Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	according_a	church_n	doctrine_n	2,019	5	6.0761	4	false

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

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-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

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