Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
cause_n according_a ecclesiastical_a law_n 1,550 5 5.5075 4 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A69780 A vindication of the proceedings of His Majesties ecclesiastical commissioners, against the Bishop of London and the fellows of Magdalen-College Care, Henry, 1646-1688.; Hedges, Charles, Sir, 1649 or 50-1714. 1688 (1688) Wing C536; ESTC R202803 20,601 74

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

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
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