all the Authorities by which according to Church of England-Doctrine the Truth hereof may be Confirm'd And this is so well done by other Hands that I will stay no longer on it but will go on to Consider Whether notwithstanding a Dispensation those who have been Sworn to Observe the Statutes of a Colledge cannot Act contrary thereunto without violating their Oath For here lies the stress of what the Magdalen Gentlemen have to say for themselves and yet We can no sooner Explicate the Nature of a Dispensation but may see how feeble the Foundation is on which these Men lean in Defence of their contemptuous Disobedience to the Royal Mandate The Nature then of a Dispensation as it was agreed in the case of * Jones Reports fol. 158 c. Evan and Kiffin against Askwith is to derogate and make void a Statute Canon and Constitutions as to that which it prohibits the Parties to whom 't is Given It is an Exception as to them out of the Statute or Constitution The Obligatory Power of the Statute or Canon is taken away as to that Person who has the Dispensation †Dispensatio est mali prohibiti provida relaxatio It is as to him in a manner vacated Though the Canon Statute or Constitution be not made simply void and null yet in some Respects it is made void As to this or the other Person for this time the Obligation Ceases Here then lies the Difference between the Dispensing with a Law and the Repealing it A Repeal vacates the Law to all Intents and Purposes but a Dispensation doth onely in some respect vacate it By a Repeal the Law is abolished but where there is a Dispensation onely though the Law obliges not the Person for such a time yet it remains a Law still A Repeal kills it but a Dispensation only binds it up or stands between the Obligation of it and this or the other Party but still as to the Party to whom the Dispensation is given the Law is made void and to him it is as if there had been no such Law for that time So much touching the Nature of a Dispensation from whence it clearly follows That the Magdalen-Gentlemen stood not bound by Oath to Choose according to their Statutes for to them there remained no such Statute as obliged them to choose one of their own
Recognized to belong unto the abovenamed Persons notwithstanding any thing in the said Statute to the contrary and that therefore whatever is said touching the High-Commission-Court in the following Branch must be understood of their Fining and Imprisoning Thus much may be also inferred from the last Clause 13 Car. 2. where it is provided That this Act or any thing therein contained shall not Extend or be construed to Extend to give unto any Archbishop Bishop or any other person or persons aforesaid any Power or Authority to exercise execute inflict or determine any Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction Censure or Coercion which they might not by Law have done before the Year of our LORD 1639. Nor to Abridge or Diminish the KING's Majesties Supremacy in Ecclesiastical Matters and Affairs Whence I infer that there is no other Power taken from the Ecclesiastick Commissioners than that of Fining Imprisoning or Tendering the OATH Ex Officio Thus much was suppress'd by 17 Car. 1. and no more An Ecclesiastical COURT exercising this Power was put down and the Erecting the like for Time to come strictly forbidden But the COURT Now set up is not like unto This for it pretends not to Fine or Imprison or tender the Oath Ex Officio it keeps within the bounds of Ecclesiastick Censures and is no more like the High-Commission-Court than * The Court Held by His MAJESTIES Ecclesiastical Commissioners is more Legal than the Bishops Courts This is in the KING's Name Theirs in their Own Names only Doctors Commons is for Vicar-Generals or other Persons exerciseing Authority by His Majesties Commission have as much Power left them as Archbishops or Bishops have So much Touching the Legality of the COURT The next Thing to be Considered is Their Process against Dr. SHARP and the BISHOP of LONDON Section II. The Bishop of LONDON's CASE fairly Stated and Examined THE State of the Bishop's CASE I will give You in the Answer his Lordship Made to the Commissioners when he was Asked by the Court Why He had not Obeyed his MAJESTY's Command for Suspending Dr. Sharp which is as followeth To the Question that was Proposed to Me by Your Lordships viz. Why did You not obey the KING's Command in his Letter concerning the Suspending Dr. Sharp I Henry Bishop of London Do Answer That immediately upon the Receipt of His MAJESTIES Letter from my Lord President the Tenour whereof follows viz. Iames R. RIGHT Reverend Father in God WE Greet You well Whereas WE have been Inform'd and are fully satisfi'd that Dr. John Sharp Rectour of the Parish-Church of St. Giles in the Fields in the County of Middlesex and your Diocess notwithstanding Our Late Letter to the most Reverend Fathers in GOD the Archbishops of Canterbury and York Our Directions concerning Preachers Given at Our Court at White-Hall the Fifth of March 1685. in the Second Year of Our Reign yet He the said Dr. Sharp in Contempt of the said Orders hath in some of the Sermons he hath since Preached Presum'd to make unbecoming Reflections and to Utter such Expressions as were not Fit or Proper for Him endeavouring thereby to beget in the Minds of his Hearers an evil Opinion of US and Our Government by Insinuating Fears and Jealousies to dispose them to Discontent and to lead them into Disobedience Schism and Rebellion These are therefore to Require and Command you immediately upon receipt hereof forthwith to Suspend Him from further Preaching in any Parish-Church or Chappel in your Diocess untill he shall give Us Satisfaction and Our further Pleasure be Known herein And for so doing this shall be Your Warrant And so WE bid You heartily Farewel Given at Our Court at Windsor the Fourteenth Day of June 1686. in the Second Year of Our Reign By His MAJESTIES Command SUNDERLAND P. I Took the best Advice I could get concerning the Suspension of Dr. Sharp and was Inform'd That the Letter being Directed to Me as Bishop of London to Suspend a Person under my Jurisdiction I was therein to Act as a Judge it being a Judicial Act and that no Person could by Law be punished by Suspension before he was Called or without being Admitted to make his Defence I thought it therefore my Duty forthwith Humbly to Represent so much to my Lord President that so I might Receive His MAJESTIES Farther Pleasure in that Matter Nevertheless that I might Obey His MAJESTY 's Commands as far as by Law I could I did then send for Dr. Sharp and Acquainted Him with His MAJESTY's Displeasure and the Occasion of it by shewing him His MAJESTY 's Letter But he having never been Called to Answer any such Matter or make his Defence and he Protesting his Innocence and likewise Declaring himself most Ready to give His MAJESTY full Satisfaction therein in Order thereto I Advised him to forbear Preaching untill he had Applyed himself to His MAJESTY and at his Request I made him the Bearer of a Letter to my Lord President Waiting for His MAJESTY's further Orders to Proceed against him Judicially in case he should not at that Time give His MAJESTY the Satisfaction Required and the said Doctor hath not since Preached within my Diocess H. London That we may Rightly Understand the whole of this Case it must be observ'd That His MAJESTY received such Evidence against Dr. Sharp as did fully satisfy Him of the Truth of the Charge That the Charge it self is of a very high Nature containing in it not only Contempt of His MAJESTY's Letter sent the two Archbishops and Orders prescribing Directions concerning Preachers But That by his Preaching he endeavoured to beget in the Minds of his Hearers an evil Opinion of His MAJESTY and Government by insinuating Fears and Jealousies to dispose them to Discontent and lead them into Disobedience Schism and Rebellion A Crime which most undoubtedly deserves an Ipso Facto Suspension and according to the Opinion of all the Judges in the Second Year of JAMES the First is an Offence Fineable at Discretion and very near to Treason and Felony in the Punishment Thus it was Resolv'd in the Puritans Case who intimated in a Petition to the KING That if He deny'd their Sute many Thousands of His Subjects would be Discontented and the Reason why they thus Resolved was * Crookes Reports an 2 Jac. 1. Because such Petitions tended to the Raising of Sedition Rebellion and Discontent amongst the People Whereby these Justices sufficiently Declare That what tends to the Raising Sedition Rebellion and Discontent is an Offence Fineable at Discretion and very near to Treason and Felony in the Punishment And if His MAJESTY would have proceeding against Doctor Sharp according to the Method these Church of England Judges have directed unto against Puritans the Doctors Offence must have been made a Matter Criminal worthy of open Shame and in which Case His MAJESTY to express a tender Respect unto the Clergy must have found it necessary to * See Dr. Ridleâ—'s View p.
Confidence that bears some proportion to the Badness of their Cause and are not afraid to cast the Greatest Contempt on His MAJESTY's Commissioners and Visitors and consequently on His MAJESTY Himself whose Person they represent and instead of Humbling themselves for their many Insolencies or instead of acting according to their Quondam avowed Doctrine of Passive Obedience they fly in the Face of Authority charging it with no less Guilt than the Injuring a Whole Society and as if they had still to do with their Dissenting Brethren they close up the Scene with an Insulting Threat For after their Expulsion they severally gave in Papers to the Effect following May it Please Your Lordships I Do profess all Duty to His MAJESTY and Respect to Your Lordships but beg Leave to declare I think my Self Injured in Your Lordships Proceedings and therefore Protest against them and will use all Just and Legal means of being relieved Here you see they complain of Injuries done 'em and are resolv'd to use all Just and Legal Means they say for their own Relief But who can imagine what they will understand by Just and Legal Means The Whole of these Proceedings depend on the Dispensing Power If His MAJESTY had not Dispensed with their Colledge-Statutes the Case would have been another thing but the Dispensation makes it manifest That no Pretence of an Oath can be sufficient to excuse their Disobedience Let us then compare the late Actings of these Gentlemen with a Notion we find in an Admired * A Letter containing Reflections on His Majesty's Declaration for Liberty of Conscience Pamphlet Written by one of their own Communion and we may see Cause justly to conclude that they esteem the Exercise of the Dispensing Power to be a Subversion of the Whole Government Which to use the Author 's own Words being so contrary to the Trust that is given to the PRINCE who ought to Execute it will put Men upon Uneasie and Dangerous Enquiries which will turn Little to the Advantage of those who are driving Matters to such a Doubtful and Desperate Issue To which let us add That this is mention'd in Contradistinction to the Non-resisting Doctrine and then consider Whether any rational Man who is acquainted with what these very men do to fill the Minds of His MAJESTY's Subjects with Discontent can think that by Just and Legal they mean any thing less than some Methods better indeed silenced than expressed When the Protestant Dissenters went not half so far in their Disobedience to the Regal Authority they could not escape the Censure of being Enemies to the Government and were immediately made uncapable of any Ecclesiastical Benefice They only refused to Subscribe unto two of the three Articles and this was interpreted a Renouncing the KING 's Supreme Authority in Matters Ecclesiastical and without the Aid of an Act of Parliament they were deprived And whoever carefully observes the Ecclesiastick Proceedings will find That when the Ecclesiastical Judges deal with Delinquents they never give over till there be either a Submission or a running the Offender to the Last Punishment Thus if a Man did but absent himself from the Sacrament and was admonished he must Conform or be run to an Excommunication and at last to the Writ de Excommunicato capiendo In like manner if any of the Clergy fell under the Censure of Suspension ab Officio unless there had been a Submission it went on to a Suspension à Beneficio yea and to a Deprivation Which if done in one Diocess was to be regarded by every Diocesan throughout the whole Kingdom And the Reason our Clergy give for this is not the Ruine of the Offenders but a Reducing 'em to the Knowledge of themselves and a due Submission to their Superiors whose Part it is to secure the Great Ends of Government as also for the discouraging Others from the like Miscarriages And on this account it is that the making the Magdalen-Fellows uncapable of Ecclesiastical Benefices Dignities or Promotions became Necessary it being no more than what is included in every Deprivation of the Clergy And for this Reason the KING 's Ecclesiastical Commissioners have made the ensuing Decree By His MAJESTY's Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes and for Visiting the Vniversities and all and every Cathedral and Collegiate Churches Colledges Grammar-Schools and other the like Incorporations or Foundations and Societies WHereas We thought Fit by Our Order of the 22 d. of June last to Declare and Decree That the Pretended Election of Mr. John Hough now Dr. John Tough to the Presidentship of St. Mary Magdalen Colledge in the Vniversity of Oxon was Void and therefore did amove the said Mr. Hough from the Place of President of the said Colledge And whereas the Fellows of the same were likewise convened before Us for their Disobedience to and Contempt of His MAJESTY's Authority by making the said Pretended Election and it now appearing unto Us That the said Dr. John Tough Dr. Charles Aldeworth Dr. Henry Fairfax Dr. Alexander Pudsey Dr. John Smith Dr. Thomas Bayley Dr. Hhomas Stafford Mr. Robert Almont Mr. Mainwaring Hammond Mr. John Rogers Mr. Richard Strickland Mr. Henry Dobson Mr. James Bayley Mr. John Davies Mr. Francis Bagshaw Mr. James Fayrer Mr. Joseph Harwar Mr. Thomas Bateman Mr. George Hunt Mr. William Cradock Mr. John Gillman Mr. George Fulham Mr. Charles Penyston Mr. Robert Hyde Mr. Edward Yerbury Mr. Henry Holden and Mr. Stephen Weelks Lately Fellows of the said Colledge do persist in their Disobedience and Contempt We have thought Fit upon Mature Consideration of the Matter to Declare Decree and Pronounce And We do accordingly Declare Decree and Pronounce That the said Dr. John Hough c. and every of Them shall be from henceforth they are hereby declared adjudged Incapable of Receiving or being Admitted to any Ecclesiastical Dignity Benefice or Promotion and that such and every of them who are not as yet in Holy Orders shall be and are hereby Declared and Adjudged incapable of Receiving or being Admitted into the same And all Archbishops Bishops and other Ecclesiastical Officers and Ministers within the Realm of England are hereby required to take Notice of This Our Sentence Order and Decree and to yield Obedience thereunto Given under Our Seal the 10th of December 1687. The Conclusion THUS You have a Just Account given You of the Proceedings of His MAJESTY's Commissioners and Visitors with the KING's Power in Matters Ecclesiastical How according to Church of England-Law His MAJESTY can Dispense not only with College-Statutes but with Provincial Canons and Acts of Parliament And yet how Unjustly the Fellows Opposed the KING's Supremacy to which they are All Sworn and which they should have Regarded after another manner than they did As also with what Contempt and Scorn they Carryed it towards His MAJESTY's Visitors Giving them Opprobrious Language and making False Reports of Matter of Fact intending to fill the Minds of the KING's Subjects with Fears Jealousies and Discontent so that on the whole an Ordinary Capacity may with much clearness perceive That His MAJESTY's Commissioners have in their Proceedings against the Magdalen-Fellows kept within the Bounds of Justice And notwithstanding any thing the Commissioners have done either against the Bishop of London or Magdalen College His MAJESTY's Clemency toward the Church of England is surprizing and cannot but appear so to any that do but mind what I have already mention'd about the Opinion of the Judges which was That the KING without a Parliament can make Ordinances and Constitutions for the Government of the Clergy and Deprive them if they Obey not To which let us Add That this was the very End for which the Judges Opinion was desired viz. The Justifying the Church of Englands Depriving the Old Puritans for not Subscribing to the Ceremonies enjoyned by the Canon thereby plainly shewing that the KING without a Parliament may appoint what Ceremonies He please Now it 's not to be doubted That if His MAJESTY would but Exercise this Power in Matters Ecclesiastical he might Appoint and Ordain so many Ceremonies and Require Subscription to them as would make the Church of England look exactly like that of Rome and Deprive all those that dare Disobey Let us but Consider then with what Severity the Church of England-Clergy express themselves against Popery and again Observe how easily the KING might by their own Law impose a very great Part of It on them and deprive them if they Obey not and 't will not be difficult to conclude what would be the condition of these Present Sticklers against Popery To the Sign of the Cross in Baptism the KING might enjoyn Exsufflation Salt and Spittle and to Kneeling at the Sacrament the Deacons Kissing of the Hand or Right Shoulder of the Priest and the Mens Kissing each other besides Holy Water and it's Consecration as well as the Consecration of Churches and a hundred such things more might His MAJESTY enjoyn the Clergy and thereby make it necessary for Our Clergy to Subscribe unto all these to the Opening the Mouths of Dissenters against them or to Feel what a Deprivation is But His MAJESTY to the end He may convince the most Obstinate Enemies to His Government is Resolv'd to Proceed in the calmest Way and therefore notwithstanding the most Undutiful and Disloyal Reflections Cast on MAJESTY It self by some of the Church of England It 's His Royal Purpose That His Commissioners shall not Exercise that Severity against them which they have against Protestant-Dissenters Nor will His MAJESTY take those Advantages against their Clergy which He might He is rather for the more Peaceable and Christian Methods and therefore will do the Church of England no more Hurt than to give Ease unto Others And nothing but a most Violent Provocation can Overcome Him to Alter this Method FINIS