Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

The other PAPER here follows.

years of the same reign, touching appeals, and as the law now stands, the convocation hath not any jurisdiction originally to cite before them any person for heresy, or any other spiritual offence, which according to the laws of the realm may be cited, censured, and punished in the respective ecclesiastical courts or jurisdictions of the archbishops, bishops, and other ordinaries; who, we conceive, have the proper judicature in those cases; and from whom and whose courts the parties accused may have their appeals; the last resort where-judges, we are humbly of opinion, that of comin is lodged in the crown. In which statute for citing out of the diocese, and in the others, as far as relates to appeals for such offences, no notice is taken of the convocation, either as to jurisdiction, or appeals. Nor doth it any way appear to us in whom the pretended judiciary power of a convocation, either before or since the said statutes, (if any such they ever had) resided; whether in the whole body of the convocation, or in part. But it is plain by the first statute, that the archbishop's jurisdiction, even in case of heresy, is bounded so that he cannot proceed against such offenders within any other diocese than his own, without the consent, or in the default of the diocesan bishops. All which statutes being made for the ease and benefit of the subjects, they cannot, as we humbly conceive, be deprived of the benefit of them by any pretence of jurisdiction in the convocation; from which we cannot find or be informed of any instance of appeal. Nor have any judicial precedents or authorities for convening or censuring of such offenders in any convocation since those statutes, or the reformation (which is now near 180 years), appeared unto us. And if such power should be allowed to the convocation, we conceive it would invade the ordinary jurisdiction of the archbishops and bishops; which we conceive are preserved by the act of parliament made in the 17th year of the reign of his late majesty king Charles the first, chap. 11, and by another made in the 13th year of king Charles the second, chap. 12, and by the act made the 29th Car. 2, chap. 9, which took away the writ De Heretico Comburendo; in none of which any mention is made of the convocation. And by the Bill of Rights, 1 Will. & Mar. it is enacted, That the commission for erecting the late court of commission for ecclesiastical causes, and all other commissions and courts of like nature, are illegal and pernicious. But we conceive that heretical tenets and opinions may be examined and condemned in convocation, authorized by royal licence, without convening the authors or maintainers of them. All which we most humbly submit to your royal majesty's great wisdom. May 5th, 1711. EDW. WARD, (u)

May it please your majesty ;-In obedience to your majesty's commands, signified to us by the right honourable the lord-keeper of the great seal, in relation to the humble Address of the archbishop and bishops of the province of Canterbury, in convocation assembled, here unto annexed; we whose names are hereunto subscribed, have taken into consideration the doubts and questions therein stated.

And after conference with the rest of the mon right there lies an appeal from all ecclesiastical courts in England to your majesty, in virtue of your supremacy in ecclesiastical affairs, whether the same be given by express words of any act of parliament, or not: And that no act of parliament bas taken the same away. And consequently, that a prosecution in convocation, not excluding an appeal to your majesty, is not inconsistent with the statute of 1 Eliz. chap. 1, but reserves the supremacy entire.

As to the question proposed in the said Address, how far the convocation, as the law nOW stands, may proceed in examining, censuring, and condemning such tenets as are declared to be heresy, by the laws of this realm, together with the authors and maintainers of them, we understand it to import only these two things: Whether a jurisdiction to examine, censure, and condemn such tenets, and the authors and maintainers thereof, could ever be exercised in convocation? And if it could, whether it be taken away by any act of parliament ?

Jo. BLENCOWE.

ROBERT DORMER, (b) S. LOVEll, (c)

(a) Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer.
(b) A Justice of the Common Pleas.
(c) A Baron of the Exchequer.
VOL. XV.

And we humbly lay before your majesty, that all our lawbooks that speak of this subject, mentioning a jurisdiction in matters of heresy, and condemnation of heretics, as proper to be exercised in convocation both before and since the acts of parliament mentioned in the Address; and none of them that we find, making any doubt thereof; and we observe nothing in those, or any other acts of parliament, that we think has taken it away; We are humbly of opinion, that such jurisdiction, as the law now stands, may be exercised in convocation.

But this being a matter which, upon application for a prohibition, on behalf of the persons who shall be prosecuted, may come in judgment before such of us as have the honour to serve your majesty in places of judicature, we desire to be understood to give our present thoughts with a reserve of an entire freedom of altering our opinions, in case any records, or proceedings, which we are now strangers to, shall be laid before us, or any new considerations which have not occurred to us, be suggested by the parties, or their counsel, to convince us of our mistake.

T. PARKER, (d)
L. Powys, (e)

RO. PRICE, (f)
E. NORTHEY, (g)

(d) Lord Chief Justice of the King's-bench. (e) A Justice of the King's-bench.

(f) A Baron of the Exchequer.

(g) Attorney General.

2 Z

1

[blocks in formation]

Ro. RAYMOND, ()
J. POWEL, (m)
R. TRACY. (n)

Of the Proceedings against Whiston in the University of Cambridge, Mr. Frend has, in his Sequel to the account of the proceedings in the University of Cambridge against the Author of a Pamphlet entitled Peace and Union' given, from Whiston, the following abstract:

Proceedings against Wm. Whiston, for publishing [708 | simplicity, and words without meaning. The copies of the statute and the depositions were readily granted to him; the request for time afforded matter of long debate, during which he had withdrawn; and on being finally called in, the ensuing Wednesday was appointed to him for farther proceedings. Receiving another summons to attend on Wednesday, he made his appearance again at the vice chancellor's, 'but now in a lower parlour of the same lodge, the absence of two former heads being com'none being present but his judges as before,' pensated by the presence of others. They now put into his hands a paper of opinions, which they ordered him to retract on the Monday following, or to expect a rigorous execution of the statute. The Paper delivered was as follows:

"

POSITIONS published and spread about in the
University of Cambridge by Mr. WILLIAM
WHISTON, Contra religionem, &c. Stat,
Acad. 45.

the Christian religion, in opposition to the "1. That the Father alone is the one God of three divine persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, being the one God of the Christian religion.-[Vid. Postscript throughout. Vid. Sermons and Essays, &c. p. 213, l. 19, to 23, p. 215, l. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. l. 9, 10, 11, 26. to 30. Mr. Thackham's Depos. Mr. Hughes' Depos. Mr. Townsend, Mr. Macro, and Mr. Amyas depositions. Vid. Serm. and Essays, p. 276. l. 21, to p. 278. l. 6.]

"On October 22, 1710, William Whiston was summoned by an esquire bedell to appear before the vice-chancellor on the afternoon of the next day. In obedience to this summons, he went with a friend to the vice-chancellor's lodge, when his friend not being permitted to accompany him farther, he was conducted into an upper room, in which were present the vicechancellor, nine heads of colleges, and the university registrary. A book of sermons was immediately put into his hands, and he was required to own it; but, on his refusing to answer such questions, the university printer was sent for, who could, however, say nothing to the purpose, and no other witnesses were called, relating to this publication. The depositions of several members of the university were then read, stating, that in a lecture in one of the parish churches, Whiston had asserted, There was but one God; and that God the Father only was that one God; that the Father was in all the ancient and primitive ' creeds mentioned to be the only God; that the Son was indeed exalted above all 'creatures, and made a partaker of many 'divine excellencies and perfections; and as such he was to be worshipped with a sort or ' degree of divine worship.' Similar opinions Creed of St. Athanasius, is a gross and anti"2. That the creed commonly called the were deposed also to have been advanced by christian innovation and corruption of the pri him at a coffee-house, in a meeting of the mimitive purity and simplicity of the Christian nisters of the charity schools. To these depo- faith among us. sitions Whiston said nothing, requiring only time for his defence, and copies both of the depositions read to him, and the statute, which he was supposed to have offended; subjoining also | a solemn address to the company, on the nature of Christian benevolence, and the certainty of its appearance one day before the tribunal of Christ, which most probably was looked upon by these guardians of religion as marks of his

(h) Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas.
(i) A Baron of the Exchequer.
(k) A Justice of the King's-bench.
(1) Solicitor General.

(m) As to him see several Cases in this Collection, particularly that of the Seven Bishops. "July 5, 1711. In the evening I went to Lord Treasurer, and among other company found a couple of judges with him, one of them Judge Powell, an old fellow with grey hairs, was the merriest old gentleman I ever saw, spoke pleasant things, and laughed and chuckled till he cried again." Swift's Journal to Stella.

(n) A Justice of the Common Pleas.

1

5th of the 39 articles, and to the Nicene and "This position is contrary to the 1st, 2d, and Athanasian creeds.

fore the said creed, and the 8th article.
"This position is contrary to the rubric be-

rule and guide of a Christian's faith and prac
"3. That the canon of the Scripture, the
tice, is that contained in the last of the eccle-
siastical canons, ordinarily stiled apostolical;
which all along appears to have been the
standard of the primitive church in this matter.
I mean as including all the books we now own
Clement, and the constitutions of the apostles
for canonical, and also the two epistles of St.
by St. Clement: to which the pastor of Hermas
is to be added; as well as we have already
added the apocalypse of St. John.

to be a sacred book of the New Testament,
"That the Doctrine of the Apostles appears
long lost to the Christian church.

sixth of the 39 articles.
These two positions are contrary to the

that the apostolical constitutions are the most
"Mr. Whiston undertakes to prove clearly,
sacred part of the canonical scriptures of the
New Testament.

"Mr. Whiston asserts, that the doxology, current in all these latter ages, Glory be to

709]

Tenets contrary to the Established Religion.

the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost,' was not the true Christian doxology. "This position is against the doxology received and established in the public liturgy.

"Dated October 25, 1710.

"This paper was delivered to Mr. Whiston, the day and year above-written, by Mr. Vicechancellor's order.-Witness my hand,

"ROBERT GROVE." "Against this mode of proceeding, Whiston first read, and then delivered in a protest, stating his surprize, that they should not have conferred with him, as was formerly the usage, on his opinions; and that no one, through Christian charity, had endeavoured to convince him of his errors. Many on the contrary, attempted to undermine him; at one time, talking of him as a public enemy to be expelled by grace; at another time, to be prosecuted in the ecclesiastical courts, or at the assizes: then the opinion of counsel was taken on the propriety of convicting him of heresy, and expelling him by Lucas's statutes; and now a remote university statute was thought of, which could not, in the present instance, be applied with justice. This statute related to public sermons, and similar public acts and lectures before the university; but he had never preached before the university, nor performed divinity exercises; and the only lectures he had given, were mathematical. With respect to his sermons in the parish church, he conceived himself amenable only to the bishop of the diocese; and books published in London, and private discourses elsewhere, could not be punishable by this meeting, since the crimes must be done publicè docendo, tractando, vel defendendo,' in public and solemn sermons, lectures, or disHe computations, before the university. plained also, that, in so important a business, the chancellor had not been consulted, and that he had been so privately convened and interrogated, and, saving therefore to himself the li berty of making farther objections to their proceedings, he summed up his protest in the following articles:

"1. That I am charged with breaking that 45th statute which I have been uncapable of breaking, because it only concerns such public university exercises as I have never performed. "2. That the place where most of the words are pretended to have been spoken, St. Clement's church, is utterly out of the jurisdiction of the university, and so no ways within this statute.

"3. That the want of the specification of the time, or the too loose specification of it, renders most of the depositions of no value.

"4. That words charged at so great a distance of time, cannot be sworn to so particularly as is necessary to affect me.

"5. That words spoken in private conversation, or at a coffee-house, or (written) in a private letter, can no way be within this statute. "6. That no books printed and published at London, can be within this statute.

[ocr errors]

"7. That I ought to have been convened publicly in the consistory, and evidence fairly there produced against me in an open court; and not privately in a chamber, been asked many ensnaring questions, with the exclusion of even a single friend, who was willing to have been there to assist and direct me.

"8. That any prior determination of the sense of this statute, before I have had counsel allowed me, or legal advice taken about its true extent and meaning, is of no force at all against me.

[ocr errors]

have
may
"And I desire and demand that I
time given me, and counsel allowed me to argue
W. WHISTON."
the validity of these exceptions.
"October 25, 1710.
"Little attention was paid to this protest.
The vice-chancellor gravely exhorted the pro-
testant, under pain of condemnation on the
following Monday, to leave his errors, and
return to the Church of England; and per-
ceiving, after a little time, that he began to
draw some of the heads into farther arguing
and reasoning about these matters, the vice-
chancellor took one of the candles and con-
ducted him ont of the house.

"On the Sunday following, Whiston re-
ceived a summons to attend a meeting of the
vice-chancellors and heads on the next day;
from which, at first, he determined to absent
himself; but afterwards altering his mind, he
appeared before the heads, now twelve in
number; and being asked by the vice-chan-
cellor to retract his errors, he read a protest
to them against all their proceedings, which he
desired might be entered upon the records of
the university. He then took his leave; and
the following act, afterwards made public, gives
the determination of the meeting:

"October 30th, 1710.

"At a Meeting of Mr. Vice-chancellor, and
the Heads of Colleges in the University
of Cambridge, in the Vice-Chancellor's
Chamber, in King's College, in the said
University.

"Whereas it hath been proved before us, that William Whiston, master of arts, mathematic professor of this university, hath asserted and spread about in Cambridge, since the 19th day of April 1709, divers tenets against religion received and established by public authority in this realm, contrary to the 45th statute of this university; and whereas the said William Whiston being required and exhorted by Mr. Vice-chancellor, to confess and retract his error and temerity in so doing, did refuse to make any such confession and retractation; it is therefore agreed and resolved by us, the vicechancellor, and heads of colleges, whose names are here underwritten, that the said WilJiam Whiston hath incurred the penalty of the foresaid statute, and that he be banished from this university according to the tenor of the same: C. Roderick, vice-chancellor; Joseph Ellys, Humf. Gower, Hen. James, S. Blithe, John Covel, Je. Balderston, Gabr, Quadring,

1

Tho. Richardson, Ch. Ashton, Bardsey, Fisher,
Edw. Lany. Unde venerabilis vir Dr. Ro-
derick, dominus procancellarius, assidentibus
et consentientibus Johanne Ellys milite, Doc-
tore Gower, Doctore James, Doctore Blithe,
Doctore Covel, Doctore Balderston, Doctore
Quadring, Doctore Richardson, Doctore
Ashton, Doctore Fisher, Doctore Lany, colle-
giorum præfectis, sententiam ferendo decrevit,
declaravit, et pronunciavit prout sequitur. In
the name of God, Amen. I Charles Roderick,
vice-chancellor of this university, do decree,
declare, and pronounce, that Mr. William
Whiston, mathematic professor of this uni-
versity, having asserted and spread abroad
divers tenets contrary to religion received and
established by public authority in this realm,
hath incurred the penalty of the statute, and
that he is banished from this university."
"Lata fuit hujusmodi sententia per dictum
dominum procancellarium, præsente me
Roberto Grove, not. pub. et almæ
sitatis prædictæ registrario."

were new: The archbishop was not named the president of the convocation, as was usual in former licences; and in these, the archbishop's presence and consens alone was made necessary, except in case of sickness, and then the archbishop had named some bishops to preside, as his commissaries: And in that case, the convocation was limited to his commissaries, which still lodged the presidentship and the negative with the archbishop. This was according to the primitive pattern, to limit the clergy of a province to do nothing, without the consent of the metropolitan; but it was a thing new and unheard-of, to limit the convocation to any of their own body, who had no deputation from the archbishop. So a report of this being made, by a committee that was appointed to search the records, it was laid before the queen: And she sent us a message to let us know, that she did not intend, that those whom she had named to be of the Quorum, should either preuniver-side or have a negative upon our deliberations, though the contrary was plainly insinuated in the licence. The archbishop was so ill of the gout, that after our first meetings, he could come no more to us; so was the bishop of London: upon which, the bishop of Bath and Wells, seeing how invidiously he was distinguished from his brethren, in which he had not been consulted, pretended ill health; and we were at a stand, till a new licence was sent us,

"The severity," says Mr. Frend, "with which Whiston was treated is easily accounted for. About that time the nation was, by Sa. cheverell's trial, alarmed with the cry of danger to the Constitution in Church and State; that bigot had received support from administration, and the Tories in general; and motions were made even in parliament, for the sup-in which the bishops of Winchester [Trelaw pression of irreligion and impiety."

Whiston was succeeded in his professorship by the blind Saunderson, whom Mr. Frend denominates (I believe with the strictest truth) a profligate, and a contemner of all religion.''

In relation to Whiston's case, Burnet writes

as follows:

"The convocation of the province of Canterbury was opened, the 25th of November, 1711, the same day in which the parliament

met:

ney.] Bristol [Robinson,] and St. Davids [Bisse,] were added to be of the Quorum. The two last were newly consecrated, and bad been in no functions in the Church before: So the queen not only passed over all the bishops, of those named by herself, and set the two last made in king William's reign, but a great many in a distinction above all their brethren. All this was directed by Atterbury, who had the confi dence of the chief minister; and because the other bishops had maintained a good corres pondence with the former ministry, it was thought fit to put marks of the queen's distrust upon them, that it might appear, with whom her royal favour and trust was lodged.

And Atterbury was chosen prolocutor. Soon after, the queen sent a licence to the convocation, empowering them to enter upon such consultations, as the present state of the Church required, and particularly to consider "The convocation entered on the considera. of such matters, as she should lay before them; tion of the matters referred to them by the limiting them to a Quorum, that the archbi-queen: And a committee was appointed, to sbop of Canterbury [Tennison,] the bishop of London [Compton,] or the bishop of Bath and Wells [Hooper,] should be present, and agree to their resolutions. With this licence, there was a letter directed to the archbishop, in which the convocation was ordered, to lay before the queen an account of the late excessive growth of infidelity and heresy among us; and to consider how to redress abuses in excommunications; how rural deans might be made more effectual; how terriers might be made and preserved more exactly; and how the abuses in licences for marriage might be cor

rected.

"In this whole matter, neither the archbishop nor any of the bishops were so much as consulted with; and some things in the licence

draw a representation of the present state of the Church, and of religion among us; but after some heads were agreed on, Atterbury procured, that the drawing of this might be left to him: And he drew up a most virulent declamation, defaming all the administration, from the time of the Revolution: Into this he brought many impious principles and practices, that had been little heard of or known, but were now to be published, if this should be laid before the queen. The lower House agreed to his draught; but the bishops laid it aside, and ordered another representation to be drawn, in more general and more modest terms. It was not settled, which of these draughts should be made use of, or whether any representation at all should be made to the queen: For it was

known, that the design in asking one was only to have an aspersion cast, both on the former ministry and on the former reign. Several provisions were prepared, with relation to the other particulars in the queen's letter: But none of these were agreed to by both Houses.

they reserved to themselves a power to change their mind, in case, upon an argument that might be made for a prohibition, they should see cause for it. Four of the judges were positively of a contrary opinion, and maintained it from the statutes made at the Reformation. The queen, having received these different opinions, sent them to the archbishop, to be laid before the two Houses of Convocation; and, without taking any notice of the diversity between them, she wrote that, there being now no doubt to be made of our jurisdiction, she did expect, that we should proceed in the matter before us. In this it was visible, that those who advised the queen to write that letter, con

"An incident happened, that diverted their thoughts to another matter: Mr. Whiston, the professor of mathematics in Cambridge, a learned man, of a sober and exemplary life, but much set on hunting for paradoxes, fell on the reviving the Arian heresy, though he pretended to differ from Arius, in several particulars: Yet upon the main he was partly Apollinarist, partly Arian; for he thought the Nous or Word was all the soul that acted in our Sa-sidered more their own humours than, her hoviour's body. He found his notions favoured nour. Yet two great doubts still remained, by the apostolical constitutions; so he reckoned even supposing we had a jurisdiction: The them a part, and the chief part of the canon of first was, of whom the court was to be comthe Scriptures. For these tenets, he was cen- posed; whether only of the bishops, or what sured at Cambridge, and expelled the univer- share the lower House had in this judiciary sity: Upon that, he wrote a vindication of authority: The other was, by what delegates, himself and his doctrine, and dedicated it to the in case of an appeal, our sentence was to be convocation, promising a larger work on these examined: Were no bishops to be in the court subjects. The uncontested way of proceeding of delegates? Or was the sentence of the archin such a case was, that the bishop of the dio- bishop and his twenty-one suffragan bishops, cese, in which he lived, should cite him into his with the clergy of the province, to be judged court, in order to his conviction or censure, from by the archbishop of York and his three sufwhose sentence an appeal lay to the archbishop, fragan bishops? These difficulties appearing and from him to the crown: Or the archbishop to be so great, the bishops resolved to begin with might proceed in the first instance in a court of that, in which they had, by the queen's licence, audience: But we saw no clear precedents an undisputable authority; which was to exaof any proceedings in convocation, where the mine and censure the book, and to see if his jurisdiction was contested; a reference made doctrine was not contrary to the Scriptures, and by the high commission to the convocation, the first four general councils, which is the where the party submitted to do penance, being measure set by law, to judge heresy. They the only precedent that appeared in history; drew out some propositions from his book, and even of this we had no record: so that it which seemed plainly to be the reviving of not being thought a clear warrant for our pro- Arianism; and censured them as such. These ceeding, we were at a stand. The act, that they sent down to the lower House, who, settled the course of appeals in king Henry the though they excepted to one proposition, yet 8th's time, made no mention of sentences in censured the rest in the same manner. Convocation; and yet, by the act in the 1st of the archbishop (being then disabled by the gout) queen Elizabeth, that defined what should be sent by one of the bishops to the queen for her judged heresy, that judgment was declared to assent, who promised to consider of it: But be in the crown: By all this (which the arch- to end the matter at once, at their next meeting bishop laid before the bishops in a letter, that in winter, no answer being come from the he wrote to them on this occasion) it seemed queen, two bishops were sent to ask it; but she doubtful, whether the convocation could, in the could not tell what was become of the paper first instance, proceed against a man for heresy: which the archbishop had sent her; so a new And their proceedings, if they were not war- extract of the censure was again sent to her: ranted by law, might involve them in a Præ- But she has not yet thought fit to send any munire. So the upper House, in an address, answer to it. So Whiston's affair sleeps, though prayed the queen to ask the opinions of the he has published a large work in four volumes judges, and such others as she thought fit, in octavo, justifying his doctrine, and maintainconcerning these doubts, that they might knowing the canonicalness of the apostolical constihow the law stood in this matter.

[blocks in formation]

This

tutions, preferring their authority not only to the epistles, but even to the gospels. In this last I do not find he has made any proselytes, though he has set himself much to support that paradox.

"The lower House would not enter into the consideration of the representation, sent down to them by the bishops; so none was agreed on, to be presented to the queen: but both were printed, and severe reflections were made, in several tracts, on that which was drawn by

« AnteriorContinuar »