Let this be Printed,  
Sunderland P. WHITEHALL, Decemb. 21st. 1687.   

A Vindication OF THE PROCEED OF His Majesty's 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 PROCEED OF His Majesty's Ecclesiastical Commissioners, etc.  

The Introduction.  
THE Proceed of His MAJESTY's Ecclesiastical Commissioners, being Made the Common Talk of the Town, especially since the Fellows of Magdalen College 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, 'twill 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 Ecclesiastic Supremacy will soon see, that it's not easy for the Church of England to Speak against the Authority of His MAJESTY's Commissioners, or the Legality of their Proceed, 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 Deprived the Old Puritans; Or, the KING has very Righteously Suspended the Bishop of London, and Expelled the Fellows of Magdalen College.  
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 Churchmen to Vindicate the Practices of their Bishop, and Magdalen Gentlemen, without Tearing up the very Foundations of Their Own Ecclesiastic 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 Proceed in the Instances before Us.   

Section I. The Legality of the Court, Held by His MAJESTY'S 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 Agreed, 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 Only by Ecclesiastical Censures. But in Queen Elizabeth's 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 Differed from the Civilians, the Former Holding, that This Law gave no Countenance to the Opinion of those, who said that it Impowered the Ecclesiastic 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 Ancient 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 Ruin 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 Tenor, 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 jurisdiction 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, etc.  
Here it must be Noted, that the Ecclesiastic 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 Repealed 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 Repealed, and the High-Commission-Court put down, and Care taken, that No such Court be for the future Erected: 'Twas Generally Concluded,  
That all Ordinary jurisdiction was Taken from the Archbishops, Bishops, Vicars-general, Or any other person, or persons whatsoever Exercising Spiritual, or Ecclesiastical Power, Authority, or jurisdiction 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, VICARS-GENERAL, 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 jurisdiction may Proceed, Determine, Sentence, Execute and Exercise all manner of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and all Censures, and Coertions appertaining, and belonging to the same, before the making of the Act, 17 Car. 1. in all Causes, and Matters belonging to Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, 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, Vicars-general, or any other Persons, exercising Authority by Commission of the KING's Majesty before the making of the 17 Car. 1. is 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 jurisdiction, 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 Majesty's Supremacy in Ecclesiastical Matters and Affairs.  
Whence I infer, that there is no other Power taken from the Ecclesiastic Commissioners, than that of Fining, Imprisoning, or Tendering the OATH Ex Officio. Thus much was suppressed 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 Ecclesiastic Censures, and is no more like the High-Commission-Court, than 
* The Court Held by His MAJESTY'S Ecclesiastical Commissioners, is more Legal than the Bishop's Courts; This is in the KING's Name, Theirs in their Own Names only.  Doctor's Commons is; for Vicars-general, or other Persons exerciseing Authority by His Majesty's 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 MAJESTY'S Letter from my Lord Precedent, the Tenor whereof follows, viz.  
james R.  
RIGHT Reverend Father in God, WE Greet You well. Whereas, WE have been Informed, and are fully satisfied, that Dr. John Sharp, rector of the Parish-Church of St. Giles in the Fields, in the County of Middlesex, and your Diocese, 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, Presumed 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 Chapel in your Diocese, until 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 hearty Farewell.  
Given at Our Court at Windsor, the Fourteenth Day of June, 1686. in the Second Year of Our Reign. By His MAJESTY'S Command, SUNDERLAND, P.  
I Took the best Advice I could get, concerning the Suspension of Dr. Sharp, and was Informed, 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 Precedent, that so I might Receive His MAJESTY'S 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 showing 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, until he had Applied himself to His MAJESTY; and at his Request, I made him the Bearer of a Letter to my Lord Precedent, 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 Diocese.  
H. London.  
That we may Rightly Understand the whole of this Case, it must be observed, That His MAJESTY received such Evidence against Dr. Sharp, as did fully satisfy Him of the Truth of the Charge; That the Charge itself 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 Resolved in the Puritans Case, who intimated in a Petition to the KING, That if He denied their Suit, 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 Doctor's 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. Ridle●'s View, p. 2. c. 2. sect. 3.  Degrade the Doctor, whereupon, a Deprivation from his Ecclesiastical Benefice would have followed. But his MAJETY, to show the Extraordinariness of His Compassion to his Divines of the Church of England, takes a milder Course, Commanding the Bishop of London, only to Suspend him: And yet the Bishop and his Learned Counsel think it, not only Hard, but Illegal. For saith the Bishop, I was informed, That the Letter being Directed unto me, as Bishop of London, 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.  
Here then lies the Stress of His Lordship's Plea, which will be found to lean on a very manifest Mistake. For the Bishop, observing in the KING's Letter a Command to Suspend the Doctor for a Crime so very great, as this mentioned in the said Letter (Of the Truth of which, the KING assures him He is fully satisfied) ought to have taken it for granted, that Doctor Sharp had incurred an Ipso Facto Suspension, and that 'twas his MAJETY's Pleasure, that he should Denounce him Suspended; which the Bishop, not as a Judge, but as a Party engaged in Defence of the Canon, was bound to do.  
The Doctor's Offence then (thus presumed) is very great, and His MAJESTY confines Himself within the Circle of Clemency, in that He deals with him in an Ecclesiastical Way, and proceeded no further than to consider him to be Ipso Facto Suspended; and if Ipso Facto Suspensions be, according to Our Church of England-Laws Valid, the Bishop's insisting on the necessity of his Acting as a Judge in a judicial way cannot help him. It hath been my part therefore to examine, Whether Ipso Facto Suspensions be agreeable to the Ecclesiastic Canons, now in force; and what manner of Process must be Observed where they are Incurred: And on Enquiry, I find, that as the Canonists generally, so Lindwood in particular distinguishes those Censures that are à Jure from what are ab Homine, and the Sentence à Jure lata from what is ab Homine ferenda, concluding, that a Judicial Process is not necessary, when the Delinquent is fallen under the Sentence à Jure; and that therefore he Ordinary, Chancellor, or , whose work it is to declare such as are ipso facto Excommunicated, or Suspended to be so, do not then act as Judges, but as Parties engaged in the Defence of Ecclesiastic Laws.  
Amongst the Constitutions of Stephen Archbishop of Canterbury, it's ordained, That 
* Decernimus ne Archidiaconi vel Officiales eorum Sententias Excommunicationis, Suspensionis, vel interdicti in aliquem audeant promulgare, ubi excessus non est Manifestus, nisi monitione Canonica praecedente. Lindwood constit. Provin. de Sentent. Excom. c. ut Archidiac.  no Arch-deacons, nor their Officials presume to publish the Sentences of Excommunication or Suspension, or Interdict, on any without previous Admonition: But where the Crime is Manifest, they may pronounce these Sentences: And it must be observed, That by 
† Hic scias quod Manifestum est publica seu famosa insinuatio vel proclamatio & communis ex certa scientia, & a certis Auctoribus proveniens, nondum judicialiter discussa. Lindwood ubi supr. in verb. Manifestum.  Manifest, We are to understand what is clear, antecedently to a Judicial Process.  
Besides, Lindwood expressly affirms, That where the 
* Vbi Superior fert sententiam Excommunicationis in vim Statuti, non est aliqua monitio necessaria. Ubi supr.  Superior declares the Sentence in Force of the Canon, there is no need of a previous Admonition.  
Again, where the Excommunication 
† Vbi Excommunicatio fertur in vim sententioe & Excommunicans procedit ut pars, quae jura sua defendit muerone Spirituali, quod satis licet, non est necessarea monitio. Ubi supr.  is pronounced in Force of the Statute, and he that doth Excommunicate, acts as a Party, who with the Spiritual Sword defends the Laws of the Church, which is Lawful enough for him to do, Admonition is not necessary. But, when the Superior acts as a Judge, than indeed he is obliged to observe a Legal Process.  
But the thing I would inculcate, is this, That by the Canon Law, a Penalty may be inflicted without a Hearing Parties; and that, Because it is Decreed à Jure, and the Delinquent incurs it Ipso Facto. This is the meaning of the many Ipso Facto Excommunications and Suspensions, that are Decreed by those very Canons embraced by the Church of England; at which time the Bishop is not to act as a Judge, but as a Part, Quae Jura sua defendit Mucrone Spirituali.  
Whether, what 
* Dust. Dubit. lib 3. c. 2. r. 2. n. 14.  Dr. Taylor Affirms, when he assures us, That he who incurs a Penalty Ipso Facto, is bound to be his own Executioner (Seeing whatever their Obligation may be, none are so forward, as to Execute it on themselves) be true, or no; yet according to Church of England-Principles, we may aver, That when any do incur Excommunication, or Suspension Ipso Facto, the Ordinary, Archdeacon, or his Officials may, without Hearing Parties, pronounce it, and take care to see, that it be done; and if the Ordinary Command, the Archdeacon, who is Sworn to render Canonical Obedience, must do it. That when the Sentence is à Jure lata in some Cases it's requisite, that either the Ordinary, or some other do also Pronounce it I grant; for in the Constitution made by Boniface, Arcbhishop of Canterbury, those who were Ipso Facto Excommunicated, must by the 
* Per locorum Ordinarios publice Excommunicati nuncientur. Lindw●●d provin. constit. de foro compel. c. contingit. aliquando.  Ordinaries of the place be declared to be so; but then 'tis 
† Non opus est monitione in hoc casu sed sola citatione ut veniant allegaturi causam rationabilem, quare declarari non debeant incidisse in dictam sententiam. Ubi supr. in verb. Nuntiatur.  without any previous Admonition, it's only needful that the Delinquent be cited to Appear, and show Cause why he should not be declared Excommunicate; and no more can be said of ipso facto Suspensions, where the Sentence is à Jure seu Canone; and the utmost that is necessary, is only, That these 
* Nec etiam Excommunicare potest & hoc verum in eo, qui est suspensus ab Homine, vel etiam a Canone, si sit publice denunciatus, alioquin in suspenso a Canone non denuntiato, quamdiu toleratur in suo statu valet quod per eum agitur. Lindw. prov. l. 1. tit. 2. de constit. c. Quia in.  Suspensions be publicly Denounced: For, as Lindwood, if an Ordinary be Suspended à Canone, he cannot Excommunicate, if it be Denounced; but otherwise he may.  
This may suffice to prove, That to Command a Bishop to Suspend; that is, To pronounce one Suspended without a Judicial Process, is conform to the Constitutions embraced 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 practised 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 cleared, That the Bishop of London, in the present case, was bound to Obey His MAJESTY, and Suspend the Doctor; That the Capitulation he entered into with his Prince, and the Contempt of His Authority, deserved no less than a Suspension ab Officio.   

Section III. A Just Account of the Proceed 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, Precedent 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 obliged 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 Proceed.  
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, 'twill unavoidably follow, That the Magdalen-Fellows have been most justly Suspended and Expelled. 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 deprived 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 only; 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 deprived 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 Englishman 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 judged 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 Chancellor, 
* See Croaks 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 itself, 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 Fullness 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 cleared 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, etc.— 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 Resolved in the Kings-Bench, Trin. 39 Eliz. where the Case was, That Sentence being given in an Ecclesiastical Cause in the Country, the Party grieved appealed 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 appealed 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 denied; for that the Commission for the Causes abovesaid was resolved to be lawfully granted. In this Case, I being then (saith Sir Edward Coke) the Queen's Attorney, was of Counsel to maintain the Queen's 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, etc. 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 justice and Grace flow from Him, as 4 Eliz. Dier. 211. The Commission of Trial 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 judges, 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 questioned, 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 College, can have no more Strength than they receive from the KING. Nor can a College 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 Confirmed. 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 College, 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, etc.  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 'tis 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 only in some respect vacate it. By a Repeal the Law is abolished, but where there is a Dispensation only, 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 Society; and they might, notwithstanding their Oath, act as if no such thing had been. For the KING sent 'em his Dispensation, which took away the strength of their Statute; it laid the very Statute aside for that season: And this Bar being taken out of the Fellows way, His Majesty commands them to choose another, and all were bound to Obey the Royal Mandate: For, they were sworn only to the Statutes, that were in force; but the Dispensation taking away the force of the Statute, the Oath obliged them not to keep it.  
To illustrate this, I will suppose, that by an Act of Parliament this College-Statute had been made utterly void and null, as those relating to the Mass have been: Will any say, that the Fellows, because of their Oath are with a Non Obstante to this Act of Parliament, still bound to keep to the vacated Statute? I presume not, for Statutes made by a particular Man, or Corporation, cannot be of greater Force than an Act of Parliament; and the College-Statute being vacated, the Oath obliges them not to keep it; and for the same reason, I may boldly affirm, that seeing, according to Church of England-Law, the Royal Dispensation doth as effectually make void the Statute to these Men for that time, they are not obliged by their Oath to observe it.  
Furthermore, we find, that in process of time, some Laws never Repealed wear out of date, and become useless; and though never Repealed, yet must be considered as void and null, or the whole Kingdom must be brought under the Gild of Perjury. I will instance in one Law, which was Made Anno 3 Hen. 8. c. 3. Requiring Every Man, being the KING's Subject, not Lame, Decrepit, nor Maimed, nor having any other Lawful, or Reasonable Cause, or Impedimént, being within the Age of Forty Years, except Spiritual Men, justices of the One Bench, and of the Other, justices of Assize, and Barons of the Exchequer, to use, and exercise Shooting in Long-Bows, and also to have a Bow and Arrow ready continually in his House to use, and do use himself in Shooting: Also, that the Father, Governors, and Rulers of such as are of tender Age, do teach and bring up them in the Knowledge of the same Shooting, etc. I say, there is a Law requiring thus much, not yet Repealed, that I can find; and all Constables still Swear, That they will have a Care for the Maintenance of Archery, according to the Statute. But yet it's Notorious, that this Statute is not Observed, nor doth the Constable regard this part of his Oath. And why, But because the Statute is Obsolete, and by a general Consent grown out of use, and must be esteemed as if it had been vacate and null. And it's most manifest, that a Dispensation can as effectually, at least so far vacate a Statute, that the Person, who is otherwise Sworn to keep it, may without Perjury forbear its Observance.  
And that this is manifest, where there is a Dispensation, appears from the Practices of our Judges, 
See that new little Book Entitled, The Justice's Case; which, if it had come out time enough, might perhaps have kept some of these Magdalen-Scholars in their Places, supposing any of them purely Conscientious, that went out merely for want of Light, about the Obligation of an Oath, which is the business of that Case.  and Justices of the Peace, throughout the Whole Kingdom, who, tho' Sworn to Execute the Laws, do esteem themselves Discharged from the Execution of those lately Dispensed with by His Sacred MAJESTY. But,  
To come Closer to our Magdalen-Gentlemen, I would propose to their Consideration the Churchwardens Oath, which runs in these Words, [You shall swear Truly and Faithfully to Execute the Office of a Churchwarden, within your Parish, and according to the best of your skill, and Knowledge, Present such Things, and Persons, as to your Knowledge are Presentable by the Laws Ecclesiastical of this Realm.] This is the Oath, and whatever is contrary to any one Canon, is Presentable by the Laws Ecclesiastical. And if a Dispensation be not sufficient to excuse the Churchwardens from Perjury, for not Presenting the Transgressors of the Canons, This sort of People will not be only Perjured, for not Presenting the Dissenters at this time, but for not Presenting some of the Fattest amongst their own Clergymen. For as the Civilians assure Us, the Ecclesiastic Law is, That every Spiritual Person is Visitable by the Ordinary, and yet the KING exempts Multitudes from the Ordinaries Visitations. Thus formerly many Abbeys have been, and now all Donatives are exempt, and the Ecclesiastical Law is Dispensed with; and, Must all those who are in Donatives, and receive not Institution nor Induction from the Bishop, nor will submit to the Ordinaries Visitation, be presented; or are the Churchwardens Perjured?  
Again, All Pluralities are contrary to the Canon; but if His MAJESTY gives a Dispensation, a Priest may hold two Benefices; and nothing more Common. There is also a Canon, That a Bastard shall not be a Priest; however, if the KING Dispenses with this Canon, the Bastard may enter into Holy Orders. But must the Churchwarden present Every Bastard-Priest, and all that hold Pluralities, or else be Forsworn?  
But the Case is too plain to need further Proof. All know, That when an Oath is taken to Observe the Laws, it is no longer than they are in Force; If he Law be repealed, the Oath obliges not any to Observe it; and as to the Person Dispensed with, the Law for that time so far ceases, that to him, there is no such Law, and therefore his Oath binds him not in this case to Regard it. Effectus enim Dispensationis est auferre à particulari Persona simpliciter, vel in tali tempore aut occasione, Obligationem ad Opus, vel Omissionem, vel poenam, vel auferre irritationem, aut inhabilitatem, quam lex ipsa efficiebat. So Salas.  
Thus you see, That if it be in the Power of the KING to suspend the Colledge-Statutes, the Pretence of Conscience about keeping to their Oath, is vain and ludicrous: For which Reason, I will only add one Consideration more, to show that the Dispensing Power leans on a Foundation that cannot be moved, but to the Endangering the Whole Ecclesiastic Jurisdiction, as Exercised by the Bishops.  
'Tis well known, That what Power is Strong enough to Dispense with an Act of Parliament about Civils, wants not Strength to Dispense with Parliamentary Laws, touching Ecclesiastical Affairs; nor with Church-Canons, nor Colledge-Statutes. And that the KING can Dispense with Acts of Parliament, relating unto Civil Affairs, is a Matter grounded on the same Bottom with the Bishop's Jurisdiction; and that is, On the Church-of-England- Judges.  
That it is the Opinion of our Judges, That the KING can Dispense in Matters Civil, is Notorious, the Matter of Fact is very Lately become too Obvious to admit of a Denial; and that the Bishop's Jurisdiction has no other ground for its Support, is easily proved. For 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 Repealed, 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 affirmed to make an Invasion on the Common-Law, which is no less than a Praemunire. However, the Bishops have held Courts in their own Names ever since King Edward's Days; and, as the Old Puritans did imagine, their Courts were Illegal, their Bishops Premunired, and several Demurred to their Jurisdiction. For which Reason, Charles the First called all his Judges together, commanding them to give in their Opinion touching this Matter, which they did in these Words:  
According to Your Lordship's Order, made in His MAJESTY'S 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, etc.  
By this it appeareth, That the Whole Power of the Bishop's Jurisdiction depends upon the Opinion of these Judges; and if these Judge's 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 Recognised.  
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 Proceed, 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 designed 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 Precedent; but at last gave in this Answer, in Writing, viz.  
Whereas His MAJESTY has been Pleased by His Royal Authority, to cause the Right Reverend Father in GOD, Samuel Lord Bishop of Oxford, to be Installed Precedent of this College, We, whose Names are hereunto Subscribed, do Submit as far as is Lawful and Agreeable to the Statutes of the said College.  
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 incurred, Disowned the Jurisdiction of the Court, for which Reason he was Deprived of his Fellowship. And, notwithstanding the abovementioned 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,  
WE have Endeavoured in all Our Actions to Express Ourselves with all Humility to His MAJESTY, and being Conscious to Ourselves, That in the whole Conduct of this Business before Your Lordships, We have done nothing, but what Our Oaths and Statutes Indispensably obliged 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 Precedent to be), from which We are Sworn, upon no Account whatsoever, to departed. 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 Precedent, Installed by His MAJESTY's Royal Authority, as far as is Lawful and Agreeable to the Statute of the said College, this was enough; For according to Church of England-Law, the KING can Dispense with their Statutes. To talk of an Indispensable Statute, is to suppose it designed 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. 'Twas 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 Sense, 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 justify all that they had done in this Affair: Though they had declared, That they denied 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 Proceed, 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 called 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 College, 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 Interfered with the KING's Command; yet 'twas 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 College, than the Puritans might give to the Commands of Jesus Christ.  
Thus these Magdalen-Gentlemen go on with a 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 Insolences, 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 Gild 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 myself Injured in Your Lordship's Proceed, 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 resolved 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 Proceed 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 Uneasy and Dangerous Inquiries, 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 mentioned 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 Ecclesiastic Proceed, 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 Diocese, was to be regarded by every Diocesan throughout the whole Kingdom. And the Reason our Clergy give for this, is not the Ruin 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 Universities, and all and every Cathedral, and Collegiate Churches, Colleges, 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 College in the University of Oxon, was Void, and therefore did amove the said Mr. Hough from the Place of Precedent of the said College; 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 Fairer, 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 College, 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, etc. 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 Proceed 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 Carried 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 Proceed 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 surprising, and cannot but appear so to any that do but mind what I have already mentioned 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 Judge's Opinion was desired, viz. The Justifying the Church of England's Depriving the Old Puritans for not Subscribing to the Ceremonies enjoined by the Canon; thereby plainly showing, 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 'twill 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 enjoin Exsufflation, Salt, and Spittle; and to Kneeling at the Sacrament, the Deacons Kissing of the Hand, or Right Shoulder of the Priest, and the men's Kissing each other; besides Holy Water, and its Consecration, as well as the Consecration of Churches; and a hundred such things more might His MAJESTY, enjoin 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 Resolved to Proceed in the calmest Way; and therefore, notwithstanding the most Undutiful, and Disloyal Reflections Cast on MAJESTY Itself, 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.