LIFE OF ARCHBISHOP SHARP. 95 



" The only plausible thing that can be ob- 

 jected against this, is, that this way of reasoning 

 makes the Bishop's authority over the Clergy 

 to be equal to the King's. I answer by no 

 means. All that is meant is, that by the Rubric 

 we are as much bound to publish what is en- 

 joined us by the Bishop, as what is enjoined us 

 by the King. And we are sworn to obey the 

 Bishop, in Ileitis et ho?iestis, which is all the 

 active obedience we owe to the King. But, 

 then there is this vast difference between the 

 authority of one and of the other. As we are 

 parish ministers we are bound in licitis et honestis 

 to obey our Ordinaries. But if his superior, our 

 Metropolitan gives us contrary commands, then 

 we must obey the Metropolitan, and not the 

 Ordinary. And if the King, who is by our 

 constitution, the supreme head of the church, 

 do controul the jurisdiction of the Meti^opoUtan^ 

 then we are released from all obligations to 

 comply with the Metropolitan, and must obey 

 the King. So that where there happens a 

 clashing of legal orders or jurisdictions we are 

 certainly bound to obey the King, rather than 

 our Bishop or Archbishop. But then even our 

 obedience to the King is to be extended no 

 further than licita et honesta."' 



Thus far the paper. 



3ut to return. The commissioners finding no 



