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 [Page 39]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, [Page 40]without an Act of Parliament, made in that Year, on which occasion Depriva­tions were very Com­mon, and the Purita­nick We complain, That we are put out from our Benefi­ces, which are a Freehold by the bare and sole Sentence of a Bishop; whereas the Liberty of an English-man is this, To be put from his Free­hold by none but by the Verdict of Twelve Men. Par­ker on the Cross, Part 2. Ch. 8. Sect. 3. P. 108. Clamours as great, yea, so great, that the Clergy judg'd it ne­cessary to beseech His MAJESTY to com­mand all the Justices of England to confer toge­ther of this thing, and give in their opinion, which accordingly they did; For it be­ing demanded by the Lord Chancellour, See Crokes Reports, an. 2. Jacob 1. Whether the Deprivation of the Puritan Mini­sters for refusing to conform themselves to the Ceremonies appointed by the last Canons, was Lawful? They all answered, That they had conferred thereof before, and held it to be Lawful, because the KING has the Supreme Ecclesiastical Power.— And they held it clear, that the KING, without a Parliament, might make Orders and Constitu­tions for the Government of the Clergy, and might deprive them, if they Obey not.

The Civilians go higher, affirming, That the KING, as Supreme, is Himself in­stead of the Whole Law; yea, that he is the Law it Self, and the Only Chief In­terpreter thereof, as in whose Breast re­sides the whole Knowledge of the same. And that His MAJESTY, by commu­nicating His Authority to His Judges, to Expound the Laws, doth not thereby ab­dicate the same from Himself. These, with Borellus, do hold, Dr. Ridley view, p. 2. c. 1. sect. 7. That Principum placita legis habent vigorem.

And as the KING, by the Fulness of His Ecclesiastical Power can, without a Parliament, make what Laws He Please for the Government of the Clergy; in like manner, The Power of the KING, in Matters Ecclesiastical, is too ample to be limited by an Act of Parliament.

Thus much has been clear'd up by my Lord part. 4. Coke, in his Institutes, where he tells us, That albeit the Acts of 24 Hen. 8. & 25 Hen. 8. do, upon certain Appeals, make the sentence Definitive, as to any Appeal; for the Words be [shall be Definitive] and that no further Appeal should be had, yet the KING, after such a Definitive Sentence, as Supreme Head, may grant a Commission of Review, ad Revidendum, &c. — for that after a Definitive Sentence, the Pope, as Su­preme Head, by the Canon Law, used to grant a Commission ad Revi­dendum.—And such Authority as the Pope had, claiming as Supreme Head, doth of Right belong to the Crown, and is annexed thereunto by the Statutes of the 26 Hen. 8. c. 1. [Page 43]& 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 [Page 44]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 [Page 45]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 [Page 46]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, [Page 48]or stand before the Dispensing Power, How is it possible, that a Colledge-Statute should do it? To suppose that it can, is to as­cribe greater Power to One Man, or to a little Corporation, than to the greatest Body of the Nation; than which, nothing can be more absurd. Besides, the Laws enacted by the Founder of a Colledge, can have no more Strength than they receive from the KING. Nor can a Colledge be erected without His Leave.

Time would fail to produce all the Au­thorities, by which (according to Church of England-Doctrine) the Truth hereof may be Confirm'd. And this is so well done by other Hands, that I will stay no longer on it, but will go on to Consider,

Whether, notwithstanding a Dispensation, those who have been Sworn to Observe the Sta­tutes [Page 49]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 '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 [Page 50]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 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 oblig'd 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 Repeal'd wear out of date, and become useless; and though never Repeal'd, yet must be consider'd as void and null, or the whole Kingdom must be brought under the Guilt 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, Iustices of the One Bench, and of the Other, Iustices 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 [Page 54]House to use, and do use himself in Shooting: Also, that the Father, Gover­nours, and Rulers of such as are of ten­der Age, do teach and bring up them in the Knowledge of the same Shooting, &c. I say, there is a Law requiring thus much, not yet Repeal'd, 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 it's Observance.

And that this is manifest, where there is a Dispensation, appears from the Prac­tices of our Judges, See that new little Book Entituled, The Justices 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 meerly 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 Church-Wardens Oath, which runs in these Words, [You shall swear Truly and Faithfully to Execute the Office of a Church-Warden, with­in your Parish, and according to the [Page 56]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 Church-Wardens from Perjury, for not Presenting the Transgressours of the Canons, This sort of People will not be only Perjur'd, for not Presenting the Dissen­ters at this time, but for not Presenting some of the Fattest amongst their own Clergy-men. For as the Civilians assure Us, the Ecclesia­stick Law is, That every Spiritual Person is Visitable by the Ordinary, and yet the KING exempts Multitudes from the Ordinary's Visitations. Thus formerly many Abbies have been, and now all Donatives are ex­empt, [Page 57]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 Ordinary's Visitation, be presented; or are the Church-Wardens Perjur'd?

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 Church-Warden 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 repeal'd, 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 [Page 58]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 shew that the Dispensing Power leans on a Foun­dation that cannot be moved, but to the Endangering the Whole Ecclesiastick Juris­diction, as Exercis'd 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, [Page 59]relating unto Civil Affairs, is a Matter grounded on the same Bottom with the Bishop's Jurisdiction; and that is, On the Opinion of 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 Denyal; 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 Repeal'd, or in Force, seeing the Common-Law re­mains the same, the Bishops must have a Commission from the KING, and Hold Courts in His MAJESTY'S Name, or be affirm'd to make an Invasion on the Com­mon-Law, which is no less than a Premunire. However, the Bishops have held Courts in their own Names ever since King Edward's Days; and, as the Old Puritans did imagin, their Courts were Illegal, their Bishops [Page 60]Premunir'd, and several Demurr'd to their Jurisdiction. For which Reason, Charles the First call'd all his Judges together, com­manding them to give in their Opinion touching this Matter, which they did in these Words:

According to Your Lordships Or­der, made in His MAJESTIES Court of Star-Chamber the 12th. of May last, We have taken Consideration of the Particulars, wherein our Opinions are required by the said Order; and We have All agreed, That Processes may Issue out of Ecclesiastical Courts, in the Names of Bishops; and that a Pa­tent under the Great Seal is not necessary, &c.

By this it appeareth, That the Whole Power of the Bishop's Jurisdiction depends upon the Opinion of these Judges; and if these Judges Opinion be not more preva­lent than the Common-Law, the Jurisdi­ction of Bishops is gone. If it be, the Dis­pensing-Power, grounded on the Late Opinion [Page 61]of the Judges, is Valid: So that the last Re­sult will be this, the Bishop's Power must be Destroyed, or the KING's Dispensing-Power must be Recogniz'd.

But although the Matter is so fully clea­red up, in Defence of His MAJESYT's Commissioners and Visitors, yet the Inso­lence of the Magdalen-Fellows, and their Contempt of the Regal Authority, exceeded all Bounds; For as they, contrary to the Royal Mandate, proceed to Elect Dr. John Hough, and although his Election was made null and void by the Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes, yet the Dr. refused to submit thereunto, whereby he put the Com­missioners under a necessity of Expelling him the House; which being done, the Doctor makes his Protestation against their Procee­dings, as Illegal, and Unjust, and Null; and this Protestation accompanied with a Tumul­tuous Humm or Acclamation, as if the Whole House had been engaged in a Conspiracy against His MAJESTY, and had design'd the Depriving the CROWN of One of its Richest Jewels, viz. The Ecclesiastical [Page 62]Supremacy. The Fellows also at first refu­sed to submit unto the Bishop of Oxford, who was by His MAJESTY made their Pre­sident; but at last gave in this Answer, in Writing, viz.

Whereas His MAJESTY has been Pleas'd by His Royal Authority, to cause the Right Re­verend Father in GOD, Samuel Lord Bishop of Oxford, to be Installed President of this Col­ledge, We, whose Names are hereunto Subscribed, do Submit as far as is Lawful and Agreeable to the Statutes of the said Colledge.

The Chaplains, and all the Members of the Society, except the Under-Porter, gave in a Paper to the same Effect.

But Dr. Farefax, who would not Submit unto the Suspension he had incurr'd, Dis­owned the Jurisdiction of the Court, for which Reason he was Deprived of his Fel­lowship. And, notwithstanding the above­mention'd Submission, these same Fellows, within three Days, brought in a Paper with all their Hands Subscribed, of the Tenor fol­lowing.

On the Tuesday, October 25. 1687. they Submit; but on the Friday following, Octo­ber 28. they can't in Conscience do it. A very sudden, but a prodigious Change. Their Submission was as much as the Visi­tours expected; for as it was to the Bishop of Oxford, their President, Installed by His MAJESTY's Royal Authority, as far as is Lawful and Agreeable to the Statute of the said Colledge, this was enough; For ac­cording to Church of England-Law, the KING can Dispense with their Sta­tutes. To talk of an Indispensable Statute, is to suppose it design'd for the Limitation of the KING's Power in Ecclesiastical Causes, whereby it becomes Ipso Facto, void and null; but there being no such Statute, the Method His MAJESTY took, was such as capacitated the Fellows to Obey His Au­thority, without laying their Consciences un­der a Violence. '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 [Page 65]had either more Sence, or Honesty than the Doctors, for he refused to submit so far, perhaps knowing, that this was a full Sub­mission, they tack about, and presume to justi­fie all that they had done in this Affair: Though they had declared, That they de­nyed the Jurisdiction of the Court, and thereby endeavoured to Ravish from the KING a peculiar Part of His Supreme Au­thority; Though they applauded Dr. Hough, for his Protesting against the Proceedings, as Illegal, Void, and Null: Yet they arrive to the Boldness of Averring, That in the Whole Conduct of this Business they did nothing but what their Oaths and Statutes Indispensably obliged them to; and therefore cannot declare, That they have done any thing Amiss, and make Use of what they have oft call'd the Old Sedi­tious Cant of Regulating the Principles of their Loyalty to the KING, by the Con­science of an Oath to the Statutes of the Colledge, and with a Salvo to their own Rights.

Though the poor Dissenters did Plead Conscience of Duty unto GOD Only, as [Page 66]what they Judged sufficient to exempt them from Obeying their Prince in those Instances, which Interfer'd 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 Colledge, 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 [Page 67]Insolencies, or instead of acting according to their Quondam avowed Doctrine of Passive Obedience, they fly in the Face of Authority, charging it with no less Guilt than the Injuring a Whole Society; and, as if they had still to do with their Dissenting Brethren, they close up the Scene with an Insulting Threat: For, af­ter their Expulsion, they severally gave in Papers to the Effect following.

Here you see they complain of Injuries done 'em, and are resolv'd to use all Just and Legal Means (they say) for their own Relief. But who can imagine what they will understand by Just and Legal Means?

The Whole of these Proceedings depend on the Dispensing Power: If His MAJESTY had not Dispensed with their Colledge-Sta­tutes, the Case would have been another thing; but the Dispensation makes it manifest, That no Pretence of an Oath can be sufficient to excuse their Disobedience. Let us then com­pare the late Actings of these Gentlemen with a Notion we find in an Admired A Letter containing Reflections on His Ma­jesty's De­claration for Liberty of Consci­ence. Pamphlet, Written by one of their own Communion, and we may see Cause justly to conclude, that they esteem the Exercise of the Dispensing Power to be a Subversion of the Whole Government, Which (to use the Author's own Words) being so contrary to the Trust that is given to the PRINCE, who ought to Execute it, will put Men upon Uneasie and Dangerous Enquiries, which will turn Little to the Advantage of those who are driving Matters to such a Doubtful and Despe­rate Issue. To which let us add, That this is mention'd in Contradistinction to the Non­resisting 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 [Page 69]any thing less than some Methods, better in­deed silenced than expressed.

When the Protestant Dissenters went not half so far in their Disobedience to the Regal Authority, they could not escape the Cen­sure of being Enemies to the Government, and were immediately made uncapable of any Ecclesiastical Benefice. They only refused to Subscribe unto two of the three Articles, and this was interpreted a Renouncing the KING's Supreme Authority in Matters Ecclesiastical, and without the Aid of an Act of Parliament they were deprived.

And whoever carefully observes the Eccle­siastick Proceedings, will find, That when the Ecclesiastical Judges deal with Delin­quents, they never give over till there be either a Submission, or a running the Offender to the Last Punishment.

Thus, if a Man did but absent himself from the Sacrament, and was admonished, he must Conform, or be run to an Excommu­nication, and at last to the Writ de Excommu­nicato [Page 70]capiendo. In like manner, if any of the Clergy fell under the Censure of Suspension ab Officio, unless there had been a Submission, it went on to a Suspension à Beneficio; yea, and to a Deprivation: Which, if done in one Diocess, was to be regarded by every Diocesan throughout the whole Kingdom. And the Reason our Clergy give for this, is not the Ruine of the Offenders, but a Reducing 'em to the Knowledge of themselves, and a due Submission to their Superiors; whose Part it is to secure the Great Ends of Government; as also, for the discouraging Others from the like Miscarriages. And on this account it is, that the making the Magdalen-Fellows uncapa­ble of Ecclesiastical Benefices, Dignities, or Promotions, became Necessary, it being no more than what is included in every De­privation of the Clergy. And for this Rea­son the KING's Ecclesiastical Commissio­ners have made the ensuing Decree.