have Sentence for the Nullity of her own Marriage according to Justice It is objected on the behalf of A. B. That she ought not to be admitted thereto for these causes viz. Because the Marriage with the Scottish Woman was solemnized in Scotland the sentence of Divorce was given in Scotland by the Judges there where the Judges of England have no Jurisdiction nor Superiority over them That there was no appeal or provocation from that Sentence That it was given by the Judges of an high Court in Scotland from whence no Appeal lieth And that if the English Woman's marriage should be pronounced void here in England the justice of the Realm of Scotland may thereby seem to be taxed The Question is Whether the Ecclesiastical Judges or Judge having Jurisdiction in the place in England where the said A. B. and the English Woman dwell be competent Judges and may and ought at the Petition of the English Woman to hear and determine this cause of Nullity of the marriage between her self and A. B. notwithstanding the former Objections We are of Opinion without any doubt That the Ecclesiastical Judge haing Jurisdiction in the place in England where the said A. B. and the said English Woman dwell may and in Justice is bound at the complaint of the said English Woman to hear and determine the said cause concerning the validity of her said Marriage and to pronounce the marriage between her and A. B. to be void if she prove before him the matters by her alledged notwithstanding the aforesaid Objections Neither can the Justice of Scotland be thought to be impeach'd thereby though upon sufficient proof made before the Judge here in England which was not made before the Judges in Scotland he giveth a Sentence which may seem repugnant to the Sentence given in Scotland In a Manuscript Book of several Collections made by Sir Julius Caesar Master of the Rolls and Chancellour of the Exchequer and one of the King 's most Honourable Privy-Council there is referr'd to in the Index of the Contents writ with his own hand viz. That the question between Sir John Kennedy Knight and his Lady touching the lawfullness or unlawfullness of their Marriage may be tryed heard or determin'd in England where both parties are inhabiting And from Fol. 2d of that Book to Fol. 8th the following Leaves are Transcribed the Page before Fol. 8th in Sir Caesar's Book is thus with his own Hand indors'd viz. The Reasons of the Resolution of A. B. 25. Jan. 1610. The said Manuscript Dr. Trumball borrowed of Sir Charles Caesar and it yet remains in the Doctors Hands 'T is markt in the back C. S. 8. Certain Points in Law and Reason whereby it may plainly appear that the question between the Lady Kennedy and Sir John Kennedy concerning the Validity of their Marriage may and ought by ordinary course of Law be heard and determin'd before the Ecclesiastical Judges in England who have jurisdiction in the places where they both dwell Whereupon the Civilians have grounded their Opinions given in this Case to that effect FIrst by Law and Reason there can fall out no Question or Controversie between any Persons inhabiting in any Civil Common-wealth or State but the same must be decided by some competent Judge or Judges who ought to have Authority to hear and determine the same or else there must needs ensue Confusion and Horrour Secondly When any Controversies happen between any Persons proceeding of any contract whatsoever that require a Determination or ending by Judgment wheresoever the Contract was made those Judges are by Law the competent Judges to hear and determine that Controversie who have jurisdiction and power in the place where both the parties or the party defendant dwelleth to hear and determine causes of that Nature Thirdly If there fall out any Controversie between any two Persons the Defendant cannot be compelled to appear to answer the Plaintiff but before the Judge of the place where the Defendant dwelleth and especially if the Plaintiff himself dwelleth under the same Jurisdiction Fourthly In all Causes where there may ensue peril of Soul and continuance in Sin the Judge of the place ought of his Office to enquire thereof and redress the same though no Man complain thereof Whereupon it followeth That the Ecclesiastical Judges here in England who have Authority to hear causes of Matrimony are the competent Judges and have power to hear and determine this matter of the lawfullness or unlawfulness of the Lady's Marriage and the rather for that the Lady's Marriage which is the principal matter in question was made and solemniz'd here in England If it be objected That because that Point whereupon the Validity or Invalidity of the Lady Kennedy's Marriage dependeth viz. the Marriage between Sir John and Isabel Kennedy is already adjudged by a definitive Sentence long since from which there hath been no appeal or provocation and therefore it must Barr the Lady We answer That although in Causes of other Nature where no danger of sin might ensue though the Sentence were against the truth if a Sentence be once lawfully given and not appealed from in due time the matter cannot be called in question again yet where a Sentence is given to dissolve or anull a lawfull Matrimony that Sentence may at any time though never so long after be called in question and reversed whensoever it may be made to appear that the truth is contrary to that Sentence and that may be done even by the party himself who obtain'd that Sentence And therefore not only Sir John Kennedy but Isabel her self might have reversed that Sentence proving the same was given by error much less shall the Lady who was not party to that Sute be thereby debarred from proving the Nullity of her Marriage being a distinct cause from that And the reason of the difference between a Sentence against a Matrimony and a Sentence in another Cause is because in other Causes where no fear is of Sin or peril of Soul to ensue the parties may by their agreement make what end of the Business they list by composition or otherwise And therefore if they do not appeal from the Sentence given against them they are thought by their consent to confirm the same but because a Marriage by God's Law cannot be dissolved by the Agreement or Consent of the Parties no Sentence therein given against a Marriage contrary to the truth by error can by the Parties agreement be confirmed lest if it should be otherwise thereby they might by colour of the erroneous Sentence marry other Persons and live in Adultery Nay more If the Parties themselves thus erroneously divorced contrary to the truth would hold themselves contented with the Sentence if either of them marry any other Person or they both live incontinently with other Persons the Judge of that place where they inhabit may and ought of his own Office to inforce the Parties so by error divorced to live together again
may limit themselves by Oath or promise and so our Kings have limited their power and promised and in their Coronation-Oath sworn to do none of those things without the consent of their people in Parliament But does not this limiting themselves take away and destroy their Absoluteness No if any other power could lay Obligations and Limitations upon them then I grant they were not absolute but to limit themselves is consistent with absolute power For the truth of this we have an evident and authentick instance It is most certain that God Almighty is an absolute King of all the world yet for the comfort of his people he has limited himself by Oath and promise so the Apostle tells us That by two immutable things in which it is impossible for God to lye we might have strong consolation These things premised concerning the great power of our Kings That it is Monarchical Supreme and Absolute the Query is Whether they can and lawfully may either 1. Reprive 2. Or pardon a person condemn'd for Murder Now it is a certain Rule in Law and Reason that Omne illicitum est ex lege aliqua illicitum Sin is the transgression of a Law and where there is no law there is no transgression If then such Reprive or Pardon be unlawful and may not be granted by the Kings of England then it must be so by some law which prohibits it and that must be either 1. Some Humane or 2. Some Divine Law For the first unless it do appear that the Kings of England are prohibited to reprive or pardon such malefactors by some law of our Nation to the making where of they have given their consent and so limited their own power I say unless there be such a law it will be evident that it cannot be unlawful by any humane law for our Kings to reprive or pardon such malefactors But although I have reason to believe that there is no such law Yet whether there be any such Law or no I shall not determine but leave it to the Reverend Judges and the learned in our laws who are best able to determine that Question It belongs not to my calling or present business to determine the Case by humane laws That which was desired of me was this Whether the Reprive or Pardon of a person legally condemn'd for Murder were prohibited and so unlawful by the law of God particularly by that Law given to the Jews by Moses in these words Thou shalt take NO SATISFACTION for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death he shall SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH NOW to determine this case of Conscience by the Divine Law is within the compass of my Calling and by this time at the Age of 77. I am or ought to be in some measure a competent Judge of such Cases And therefore seeing nothing is required of me save what is in my power to give my Opinion in the Case I shall here 1. Humbly and with submission to my Superiors give my opinion and judgment in the Case 2. The Reasons for it 1. For the first my present opinion and judgment is That there is no Divine Law which prohibits and so makes it unlawful for Supreme Princes to Reprive or Pardon a person legally condemned for murder And this I shall endeavour distinctly to shew and prove 1. That a Reprive 2. That a Pardon is not by any Law of God unlawful 1. For the first To Reprive is not to null or make void the Sentence pass'd upon a murderer or to free him from it but only for some time the delaying the execution of it Now 't is certain that there is no Law of God which prohibits such Reprive and delay of executing the sentence or any way make it unlawful for the Supreme power to grant such Reprive The severest Law against Murderers is that in the Book of Numbers but now nam'd which says That no satisfaction shall be taken for the life of a Murderer but he shall surely be put to death But that Law does not say that he must die the same day the sentence pass'd or the same week or month If a Murderer be executed a month after the sentence passed he dies As SURELY as if he had died the same day 2. There may be just reasons drawn from the Law of Nature and Scripture why in many Cases the supreme Magistrate not only lawfully may but ought to grant such a Reprive The Law of God and Nature does indispensably bind all to love their neighbour as their selves and therefore so far as we have ability to endeavour his Salvation Now a condemn'd murderer who has no pardon is sure to lose a temporal life and that he may not lose eternal life too it is the observation and judgment of the best Scholar and Lawyer in his time it will and should be the care of pious Princes not to hurry such condemn'd malefactors hastily to death but to grant them some time by a Reprive before they leave this to consult their Ghostly Father and by prayer confessing their sins true penitence and the comfort of Absolution prepare themselves for a better life 3. But although this be a certain truth That the Supreme power may reprive a condemn'd Murderer yet it will further appear and beyond all contradiction in the proof of the next particular Where it will appear That the King by his Supreme power and Royal Prerogative may lawfully pardon such a condemn'd malefactor and therefore much more may he lawfully Reprive him For he who can lawfully pardon and remit the punishment of Death that it shall never be inflicted may certainly for some small time for a week a month or two suspend and delay the execution of it And so I proceed to the second particular 2. It is not unlawful by any Divine Law for the Supreme Power to pardon a person convict and condemned for Murder The reason is evident because there is no Divine Law which prohibits the Supreme power to grant such a Pardon That this may more distinctly appear it is certain and confess'd that Divine Laws are either 1. Evangelical made known to us in the Gospel 2. Mosaical such as God by Moses made known to his own people the Jews 1. For the first The Evangelical Laws were given by our Blessed Saviour in the Gospel for the gathering and perpetual Government of his Church Now it is certain that amongst these Laws there is nothing of any temporal punishment Our Blessed Saviour tells Pilate That his Kingdom was not of this world it was no Temporal Kingdom It was not to be promoted by the sword or temporal punishments He left his Apostles no power to punish the transgressors of his Laws either 1. In their Purse by Pecuniary Mulcts or Fines Nor 2. in their Persons by Death or Imprisonments All such Power does and ever did belong to the Civil Magistrate who only has
not in some cases reprive or pardon some whom they had condemn'd Sure I am that David the best of Kings who knew the Jewish Laws as well as any did reprive Joab who had murder'd Amasa and Abner and delay'd the execution of the Law and left it to Solomon his Son who did accordingly put Joab to death 2. And as David reprived Joab so he pardon'd Absolon who had slain his Brother Amnon Nor does the Scripture any where impute the reprive of Joab or the pardon of Absolon to David as crimes or transgressions of the Law of Moses but rather declares him innocent when it is expressy said That David did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord and turned not aside from ANY THING that he commanded him ALL THE DAYS OF HIS LIFE save ONLY in the matter of Uriah the Hittite Now if notwithstanding those Mosaical Penal Laws it was lawful for David the Supreme Power amongst the Jews to whom those Penal Laws were given and they bound to the observation of them I say if David might lawfully Reprive and Pardon Murderers how can it by those very Laws be unlawful for the Christian Supreme Power and Gentiles to whom those Laws were never given nor they ever under the obligation of them to reprive or pardon such condemned malefactors In short the sum of what I have said endeavour'd to prove and believe to be true is this 1. That there is no Law of God or Man which does prohibit and so make it unlawful for Supreme Princes to grant such Reprives and Pardons 2. That the end of all Penal Laws and of their due Execution is that the honour of our great and most Gracious God and his true Worship and Religion be preserved and Ne quid detrimenti capiat Respublica that the Commonwealth be not damnify'd by too usual and frequent granting pardons For too great Impunity will occasion and encourage Impiety 3. That all loyal and faithful subjects are bound and have good reason to believe that his Sacred Majesty as he is Gods immediate Vicegerent Defender of the Faith and whose greatest Interest it is to promote those good ends so he will carefully endeavour by a due Execution of our good Laws to attain those ends 4. That such Cases heretofore have and may again happen wherein the time persons and all other Circumstances duly consider'd a Reprive may not only be lawful but necessary And wherein a Pardon may conduce every way as much and possibly in some Cases more for attaining the good ends of Penal Laws as a perpetual severe and rigorous execution of them And of such Cases the King is the Supreme and sole Judge who if need be may call for and have The advice and counsel of any of his Subjects of whose prudence and piety he is well assur'd This is the sum and substance of what I have said at several times to several persons to confirm them in the belief and incourage them to a just vindication of His Majesties Legal Rights and undoubted Prerogative And what I have done in this was a duty I did owe to my Gracious Soveraign not only by common Allegiance as he is my King but in gratitude as to my Patron whose undeserved favour and goodness has plac'd me in the good Station wherein I am And therefore that God Almighty would be graciously pleased to bless and preserve his Anointed from all the impious Plots and Conspiracies of all His enemies give Him a long and peaceable possession of a Temporal Crown here and an Eternal Crown of Glory hereafter is and shall while I live be the Prayer of Buckden Jan. 20. 1684. Your Affectionate Friend and Servant T. LINCOLN Mr. Cottington's Case CONCERNING The Validity or Nullity of his Marriage with Gallina her former Husband then living Anno. 1671. Mr. Cottington's Case A DOUBT OR Case of Conscience PROPOSED CASE THE FIRST 1. GAllina Marries Patrimoniale Anno. 1664. Lives and Cohabites with him as his Wife a year and a half has a Child by him a Daughter And all this while voluntarily gives him Reverence and due Benevolence Sine protestatione aut Querelâ without any protestation or complaint of any Nullity or Illegallity of the Matrimonial Contract by reason of any Antecedent Force or Fear to make her consent and plighted troth Involuntary never endeavours to recede and make an Escape from him when she was in Loco Tuto and had opportunity to make such Protestation or recess with safety 2. After this Anno. 1666. The Archbishop of Turine by sentence given pronounces the said Marriage Void and Null by reason of Force and Fear into which her Father put her which rendred Gallina's consent involuntary as was supposed and contrary to the nature of a Conjugall Consent which Jure Naturae ought to be free and spontaneous otherwise it will not be Obligatory 3. After this Anno. 1671 The said Gallina Marries Mr. Cottington her former Husband then Living and who is yet alive and at Law and in the Court of the Arches claims him for her Husband 4. The Court Sententiâ latâ Determines and Declares that Mr. Cottington and Gallina are lawfully Husband and Wife without taking notice of the Archbishop of Turin's Sentence whether it was valid or void and injoyn'd them to Co-habit 2. This is the Case and the Query is Whether Mr. Cottington after a just and serious consideration of the Premises may acknowledge take and use Gallina as a lawful Wife without Sin and so with a safe Conscience and without Danger or Fear of offending God with security to his Soul 3. This is the Case of Conscience in which my Opinion is desired which how insignificant soever it may prove yet in Obedience to the commands of that Excellent and Noble Person who requires it and Charity and Satisfaction to the doubting Gentleman and discharge of my own Duty as a Minister I shall willingly give it and plainly set down what at present I conceive truth in the Case and the reasons why I do so The Premises then as before set down being supposed true and as to matter of Fact granted with submission to the better Judgments of persons of greater Knowledg in Divinity the Common Canon and Civil Laws my answer is Negative That Mr. Cottington cannot with a safe Conscience and security from Sin acknowledg take and use Gallina as his lawful Wife And this seems to me not only a Probable but a certain and evident Truth That this may appear I consider 1. That 't is certain and confess'd that the Obligation of the Matrimonial contract is not grounded on any Positive constitution of Man but on the Divine Law of God and Nature For although the contract cannot be made without the positive consent of the Parties yet the consent once pass'd the Obligation to conjugal Duties ariseth immediately from the Law of Nature 2. Hence it is That this Matrimonial contract while the Parties live is
that Archbishop nor the Pope himself though the Jesuites and some Canonists be of the contrary opinion pretend to be infallible And once more as the definitive Sentence of any Popish Archbishop or of the Pope himself in his Consistory or in a general Counsel can be no good President or just ground to warrant any Protestant Judge or Court to judge accordingly or any legall Barr or Let to hinder them to give a contrary Sentence so sure I am that no such Sentence given by such Persons and Judges in any of their Courts Consistories or Counsells can be a sufficient ground for Mr. Cottington to relie upon to give stisfaction and quiet to his Conscience so as to secure him that he may safely and without sin Co-habit with Gallina as with his Lawfull Wife only because they have pronounced her Marriage with Patrimoniale to be a Nullity For besides that he has many Reasons if they may be heard as in Law and Conscience they ought Reg. Nullus 20. de Reg. Juris in 6. to suspect and deny that Sentence and to believe it illegall and injust The thing is evident because definitive Sentences given not only in Inferiour but in Superiour Courts and General Councils are so far from giving satisfaction to Protestants or Papists or quieting their Consciences in a belief of what is in such Sentences judicially defin'd that in many things they actually dissent and confidently deny such Definitions so it was the Definitive Sentence of a Popish Convocation and Parliament in the time of Hen. 8. that the King was Supreme over all Persons and in all Causes Ecclesiastical and Temporal and that the Pope had no power in England yet the Sentence of those two great Courts each Supreme in its kind give little satisfaction to our Papists now who absolutely deny such Supremacy So the Convocation and Parliament in the beginning of Queen Mary's Reign by their definitive Sentence Establish Popery here in England which gave as little satisfaction to Protestants who did both believe and know that the Religion Established was Erroneous and therefore the Establishment by the Law of God and the Gospel unwarrantable and unjust In short the adequate and only rule of Conscience which can satisfie and quiet it and on which it may securely relie for sure Directions is the will of God made known to us lumine naturae aut scripturae by natural Reason or Divine Revelation in Scripture For what ever can be made appear to us by clear and convincing Reason grounded on Nature or Scripture de faciendâ aut fugiendâ this may and will satisfie and secure our Conscience so that we may innocently act accordingly but otherwise no Sentence of any Man or Court Ecclesiastical or Temporal can do it unless the Reasons of such Sentence be and appear to be sufficient And this brings me to the second Medium express'd in the Case to shew the Marriage of Patrimoniale and Gallina to be a Nullity The reason alledged in the Case as the ground of the Archbishop of Turin's Sentence and of the Nullity of the said Marriage is this That Gallina was under a Force and Fear caus'd by her Father by reason whereof her consent was not voluntary as by Law it ought to be and therefore the Matrimonial contract for want of such a voluntary and free consent invalid and a Nullity But thisreason is too weak and altogether insufficient To be a just ground either first of the aforesaid Sentence of Nullity or secondly to secure and quiet the Conscience of Mr. Cottington it he obey'd that Sentence and should Co-habit with Gallina as may appear if we consider 1. That 't is the avow'd Judgment of a Person Eminent for his great knowledge of all Learning especially of the Laws that no Fear how great soever humane Constitutions secluded does make the actions which proceed from it Involuntary so as to hinder their Obligation and Validity For he who promises any thing for fear which otherwise he would not have done is yet oblig'd to make good his promise 2. His reason is because he or she who consents and promises any thing for fear does indeed and actually consent and promise and that absolutely and not upon any condition This he further proves by the Authority and an instance of Aristotle who saies That he who in a Storm at Sea casts his Goods over Board would be willing to save them on this Condition if he might escape Shipwrack but in those Circumstances and Danger he is then in he is absolutely willing to loose them and cast them into the Sea Nor is it Aristotle only and Grotius who say this but all the Scholiasts and Commentators on Aristotle both Greek and Latine which I have yet seen say the same thing And then if the Authority and Judgment of so many and so learned Men be valuable as no doubt it is fear as is pretended does not make those Actions whose Principle it is involuntary and the truth of this is further and beyond dispute evident 3. Because Fear is the Principle which makes such Actions voluntary and the Person under such fear willing to produce them For t is evident that there is nothing which makes a Man in a Storm willing to cast his Goods into the Sea but the fear to loose his Ship and his Life if he do not so Nay secondly so far is fear from making our actions Involuntary that the greater the fear is they are by it made more voluntary for no Man before he was in fear was ever willing to cast his Goods into the Sea but after the Storm and his Danger and so his fear begun his willingness to loose his Goods and save himself begun too and as the Danger and his Fear increased so proportionably his willingness to cast away his Goods and when his Danger and Fear are come to the height then and not till then he is absolutely willing to cast them into the Sea and makes hast to put that will in Execution being as really desirous and willing to loose his Goods as by so doing to save his Ship and himself so that if fear made our actions Involuntary then the more the fear was they would be more Involuntary whereas the contrary is evident that as our fear increaseth so our willingness to do those actions which procede from it 4. The fear and force Gallina pretends to make her contract with Patrimoniale a Nullity was from her own Father It is pretended her Father forc'd her to consent whence it appears that she had her Father's consent and command to marry him and may be many and severe Threatnings too if she did not Marry him Whether this was so or not I know not but if it was so yet this neither did nor by any Law of God or Man could make her Matrimonial contract a Nullity First That any Law of God Natural or Positive should make the consent command or threatnings
declared both by our Church and State For 1. Our Church has declared her Judgment that all Images are not absolutely unlawful or simply forbidden in the New Testament but only some in some Places and Circumstances when they may especially to poor ignorant People be dangerous Occasions of Superstition and Idolatry and more expresly a little after the Words are these We are not so scrupulous as to abhor Flowers wrought in Carpets Hangings Arras c. or Images of Princes on their Coin nor do we condemn the Art of Painting or Image-making c. Whence it is evident that our Church is neither against the Art of Painting nor any Civil Use of Images 2. Our State has by express Act of Parliament declared even in the time of our Reformation That they did not condemn any Civil Use of Images For even in that Statute in which they severely condemn and command the defacing Images in Churches they have this Proviso Provided always That this Act shall not extend to any Images or Pictures set or engraven on any Tomb in any Church Chappel or Church-Yard only for a Monument of any King Prince Noble Man or any other dead Person which hath not commonly been reputed for a Saint but that all such Images may continue Whence it is evident that our Church at the Reformation did not condemn any Civil Use of Images no not in sacred Places as Church-Yards Chappels or Churches much less in other Places And that we may more distinctly know what Images they condemn'd and why they would not tolerate them in Churches It is further to be considered 1. That the Church of England absolutely condemns all Images of the Trinity or any Person in it Father Son or Holy Ghost as absolutely unlawful and expresly condemned in Scripture Such Images are not to be tolerated neither in nor out of Churches 2. No Images of our Blessed Saviour of any Saints and Martyrs which with stupid Superstition and Idolatry have been and still are worshipped in the Popish Church are in the Judgment of our Church to be tolerated in our Temples or any Place of God's publick Worship For if they be it will be to the great and unavoidable danger of Idolatry This I conceive is the approved and received Doctrine of the Church of England and that it may more plainly and distinctly appear to be so I shall cite the Judgment of our Church and her Reasons for it in her own express Words and amongst other things too many to be transcrib'd she plainly tells us 1. That it is an ungodly thing to set up Images or Idols which in her Judgment signify the same thing in our Churches because it may give a great occasion of worshipping them 2. That Images in Churches painted on Clothes or Walls are unlawful and contrary to Christian Religion 3. That setting up Images in Churches is to the great and unavoidable danger of Idolatry and that the Law of God is against it 4. That the setting up the Image of God of our Blessed Saviour or any Saints is not tolerable in Churches but against God's Law 5. Wo be to the setters up and maintainers of Images in Churches 6. It is not possible if Images be in Churches to avoid Idolatry 7. Images of God our Blessed Saviour and the holiest Saints are of all others the most dangerous to be in Churches 8. Images in Churches are a Snare and tempting of God to the great danger and destruction of many 9. That Images in Churches in the Judgment of the Prophet and Apostle are only Teachers of Lies 10. God's horrible Wrath cannot be avoided without utter abolishing Images in Churches This is evidently the express Doctrine of our Homilies which absolutely condemns not only the worshipping but having Images in our Churches And it is no less evident that the Homilies and the Doctrine contained in them are both approved received and established by the Supreme Authority of our Church and State Canons of Convocation and Acts of Parliament This will appear 1. By the Testimony of King James who commends the diligent reading of our Articles and Homilies set forth by the Authority of the Church of England 2. By the Convocation of Q. Elizabeth the Supreme Ecclesiastical Power which expresly and particularly names and approves all our Homilies and declares the Doctrine contained in them to be a godly Doctrine as appears by the Articles of our Church composed and published in that Convocation 3. By the Convocation I Jacobi For as the Article last named declares our Homilies to contain a godly Doctrine so the Convocation of King James declares all things contained in that Article to be agreeable to the Word of God 4. All the Clergy of England all Graduates in the Universities all Chancellors Commissaries and Officials before they exercise any Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction are willingly and ex animo to assent consent approve and subscribe these Articles and this Doctrine and that absolutely without any Glosses or Senses of their own 5. And these Subscriptions are required and so the Doctrine subscribed to confirm'd by several Acts of Parliament 6. And if any impugn this Doctrine so declar'd and establish'd by the Supreme Power or maintain any Doctrine contrary or repugnant to it he is by our Canons to be excommunicated ipso facto and by the Statute if he be a beneficed Clergyman deprived The Premisses being certain and evident Truths the natural and necessary Consequences which follow from them to omit others will be these 1. That neither the Deputy-Chancellor of Lincoln nor any inferiour Court has or can have any just Authority or Power to approve and authorize the setting up of such Images in the Church which by the Supreme Power Ecclesiastical and Civil in Convocation and Parliament is expresly condemn'd as altogether unlawful and to the poor ignorant People pernicious 2. That they who maintain and encourage this Doctrine of setting up Images in our Churches if they persist in it are by our known Laws now in Force to be excommunicated ipso facto and if they be beneficed Clergy-men to be deprived Viderint quorum interest 3. And if any Ecclesiastical Judg or Court quod absit should approve authorize or encourage the setting up of such Images in our Churches it evidently follows from the Premisses that in so doing they approve and authorize that which the Church of England has publickly declared to be dangerous against the Law of God against Christian Religion and to many pernicious And therefore we have reason to believe that no good Son of the Church of England will approve authorize or encourage that which his Holy Mother has so absolutely and publickly condemned A Friend of the late Bishop of Lincoln's observing how customary it is to Protestant Writers to charge on the Papists the Tenet of Dominium fundatur in