and right Information probably the King would have rejected That the King might have a fit Testimony of the Person before he granted any such Mandate it pleased his Majesty to make this following Order Having taken into Our serious consideration how much it will conduce to the Glory of God Our own Honor and the welfare both of Our Church and the Universities that the most worthy and deserving Men be favored and preferred according to their Merit and being satisfied that the Lord Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London are the most Competent Judges in such Cases We have thought fit and do hereby declare Our pleasure to be that neither of Our Principal Secretaries of State do at any time move Us on the behalf of any person whatsoever for any Preferment in the Church or any Favor or Dispensation in either of Our Universities without having first Communicated both the person and the thing by him desired unto the Lord Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and Bishop of London or one of them now and for the time being and without having their or one of their Opinions and Attestations in the Case and if at any time We be moved in like manner by any other person whatsoever Our pleasure is and We do hereby declare that neither of Our said Principal Secretaries shall present any Warrant unto Us for Our Royal Signature in such a Case until the said Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and Bishop of London or one of them have been acquainted therewith and have given therein his Opinion and Attestation as aforesaid By this we find that the King resolved to have perpetuated this yet it was Revoked as also a later Mandate as appears by the following Mandate And that this Our Declaratión may stand as a lasting and inviolable Rule for the future Our further Will and Pleasure is that the same be Entered not only in both the sides of Our said Principal Secretary of State but also in the Signet Office there to remain upon Record Given c. the 27th of February 1680 / 1. §. 12. The Re-calling of a Mandate after the former I Insert this out of the Series because I may joyn the Revocation of another Order as followeth Whereas We did by Our Warrant under Our Signet Manual bearing Date at Windsor the 12th of August 1681. Signifie and Declare Our pleasure to be that neither of Our Principal Secretaries of State should at any time move Us on the behalf of any Favor or Dispensation in either of Our Universities without having first Communicated both the person and the thing by him desired unto the Lord Arch-Bishop of Canterbury for the time being John Earl of Radnor George Earl of Hallifax Lawrence Viscount Hyde the Lord Bishop of London for the time being and Edward Seymour Esq and without having the Opinion and Attestation of them or any Four of them in the Case and that if at any time we should be Moved in like manner by any other person whatsoever Our pleasure was and We did thereby Declare that neither of Our Principal Secretaries of State should present any Warrant unto Us for Our Royal Signature in such a Case until the said Lord Arch-Bishop of Canterbury c. had been acquainted therewith and had given their Opinion and Attestation as aforesaid and whereas We have thought fit for special Causes Us thereto moving to Revoke and determin Our said Warrant We do accordingly hereby Revoke and determin the same and all the Authority thereby Granted and Our pleasure also is that Our Order be Entred not only in both the Offices of Our said Secretaries but also in the Signet-Office Dated the 20th of September 1684. By this mandate it appears that it is in the Kings power to Revoke his own Constitutions at his pleasure §. 13. I might add to these the King 's dispensing with Statutes of Cathedral Churches about Leases annexing the Revenues of Prebends to a Deanry ordering the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury to Grant Dispensations for a Bishop to hold Rectories in Commendum of which I could produce many Instances but I keep my self to the business of the Universities In which I hope by a sufficient enumeration of particulars I have made it clear beyond all possibility of Dispute that the Kings of England have dispensed in all the Cases before recited with Statutes of Colleges yet it is as manifest that all the Members of the Universities and of particular Colleges upon their taking of Degrees or being Elected into Fellowships c. take an Oath to observe the Statutes of the University or particular College and yet by the power of the Kings Dispensation are no ways Involved in the Sin of Perjury I shall now proceed to give such Answers as I Judge requisite to those arguments I find couched in any of the defences made by the Fellows of St. Mary Magdalen College and begin with that of the obligation of their Oaths CHAP. VII The Answer to the Arguments used by the Vice-President and Fellows of St. Mary Magdalen College in defence of their proceedings SECT I. Answer to what is urged in their Justification from the Obligation of their Oaths to observe their Statutes §. 1. THe most plausible plea the Vice-President and Fellows used in Vindication of their Electing Dr. Hough and dis-obeying the Kings Mandate was that they were under the obligation of their Oath to observe the Statutes of their Founder in the Literal and Grammatical sense of them And the persons Nominated by the First and Second Mandate of the King were not Qualified according to those Statutes so that in obeying the Kings Mandates they should either be Perjured or forfeit their Rights in their Fellowships if they Elected or Admitted any person not Statutably Qualified and that they were under the like obligation neither to procure accept or make use of any dispensation from that Oath or any part of it by whomsoever procured or by what Authority soever granted To which in Aggravation and Improvement was urged See p. 6. here p. 75. where the King's Declaration is urged which I shall consider in its place the disagreeableness of being pressed to forswear themselves at a time when his Majesty had been Graciously pleased to Grant Liberty of Conscience Finding this Argument looked upon by the favourers of the Ejected Fellows as unanswerable I think my self obliged to clear the point not only by producing the Opinions of Casuists but likewise by the Authority of Bishop Sanderson who deserves the greater respect and credit for that he Adorned the Divinity chair in that University long before he did the Episcopal §. 2. Definition of an Oath In this matter we may consider what an Oath is which is generally defined to be the Invocation of God to be (a) Mart. Bonacina Tom. 2. Disp 4. q. 1. puncto 2 fol. 214. witness of the plighting of our Faith that we will do or suffer to be done such or such a matter by Bonacina
§. 6. An account of the whole matter as in the Parliament Roll. I shall now give an account of the matter as it appears in the Parliament (d) Rot. Parl. 13 H. 4. N. 15. Roll. First there is the Arch-Bishops Petition to the King that with the Assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons Assembled in the said Parliament the Schedule Annexed might be confirmed Which Schedule contains the Declaration of King Richard the Second as it is to be found in Mr. Pryn wherein it appears that the ground of the Contest and differences was about a Bull of Exemption pretending to exclude the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and his Successors and all other Ordinaries and Founders of the said University and Colleges from Visiting and all other Ordinary Jurisdiction which Bull by a venire facias was brought into the Chancery at Westminster and the Chancellor and Proctors shewed a sufficient Warrant under the Universities Seal to produce the Bull in Chancery and to answer there and to do and receive what should be ordered and determined by the late King Richard the Second and his Council as appears by the Records of the Chancery and after the Chancellor and Proctors for themselves and the University submitted themselves in the foresaid matters (a) Ordinationi definis ioni dicti nuper Regis to the Ordinance and Determination of the said King. ☞ The King after mature and fuller deliberation with his Council clearly considering that the Bull was procured in prejudice of his Crown and to the revoking or enervating of the Laws and Customs of his Realm and in favor and emboldning of Heretics and Lollards Murtherers and other Malefactors Ordained and by his Breve or (b) In fide Logeancia dilectione quibus sibi tencbantur Ac sub poena amissionis privilegiorum Universitatis praedictae sub forfeitura omnium aliorum quae sibi foris facere potuerunt ne dictam Bullam in aliqua sui parte exequi seu excercere seu Beneficium quoddam Exemptionis per Bullam illam aliqualiter reportare seu recipere presumerent Mandate Commanded and forbid the Chancellor Masters Doctors and Scholars of the said University on their Faith Allegiance and the love that they ought him and under the penalty of losing the privileges of the said University the forfeiture of all other things which they could forfeit that they presumed not to execute or exercise the said Bull in any part of it or any ways to presume to enjoy or receive any benefit of Exemption by the said Bull But to renounce all the Exemptions and Privileges contained in it before Richard Kendall the Kings Clerk and Notary and should transmit an Instrument for that purpose under the Seal of the said University by the said Clerk under the Penalties aforesaid After which follows the Kings Sentence as before In this part it may be observed how the King discovers his Authority and Prerogative over the University in injoyning them to renounce the Popes Bull and not to Execute c. The King may deprive the University of all privileges for disobedience it under the penalty there mentioned which demonstrates that for contempt and dis-obedience the King may not only Suspend and Deprive any Member of the University but take away all their Privileges c. which would be well considered by those who obstinately refuse to obey the Mandate of a King of England §. 7. The account of the latter Visitation Then follows the account of the later Visitation of the Arch-Bishop in the 12th 12. H. 4. of Henry the Fourth as before related where Richard Courtney the Chancellor and Benedict Brent and John Birch the Proctors opposed him and he and the University submited themselves to the Arbitrament Judgment Ordination and Decree of the King and the King Summoned them to appear before him at Lambeth upon the 17th of September where hearing all things and having consideration of the Submission made to King Richard and the Ordination Judgment and Determination of the same the King Confirmed and Ratified the same And further ordered if they obeyed not the Arch-Bishop c. all their Franchises Liberties and all the Privileges of the same University should be seized into the hands of the King and his Heirs till they performed it and the Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor and Proctors of the University for the time being and their Successors and the University shall pay to the King and his Heirs 1000 l. Then follows that this Schedule being seen and examined and understood with mature and diligent deliberation Note here the Kings peculiar power in passing an Act of Parliament The King in full Parliament affirmed and declared that all and every thing contained in the same Schedule were done Arbitrated Ordered Considered Decreed and Adjudged by him And the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons in the said Parliament who had full deliberation likewise of the same approved ratified and confirmed it Upon the whole matter of this great contest about the Arch-Bishops Visitation I think the King and the Parliament were at that time the more Inclined to confirm the Arch-Bishops power because that kept the Visitatorial power within the Kings Dominions and Excluded Exemptions which the State of England was rarely inclined to favor as being mostly as prejudicial to the Crown as the Bishops And Wickliffs Doctrin spreading the King was more willing the Arch-Bishop should Visit the University because it was his proper Office to see to the preservation of the Establish'd Religion and if the University had been left to the Visitation of the Chancellor the opinion of Mr. Wickliff might have the more encreased since the temper of the Members might have been changed from the Doctrin professed since so many in the University were then said to have embraced it §. 8. The reasons why the Author hath given so large an account of this I have insisted the longer upon this particular for two Reasons first to shew that the Government ordering and reforming of Universities were then Judged to be of Ecclesiastical Cognizance especially in those matters which appertain to the Doctrins taught in them which even in their Philosophical Disputes in some measure effected Religion even the taking of Degrees except in the faculty of Physic was in Ordine ad Spiritualia as appears in those Constitutions which prohibit any from having Benefices but such as had taken Degrees in Universities a further Illustration of the former of these Inferences I shall clear when I speak of Bishop Rippingdons Visitation Secondly The misapplication of Mr. Pryn. To shew the mis-application of Mr. Pryn who finding by the Transactions of King Richard the Second and King Henry the Fourth and those of King Charles the First concerning Arch-Bishop Lauds Visitation that those Kings determined the matter in favor of the Arch-Bishops thereby would Infer that the Visitation of the University of Oxford appertained to the Black
the many Authorities might be brought to prove this more particularly pa. 129. to 137. here the curious may find several Collected by the Author of the Church of England's Behavior under a Roman Catholic King to which may be added the Act declaring the making and Consecrating of the Arch-Bishops and Bishops of this Realm to be good lawful and perfect The ground of which Statute was some Mens questioning whether the same were duly and orderly done according to Law or not The Act lays this for a Foundation Some Paragraphs in the Act 8 Eliz. c. 1. explained 26 H. 8.1 That King Henry the 8th was justly and rightly re-cognized and acknowledged to have the Supreme Power Jurisdiction Order Rule and Authority over all the Estate Ecclesiastical of the Realm and after Recites how the Kings and Queens of this Realm had full power and Authority by Letters Patents c. from time to time to Assign Name and Authorize such person or persons as they shall think meet and convenient to excercise use occupy and execute c. all manner of Jurisdictions Privileges Preheminences and Authorities in any wise touching or concerning Spiritual or Ecclesiastical power or Jurisdiction within this Realm c. Then follows That the Queen being lawfully Invested in the Imperial Crown of this Realm c. and having in her Majesties Order and disposition all the said Jurisdictions Powers and Authorities over the State Ecclesiastical and Temporal The Queens power in matters Ecclesiastical Supreme and absolute c. hath by her Supreme Authority at divers times sithence the beginning of her Reign caus'd divers and sundry grave and well Learned Men to be duly Elected Made and Consecrated Arch-Bishops and Bishops c. and after Fellows which is to be noted that in her Letters Patents for the same she hath not only used such words and Sentences as were accustomed to be used by King Henry the 8th and King Edw. the 6th in their Letters Patents made for such Causes but also hath used and put into her Letters Patents divers other general words and Sentences whereby her Highness by her Supreme Power and Authority hath dispensed with all Causes or doubts of any Imperfection or dis-ability that can or may in any wise be objected against the same c. so that to all those that will well consider of the effect and true intent of the said Laws and Statutes and the Supreme and absolute Authority of the Queens Highness and which she by her Majesties said Letters Patents hath used and put in Ure c. it is and may be very evident and apparent that no cause of simple ambiguity or doubt can or may justly be objected From hence it is easie to infer Considerable Inferences resulting from this Statute that there is in the Crown such a Supreme and absolute power in Ecclesiastical matters as the King may dispense with Acts of Parliament even in such a concern as Consecration Confirmation or Investing of any person c. Elected to the Office or Dignity of any Arch-Bishop or Bishop within this Realm for if there had been no variation by the Queens Letters Patents from the Form and Methods in the Acts of King * 25 H. 8. c. 20.5 6 E. 6. c. 16. sect 3. u. 4. Hen. the 8th or Edw. the 6th or that of Queen Elizabeth 1 o. Cap. 2. there had been no need of Inserting general words or dispensations in the Queens Letters Patents This Note Answers all that can be alleged concerning Mr. Farmers Incapacity Hence may be noted if the Queen could by her Supreme power and Authority thus dispense with dis-ability in Bishops much more may the King with dis-abilities occasioned by College Statutes which at pleasure he can alter and abolish But to return to the 25th of H. 8. Observations upon this Statute by Judge Hoberts Reports fol. 156. The power granted to the Arch-Bishop by the Act is in Ordinary matters such as usually the Pope or Prelates of the Realm dispensed with and in un-wonted Cases also which it seems by the Letter of the Act to be of vast extent so that my Lord Hobert saith that tho' it seems to give power over all Dispensations granted from Rome wonted and un-wonted and all dispensations generally Yet it must have construction such as were allowable and allowed by the Laws and Practice of this Realm for else it should make our Yoke heavier than before Yet I cannot conceive but the power may be extended further than the ordinary power the Popes or Prelates practised See the Statute sect 17.18 where greater power seems to be implyed worthy consideration otherwise there needed not to have been such provision made that in un-wonted Cases the King or Council should allow them and if the Arch-Bishop refused the King might appoint two Prelates or other persons to grant them and it is probable that this Act may be construed to other purposes than a Faculty-Office only §. 6. Some further observations upon the Statute 25 H. 8. c. 21. But I shall conclude this matter with the following Observations upon this Statute which I take to be clear and undeniable First That the Pope did here by his Bulls and Breves grant Dispensations in various Cases Erected Constituted and Visited Colleges and Abrogated their Statutes as I have cleared in the foregoing Chapter Secondly That by this Act the Popes General or Universal power and Authority in England in all Cases was Totally abolished and taken away from him as to the excercise of it Thirdly That some part only of that general power and Authority which was excercised by the Pope was by that Act Vested Lodged and Delegated in and to the Arch-Bishop as the dispensing power for Marriages Bastardy c. and other matters there expressed which was properly to be called the Popes ordinary power and was so lodged and delegated in the Arch-Bishop to save the King from trouble in such ordinary and common Cases but not to take away the Kings ordinary power Supremacy Fourthly That the Popes extraordinary power which he exercised in England is as well abolished here by this and other Acts as his ordinary power But so much of the Popes Authority and power either ordinary or extraordinary as was at any time excercised by him here in England and which is not by the said Statute Vested and Delegated in the Arch-Bishop is by a necessary Construction revived and revested in the King and re-united to the Crown by all those Acts which declare the Kings * See. Stat. 24 H. 8. cap. 12.25 H. 8. c. 20. 21.26 H. 8. c. 1. c. 3. c. 13.31 H. 8. cap. 9.37 H. 8. c. 17.1 Eliz. c. 1. c. 4.8 Eliz. c. 1. Supremacy yea tho' the Statutes had been silent therein for that the Crown by this and other Acts is entirely remitted and restored to all it 's Ancient Jurisdictions and Prerogatives exercised by the Popes from whence our Law
College SIR YOu will receive herewith His Majesties Mandate to Admit me President of the College of St. Mary Magdalen in Oxon together with a Letter of my Lord Sunderland pursuant to His Majesties Command I am indisposed as I have been for some time and not in a condition as yet to Travel and therefore my request to you is that upon Receipt of the King's Pleasure you would do me the favor to Admit me by Proxy that is either the next Senior Fellow under your self resident or either of my Chaplains Mr. William Wickins or Mr. Thomas Collins whom I depute in my stead which is as valid in Law as if I were present my self and is the most usual customary Practice And by so doing you will oblige SIR Your very Loving Friend and Brother Samuel Oxon. Dr. Pudsey being the Senior Fellow returned this following Answer MY LORD I Have perused your Lordships Letter Dr. Pudseys Answer and in obedience to His Majesty have Read His Letter Mandatory and my Lord Sunderlands Letter pursuant to the same business in the Chappel before the Society this Morning I askt the Fellows how they would proceed in this matter of concernment and what Answer I was to return to my Lord of Sunderland's by the Messenger They replyed unanimously that the place of the Presidentship was full and that they could not Admit any other into the place This my Lord is the matter of Fact and so I remain Your Lordships most humble Servant Alex. Pudsey Magd. Coll. Aug. the 28th 1687. I shall now pass to what I find succeed §. 5. My Lord Presidents Letter to the Bishop of Oxford Bath September the 9th 1687. MY LORD THe King Commands me to send your Lordship the three Inclosed Copies that you may be the better informed in the Case of Magdalen College the consideration whereof he has Committed to you the Dean of Christ-Church and Mr. Walker The first is a Copy of a Letter to me after the Delivery of the King's Mandate which His Majesty having perused sent for all the Fellows on Sunday last to attend him at Christ-Church College and Commanded them to Admit your Lordship President of that College without any further delay or pretence Instead of Compliance they Signed a Paper and sent it to me containing a Direct refusal but upon second thoughts became more sensible of their Duty and subscribed another Paper in terms very submissive Copies of both which you will herewith receive Their meaning in the last Paper I am told is this That if His Majesty shall think fit by his own Authority to Constitute you their President they will very readily acknowledg and obey you desiring only to be excused from Electing you which they allege without breach of their Oaths they cannot do His Majesty thought it necessary that your Lordship and the two Gentlemen above named should be made acquainted with these Circumstances for the direction in the advice you shall offer to His Majesty upon this occasion I am further Commanded to tell you that His Majesty intends to be at Windsor on Saturday Sennight and would have you attend him there on the Munday or Tuesday following if your health will give you leave September the 4th 1687. I am MY LORD Your Lordships most humble Servant Sunderland P. This was agreed on and done by the Fellows after His Majesty had spoken to them These following Papers are the Copies mentioned in the foresaid Letter §. 6. The Copy of one of the Papers mentioned in the preceding Letter At a Meeting of the Fellows of St. Mary Magdalen College in the University of Oxon in the Chappel of the said College the 4th day of September in the Year of our Lord God 1687. Between the hours of Four and Five in the Afternoon of the same day in obedience to His Majesties Command JOhn Smith Doctor of Divinity saith that he is as ready to obey His Majesty in all things that lie in his power as any other of His Majesties Subjects whatsoever but he apprehends it to be contrary to the Founders Statutes and his Oath to Elect the Right Reverend Father in God Samuel Lord Bishop of Oxford President of St. Mary Magdalen College in Oxon and therefore it does not lie in his Power All these following agree with Dr. Smiths Answer above Written Dr. Stafford Mr. Hammond Mr. Rogers Mr. Strickland Mr. Bayley Mr. Davys Mr. Bagshaw Mr. Fayrer Mr. Hunt. Mr. Craddock Mr. Penniston Mr. Hyde Mr. Yerbury Mr. Holt. Mr. Thornton Mr. Holden Mr. Wilks Mr. Henry Dobson Master of Arts saith that he is ready to obey his Majesty to the utmost of his power in the Election of the Bishop of Oxon. Mr. Robert Charnock Master of Arts and Fellow of the said College saith that he is ready to obey His Majesties Order in the Electing the Bishop of Oxon President of Magdalen College Alex. Pudsey Doctor in Divinity and Fellow of Magdalen College in Oxford saith that the doth agree with the rest of the Society In the Presence of John Greneway Pub. Notary I have omitted what passed betwixt His Majesty and the Fellows of St. Mary Magdalen College while the King was at Oxford since there was nothing done by the Fellows which tended to a submission to the Kings Authority but rather to a Justifying of their undutifulness in their Personal Address to him which as it was so contrary to expectation at a time when the King Honored their University with his Presence and was the only disobligation he had met withall in his whole Royal Progress It cannot be wondred that he resented it as he did that a number of Fellows of a single College should persist so in their disobedience in not Admitting the Bishop of their Diocess to be their President an Honor they never had since their Foundation if we may be allowed to call it an Honor to have a person of that Character their Supreme Governor Since therefore they were not required to Elect him but only Admit him by vertue of the Kings Mandate the King having by that superseded the former for Mr. Farmer no Man can think it strange that the King resolved to Chastise them for their contempt in a method Justifiable by Canon Civil and Statute Law both to vindicate his own Royal Authority as likewise to deter others from following such pernicious Examples CHAP. II. The Proceedings of the Lords Commissioners in the Local Visitation of St. Mary Magdalen College in Oxford SECT I. The Transactions from the Citation sent October the 17th 1687. To the Nineteenth of the same Month. §. 1. Citation of St. Mary Magdalen College October 17th 1687. HIs Majesty being so greatly provoked by the disobedience to the second Mandate and now finding it necessary to Assert his own Power resolved upon sending down certain Local Visitors according to which I find it thus Registred Memorandum Out of the Register There being a new Commission with the Addition of Thomas Bishop of
uniting yet they might abuse the Power to the detriment of the Common-weal therefore in the Digests we find the Law thus (d) Lege neque Societas i. f. quod cujuscum que Vniversitatis neque Societas neque Collegium neque hujusmodi Corpus passim omnibus habere conceditur nam legibus Senatus-consultis principalibus constitutionibus eares coercetur Agreeable to which I find in the Letter from King Edward to the Pope in behalf of the University that it enjoys (e) In Regia Benevolentia recumbit speciali Rot. Rom. 11. E. 2. M. 14. Intus it's Privileges by special Royal Benevolence By the Constitution of our Laws this Right as all Jurisdiction and Franchises are is Lodged in the Crown and thence only derived So (a) Rex habet omnia Jura in manu suâe quae ad Coronam ad Laitatem pertinent potestatem Regni Gubernaculum Habet etiam Justitiam Judicium quae sunt Jurisdictiones habet etiam ea quae ad pacem pertinent Ea quae dicuntur privilegia licet pertinent ad Coronam possunt ad privatas personas transferri sed de gratia ipsius Regis speciali Bracton upon the Question quis concedere potest libertates quibus qualiter referuntur thus resolves it The King saith he hath all the Rights in his own Hands which appertain to the Crown and his Lay-Power and the Government of the Kingdom He hath also Justice and Judgment which are Jurisdictions and those things which appeartain to Peace He further observes that those things which are called Privileges tho' they appertain to the Crown may be transferred to private persons but of the special Grace only of the King. ☞ All the Law Books Unanimously agree that none can make Corporations but the (b) 49 E. 3.4.49 Ass 8. King and such Power cannot be prescribed for it inherent in the Crown Therefore Sir Edward (c) Co. 10. Rep. f. 33. b. Coke calls them Creatures of the Crown The Nature of some (d) Atturny Generals Argument for the Quo Warranto Ms. p. 9. Corporations is to be Constituted by the King alone as the Dean and Chapters Majors and Commonality some have been by the Popes alone and some mixt by the King for the Temporal Possession by the Pope for their Spirituality However the King is still the Donor Fountain and Spring from whence these and all other Liberties flow §. 3. Things requisite to a Corporation My (c) Suttons Hosp fol. 29. Lord Coke saith there are Four things that are of the Essence of a Corporation First a Legal Authority which he saith is Four ways First By Common Law as by the King alone which therefore is said to be by Common Law as the most known and regular way Secondly By Authority of Parliament Thirdly by the Kings Charter Fourthly By prescription which in effect are all by the King for what is by Act of Parliament is certainly so and what is by prescription is presumed to have obtained a Grant from the Crown which in process of time hath been lost and so by the Tacit allowance and consent of Successive Kings acquires a Right His other Essential parts are in the Operative words of which there is no need to discourse here ☞ By the Statute of Merton (a) Id. p. 26. b. no Grant of Lands to Pious or Charitable uses are good without the Kings Licence For this purpose the Kings Grant is absolutly necessary for that it was solely in his Power to Grant and the Donor of the Lands without the King can do nothing to establish a perpetuity Without capacitating the Incorporating cannot be effected for the Inhabitants of a Village or City are single persons which are not in a Capacity to take any Lands in Succession the like is to be said of Liberties Privileges and Immunities but only to their Singular Heirs but such Inhabitants are in a Capacity to be Incorporated by the King and after such an Incorporation to have a Succession of Lands Tenements and Hereditaments §. 4. The end of Corporations ☞ The general intent and end of all Civil Incorporations allowed by the Policy of the Law (b) Atturny Generals Argument ut supra is in order to better Government subservient to the Oeconomy of the whole by such prescribed Rules as the Kings of England have been Graciously pleased to limit them by which as Emergences happened might be altered by the same Power that bestowed them ☞ Bishop Saunderson (a) Quum ex concessione principum idque ex gratia speciali corporentur istiâ—s modi Societates nec aliis gaudeant juribus privilegiis vel potestate extra ea quae vel ex diuturna temporis praescriptione vel ex chartis diplomatibusque Regiis constare potest fuisse sibi concessa De obligatione Conscientiae praelect 7. sect 28. according to his Judicious way of expressing matters saith the Sodalities Bodies Corporate or Colleges are as Members of the great Body the Kingdom or Common-wealth and are contained in it as the Inferior Orbs of the Heavens are in the Superior That these are Incorporated by the Grants of Princes of their special Grace and enjoy not any Rights Privileges or Powers besides those which by prescription of long time or from Royal Charters it appears they have had Granted to them Therefore whatever Power they have of making any Laws for their Government it is derivative and no way Primitive and is ultimately resolved into the Supreme Regal Power as it 's true Original Therefore such like Societies or their Magistrates cannot at their own Arbitrament constitue or exercise any Power in making Laws but according to the manner and measure of the faculty Indulged to them by the Prince ☞ Hence it is that whoever is the Founder of a College the King calls it upon all occasions Our College and the Members likewise in all Applications to the King say Your College for tho' the particular Founder give the Land yet as it is a College or Corporation the King is the Founder ☞ So it is (b) Patrick Case Trinit 18. Car. 2. Keble Rep. 2d St. fol. 65. vouched for Law that the King without the Ordinary may Erect Universities and this is not a Prerogative our Kings only enjoy but we find it frequently in the Grants of the Modern Roman Emperors and Kings §. 5. The Power of conferring Degrees in Universities conferred on Subjects Examples of the Emperors giving Power to Count Palatines to make Doctors in Divinity Law Physic and Philosophy which are the peculiar Degrees conferred by Universities quâ Vniversities by the Grants of Privilege from their respective Sovereigns may be found in Tho. (a) Thesi 22. c. Sagittarius cited by Mr. Selden ☞ So Rudolphus the second Emperor of Germany (b) Sacri Lateranensis Palatii Aulaeque nostrae Caesariae Imperialis Consistorii Comitu Doctores Licentiatos Baccalaureos in utreque Jure
the Regal only and that the Regal privileges should be sent to the King but the Episcopal and Papal should be kept but my Author thinks the last were also sent After this when any office in the University was void the King appointed the Successors so that it is found that even one of the Bedles was so placed This Instance doth sufficiently manifest the Kings absolute power over the Universities in taking into his hands at his pleasure all or any part of their privileges and restoring them when he thinks fit as he did these Anno 1541. 33 H. 8. The King (a) F. F. fol. 107.6 appointed Rules about the Election of the Proctors and ordered several other things relating to the better Governing of the University Anno 1543.35 H. 8. The King restores their privileges conditionally The King restored the Liberties to the University which he had retained from the Year 1522. yet so as the Vice-Chancellor Tresham entred into a Recognizance of 500 l. that the University should exercise none of the privileges granted Anno 1523. by the means of Cardinal Wolsey Thus I have given an Abridgment of what the Laborious Mr. Wood hath related concerning the Kings or Popes Grants of privileges to the University or what I have met with other where relating to this business and shall now proceed in my designed Method referring the Reader for later Charters to the Arcives of the University and the Act of Parliament for Incorporating both Oxford and Cambridge CHAP. IV. Concerning the Visitations of the Universities and particularly of that of Oxford SECT I. Concerning the Kings Supremacy and Power in Ecclesiastical Causes and Visitations §. 1. First what Authority the Kings of England used before the Reformation IT cannot be expected that I should discuss the Controversie here how far the Popes power was exercised in England in matters Ecclesiastical or in things to be done in Ordine ad Spiritualia The Curious may have recourse to the Learned Marca de Regno Sacerdotio the Concordata the Regalia of France and Sir Roger Twisdens Historical Vindication if he would be satisfied in the bundaries of the Ecclesiastical and Secular power ☞ It will be sufficient for my purpose to shew first that long before the Reformation several Kings of England permitted no Canons or Constitutions of the Church or Breves and Bulls of the Apostolic See to be executed here without their Allowance and that in several particulars wherein the Pope in other places by the Canons or the Plenitudo potestatis exercised a special Jurisdiction either some of our Ancientest Kings did the same or if they apprehended any diminution of their Crown or Dignity to attend their exercise by any power not derived from their selves they prohibited them ☞ And Secondly Secondly What power they have exercised since the Reformation That since the Supremacy hath been Established by Acts of Parliament in the Crown The Kings of England may according to the Laws in force not only exercise all the powers they could as Sovereign Princes but likewise whatever the Pope de Jure if not de facto could or did do in the outward Regiment of Ecclesiastical matters and consequently whatever was done in Visitations by the Authority of the Popes Metrpolitans or Dioecesan Bishops may now be done by the Kings of England as Supreme Ordinary §. 2. Before I enter upon this Subject I desire it may be noted These Instances are produced to Induce the Subjects obedience to the King whose Authority ought to be well considered that I bring not the Instances to induce a belief that the Popes according to the Canons of the Church did not oppose some of the practices of the Kings I mention But to shew how Incongruously the Fellows of St. Mary Magdalen College acted who knowing these things and that later Laws had devolved upon the King even the power of the Pope exercised here inforo externo should dispute the Kings Authority in a matter so manifestly appertaining to his Royal Dignity ☞ For Brevities sake I pass the Saxon times King William the 1st for the sure Establishing his Conquest is noted by Eadmerus (a) Histor novorum lib. 1. fol. 6. to which he adds de hujusmodi personis Episcopes Abbates alies principes per totam tenam Justituit de quibus Indignum Judicaretur si per omnia suis legibus non obedirent Idem to have Introduced the Norman usages of his Ancestors tho' he calls them new here Among which he reckons that none in his Dominions should own the Pope but by his Command nor receive his Letters unless shewed first to him and if the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury called and praesided in a General Council of the Bishops he allowed nothing to be appointed or forbid unless they were accommodated to his Will and were first ordained by him nor suffered any of his Barons or Officers to undergo any Ecclesiastical Censure but by his precepts So that I think it not so strange What King William Rufus did Upon the Shism none more fit then the King to resolve whom to adhere to that during the Schism his Son William Rufus claimed as other Princes did a Right to declare to which Pope he would adhere some consenting to Pope Vrban others to Clement Therefore the King demanded of Anselm from which of those Popes he would receive his Pall and the Arch-Bishop Answered him he would receive it from Pope Vrban But the King (a) Rex dixit illum prō Apostelico nondum accepisse nec suae vel paternae Consuetudinis eatenus extitisse ut praeter suam licentiam aut Electionem Aliquis in Regno Angliae Papam nominaret quicunque sibi hujus dignitatis Potestatem vellît praeripere Unum foret ac si coronam suam sibi conaretur Auferre Eadm fol. 25.47 told him that he had not yet received him for Pope nor had it been his or his Fathers Custom hitherto that any should be received as Pope in England without his Licence and Election and whoever would take from him this Power of his Dignity should be esteemed by him as one that endeavored to take from him his Crown And when Anselm Answered that he would not in any thing depart from obedience and subjection to Pope Vrban The King in great wrath protested (b) Nequaquam fidem quam sibi debebat simul Apostolicae sedis obedientiam contra suam voluntatem posse servari fol. 26. N. 1. None to go to Rome but with the Kings leave that the Arch-Bishop could not keep alike or together the Faith which he ought to the King and the obedience to the Apostolic See contrary to the Kings Will. When in the same Kings Reign the Arch-Bishop was sollicitous to have leave to go to Rome and Visit the Successor of St. Peter for the being better instructed in the Government of the Church He received Answer (c) Sed si Iverit pro certo noverit
Ralph de Diceto (c) An. 1175. Col. 597.21 observes that our Kings did in such sort follow the Ecclesiastical Canons as they had a care to Conserve their own Rights hence it is that in the Saxon Laws we find the Kings extending their Commands to the enjoyning of those things in Ecclesiastical matters which by Canons of Councils were agreed to as Sir Roger (a) Cap. 5. N. 6. Twisden hath summed up in Ten particulars ☞ In one of which King Alfred (b) L. L. Aluredi C. 8. pa. 25. Jourval c. 9. Coll. 823. The Decrees of such Councils must be well obeyed when Kings were present reserves to himself the liberty of dispensing event with the Marriage of Nuns In another it appears that the Kings caused the Clergy of their Kingdom to meet in Council and sometimes presided themselves in them tho' the Popes Legat were present as may be seen in Sir Henry Spelmans Councils Page 292.293.189 pasim Ibid. vita Lanfranci C. 6. Col. 1. pa. 7. Florent Wigorn. 1070. p. 434. ☞ It is likewise certain that before (c) Twisden Vindica c. 5. N. 7. p. 99. William the Conquerors time the English Bishops had no Ordinary Courts distinguished from the Lay but both Secular and Ecclesiastical Magistrates sat and Judged together but he finding these proceedings (d) Non bene neque secundum Sanctorum Canonum praeceta not good nor according to the precept of the Holy Canons did by his Charter make a distinction of the Courts that such as were Convented by the Bishop should not Answer according (e) Non secundum hundred sed secundum Canones Episcopales Leges c. to the Hundred but according to the Canons and Episcopal Laws So that in this appears the Foundation of the Tryals in Ecclesiastical Courts according to the Ecclesiastical Laws which yet by our Lawyers are called the Kings Laws §. 11. The Kings Secular Courts determined what matters were to be tryed in Ecclesiastical Courts And it further appears that in Controversies betwixt parties where it hath been disputable whether the Tryal of them appertained to the Kings Ecclesiastical or Secular Courts The Kings Secular Courts have ever been Judges to which Court the cause did belong therefore Bracton (f) Lib. 5. de exceptionib cap. 15. sect 3. fol. 412. a. saith Judex Ecclesiasticus cum prohibitionem a Rege susceperit supersedere debet in omni casu saltem donec constiterit in Curia Regis ad quam pertineat Jurisdictio quia si Judex Ecclesiasticus aestimare possit an sua essec Jurisdictio in omni casu indifferenter procederet non obstunte Regiâ prohibitione Which is agreeable to what we find King William the First did in a Council at Illibon in Normandy Anno 1080. when by the advice of both the States Ecclesiastic and Secular he did settle many particulars to belong to the Cognizance of the Spiritual Judges and concludes that if any thing were further claimed by them they should not enter upon it (a) Donec in Curia Regis monstrent quod Episcopi inde habere debeant till they had shewed in the Court of the King that the Bishops thereupon ought to have it belong to them Whoever desires to be satisfied in the Jurisdiction of the Kings of England in Ecclesiastical matters may sind an Abridgment of them in Sir Roger Twisden (b) Vindicat. c. 5. N. 17. enforced with sufficient Testimonies out of our most Authentic Historians in Eighteen particulars §. 12. The application of these Historical Collections ☞ Upon the whole matter we may conclude that what was done by Archiepiscopal or Episcopal Visitation of the University was by the Kings Authority so that tho' we find not that by Immediate Commission the Kings of England Visited before King Henry the Eighth's time yet we have sufficient grounds to Judge that whatever was done was by the Kings power and Authority Therefore Sir Edward (c) Cawdryes Case 5 Reports p. 8. b. How the Temporal and Ecclesiastical Courts were subordinate to the King according to the Opinion of our Modern Lawyers Cooke lays it down for a Rule that as in Temporal Causes the King by the Mouth of the Judges in his Courts of Justice doth Judge and determin the same by the Temporal Laws of England so in Causes Ecclesiastical and Spiritual by his Ecclesiastical Judges according to the Ecclesiastical Laws of the Realm and that so many of the Ecclesiastical Laws as were proved approved and allowed here by and with General Consent are aptly and rightly called the Kings Ecclesiastical Laws of England and whosoever denyeth this denyeth the King to have full and plenary power to deliver Justice in all Cases to all his Subjects without which he were not a compleat Monarch or head of the whole and entire Body of the Realm according to the words of the Statute (d) Stat. 24 H. 8. c. 12. The King the Fountain of Justice that the Kingly Head of this Body Politic is Instituted and furnished with plenary whole and intire Power Preheminence Authority Prerogative and Jurisidiction to render and yield Justice and final determination to all manner of Folke Resiants or Subjects within the Realm in all causes matters debates and contentions happening to occur insurge or begin within the limits thereof c. §. 13. In what particulars our Kings claimed not Ecclesiastical Administration It must be likewise considered that whatever power our Kings Exercised in Ecclesiastical Affairs they never claimed any in those things the School men call Ordinis as the Administration of Sacraments Celebrating Divine Offices c. but in that which is called Jurisdictionis and that being either Internal where the Divine by persuasion wholsom Instructions Ghostly Counsel and the like convinceth the Conscience This is Sir Roger Twisdens observation whereby it is obedient or External where the Church in Foro exteriori compels the Christians obedience As to the first and second none of our Kings either before or since the Reformation took upon them at all to medle either by assuming to themselves a power of Preaching Teaching Binding or loosing in foro Animae Administring the Holy Sacraments Conferring Orders c. But they took upon them the Ordering of such things as were of outward Policy of the Church as what Men were fit to Exercise them and what subjection the Subjects should yield to Decrees and Constitutions made abroad and what Doctrins were publicly to be Taught which might conduce to the quiet Peace and Tranquility of the Subject and their living in Piety and Vertue §. 14. How the Popes obtained greater powers after the Canon Laws were owned here It is further to be noted that the Popes power was enlarged after the Canon Law was received more than it had been before but if we believe Walsingham (a) Walsingham ad Ann. 1297. it was not Read in our Universities publicly till the 25th of Edward the First
by one Simon a Monk of Walden ☞ It is likewise to be noted that altho' as I have shewn before the first Race of our Kings did frequently oppose some Rights the Popes claimed by Canons yet within the compass of an Hundred Years after the Conquest The Popes Jurisdiction in four particulars by the Canons or little more the Court of Rome obtained four great points of Jurisdiction First of sending Legats into England Secondly drawing Appeals to Rome Thirdly the Donation of Bishoprics and other Dignities in the Church Fourthly the Exemption of the Clergy from Secular Power Notwithstanding all which several Kings reassumed their Rights and Jurisdiction as occasions offered until the Reign of King Henry the Eighth as the Statutes of Mortmain Provisoes c. do manifest §. 15. The Kings Supremacy asserted by King Henry the 8th But in King Henry the Eighth's time a Total Rout was given to them all In the Twenty fourth of his Reign all Appeals to Rome were taken away and Established in the King and all Sentences made or to be made with England declared to be Authentical notwithstanding any Act from Rome The grounds of which Act are set forth in the (b) Stat. 24. H. 8. c. 12. Parag. 1. Preamble That this Realm of England is an Empire Governed by one Supreme Head and King The Lawyers Judge this Statute not to be Introductory of any new power but declatory of the Ancient Rights of the Crown having Dignity and Royal Estate of the Imperial Crown of the same unto whom a Body Politic Compact of all sorts and Degrees of People divided in Terms by Names of Spirituality and Temporality been bounden and own to bear next to God a Natural and humble obedience Then follows the plenitude of the Kings power as before I have related after which follows That the Body Spiritual hath power when any cause of the Law Divine happens to come in question or of Spiritual Learning This Statute was made to exclude the Popes power which King Henry the 8th rejected that it was declared Interpreted and shewed by that part of the Body Politic called the Spirituality without the Intermedling of any exterior person or persons by which the See of Rome is intended to be utterly Excluded and all Canons of Council likewise not allowed of by the King and his Laws to declare and detemin all such doubts and to Administer all such Offices and Duties as to their Rooms Spiritual doth appertain and the Laws Temporal for Tryal of property of Lands and Goods and for the Conservation of the people of this Realm in Unity and Peace without Rapine and Spoil was and yet is Administred Adjudged and Executed by sundry Judges and Ministers of the other part of the Body Politic called the Temporality and both the Authorities and Jurisdictions do conjoyn together in the due Administration of Justice the one to help the other By which it is easie to infer that this Statute exterminates and abolisheth all Forreign power so that whatever before this was Transacted here by the Popes or their Legats is now to be declared and determined by the King or such as by Law are appointed to hear and determin such matters under him §. 16. The Kings power of Visiting c. In the Twenty-sixth of the same King it is enacted That the King his Heirs and Successors shall have full Power and Authority from time to time to (a) Stat. 26 H. 8 c. 1. The Kings power of Visiting Visit Repress Redress Reform Order Correct Restrain and Amend all such Errors Heresies Abuses Offences Contempts and Enormities what soever they be which by any manner of Spiritual Authority or Jurisidiction ought or may lawfully be Reformed Repressed Ordered Redressed Corrected Restrained or Amended most to the pleasure of Almighty God the increase of Virtue in Christs Religion and for the Conservation of the Peace Unity and Tranquility of this Realm any Uses Customs Forreign Laws Forreign Authority Prescription or any thing or things to the contrary hereof notwithstanding It is known that the Title of Supreme Head of the Church given by that Act to the King his Heirs and Successors was Repealed by Queen Mary The Title of Supreme Head changed and was never restored but in the First of Queen Elizabeth all the powers given by the Act of 26 H. 8. are restored to the Crown under the Name of Supreme Governor For in the first of Queen Elizabeth such Ancient Jurisdictions over the Estate Ecclesiastical are restored to the Crown The restoring of Ancient Jurisdiction as by Queen Mary had been Repealed and all Foreign powers repugnant to the same are abolished I shall only insert what relates to the present matter Stat. 1. Eliz. Parag. 17. Parag. 17. It is thus Enacted That such Jurisdiction Privileges Superiorities and Prehemenences Spiritual and Ecclesiastical as by any Spiritual and Ecclesiastical power or Authority hath heretofore been or may lawfully be exercised or used for the Visitation of the Ecclesiastical State and persons and for Reformation Order and Correction of the same and all manner of Errors Heresies Schisms Abuses Offences Contempts and Enormities shall for ever by Authority of this present Parliament be Vnited and Annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm Parag. 18. The Kings power in Ecclesiastical matters And in the 18th Paragraph The Queen her Heirs and Successors shall have full Power and Authority by Letters Patents under the Great Seal to Assign Name and Authorize c. such person or persons c. as the Queen her Heirs and Successors shall think meet to exercise use occupy and execute under them all manner of Jurisdictions Privileges and Preheminences in any wise touching or concerning any Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction within their Dominions to Visit Reform Redress Order Correct and Amend all such Errors Heresies Schisms Abuses Offences Contempts and Enormities whatsoever which by any manner of Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Power Authority or Jurisdiction can or may lawfully be Reformed Ordered Redressed Corrected Restrained or Amended c. Which seems to me 25 H. 8. c. 21. Parag. 20. The King Supreme Visitor notwithstanding Mr. Pryns exceptions clear by another Act of Parliament the words of which are Provided that the said Arch-Bishop of Canterbury or any other person or persons shall have no power or Authority by reason of this Act to Visit or Vex any Monasteries Abbys Priories Colleges Hospitals Houses or other places Religious which be or were Exempt before the making of this Act c. But that Redress Visitation and Confirmation shall be had by the Kings Highness his Heirs and Successors by Commission under the Great Seal to be directed to such persons as shall be appointed requisite for the same In fine whoever considers the Accumulated power of our Kings most own à fortiori that whatever Visitatorial Power was excercised before King H. 8ths time was by the Kings allowance and all since
in Queen Maries time for Religion and Abolished most of the Statutes made by Cardinal Pool and restored those of King Edward the Sixth To omit other things in the Visitation Earl of Arundel Chancellor quits his Office. besides that the Earl of Arundel did quit the Chancellorship these following Heads of Colleges or principal Members were removed and some of them Imprisoned §. 3. The Heads of Colleges and others Expelled of Christ-Church As Dr. Richard Marshal Dean of Christ-Church for denying to own the Authority of the Visitors was not only Expelled but sent Prisoner to London Also Dr. William Tresham Canon of the same for denying the Oath of Supremacy was Expelled as also Dr. Richard Smith Canon there Of Merton College Dr. Thomas Raynolds Warden of Merton College was by the Queen then at Hampton Court deprived of his Wardenship 4 o. September and three Days after the Sentence was declared by three of the Commissioners and after a short time he Died in Prison Thomas Coveney President of Magdalen College was Expelled Of St. Mary Magdalen College for that he was not entred into Orders and Dr. William Cheadsey President of Corpus Christi College was Expelled from that and his Canonship of Christ Church and Robert Banks who had been Ejected in Queen Maries Reign because he was Married was substituted in his place Also Dr. William Wright Of Baliol College Master or President of Baliol College was Expelled and Dr. Babington substituted in his place Mr. John Smith Provost of Oriel College was Ejected Of Oriel College tho' he had liberty to live in the House after but in the next Year he lost the Lady Margarets Lectureship Of Queens College and Mr. Hugh Hodgson Provost of Queens College two Years after either relinquished the place Of Trinity College or was Expelled Mr. Thomas Slythurst President of Trinity College was Expelled and Mr. Yeldard placed in his room Mr. Alexander Belsyre Master of St. Johns College and Canon of Christ-Church was also Expelled Fol. 283. a. St. Johns College and Mr. William Ely lately put in his place a little while after was Expelled so a few Years after Mr. William Marshal Principal of St. Albans Hall was forced to surrender and so Mr. William Alan Principal of St. Mary Hall as also George Ethridge Regius Greek Professor and James Dugdale Master of University College two Years after was Expelled by the Visitors and Thomas Key put in his place Besides these Heads of Colleges in New College Fol. 283. b. two Doctors and three Bachellors of Civil Law one Doctor of Physic one Bachellor of Divinity and fourteen Fellows were Expelled some removing to Religious Houses beyond the Sea and Mr. John Munden returning being discovered to Secretary Walsingham was Executed at Tyburn In St. Johns College seven Fellows were Expelled besides several others Imprisoned at Wisbich and many others not named Those that have a mind to see the Names of Great numbers of the rest Expelled from other Colleges Reg. G. G. fol. .26 Reg. I. fol. 198. 199. Reg. Coll. Magd. fol. 29. and suffering Death for returning into England may consult the Register I shall now give a short account of what Dr. Parker advised from Cambridge concerning the Visitation there §. 4. Paper Office Ecclesiastica 1550. to 1559. I find Two Letters from Dr. Mathew Parker afterwards Arch-Bishop to Sir William Cecyl then Secretary and Chancellor of the University of Cambridge Dated 1 o. March and Endorsed on the back Dr. Parker 1 o. Martii 1559. Among other Expressions he hath these words The Colleges needed a Visitation that Queen Mary immediately upon her quyet gave out Authority to the Chancellor Bishop Gardiner he forthwith sent his Chaplain Watson with Instruction to every College and as then I could gather to report to him in what State every College stood and further peradventure upon cause to have the Masters and others assured de coram sistendo Interim bene gerendo till further Order By this and some other Letters I find to and from Sir William Cecyl who was the great Minister of State in Queen Elizabeths time I observe that what was done in Oxford by the Visitors was likewise pursued in Cambridge and that the Masters Governors and Fellows had a very hard time in the Reigns of King Edward the Sixth Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth Conformableness to the Religion of the Prince being the Touch-stone and the prime Capacitating Qualification that secured Honors and Places in the Universities The other Letter is Dated March the 30th and Ticketed 30 Martii 1559. Dr. Parker to Mr. Secretary Which I shall Transcribe at length that the Reader may take notice of his way of Writing and the Dialect of that Age. Pleaseth yt your Honorables goodnes upon th' occasion of sending up to your Honor for the matter which Mr. Vice-Chancellor Wryteth of I thought it good to signifie to you that the matter which ye have Delegated to us is in hand with as good Expedition as we can make by reason of th' absence of some who were meet to be Commoned with Though some dout is made whether your Authority of Chancellorship extendeth to College Statutes for any beyond Lymitation conteyned in them so may they dout of your Delegatum Though Bishop Gardyner wold not so be restreyned in his doyings whether upon warrant of the Quenys Letters of Commission the Copy * * This I cannot find tho' I have searched diligently whereof I sent to you or by Authorytie of his Office I leave that to your Prudence to Expond Our Statutes and Charters Prescribe here to Officers that they must in Plees proceed summariè de plano since strepitu Judiciali that Scholars may be soner restored to their Bokes Yet here be Wytts which being thereto admitted w'd entangle matters extremis Juris apicibus that Controversies might be Infynyte and perpetual never to have an end but according to our old Ancyent Customys we shall procede to hearyng with cutting of all such superfluous and perplex Solemnyties of their Cavillations and so refer the matter to your understanding to be resolutely determyned as the last Clause of your Letter pretendeth to wil us And yff I shall perceyve any like Incydent to be signified to your Honorable wisdom I shall be bold in secretys to Wright it Less things borne bi parcyalyties might prevayle under your Authorytie not rightly instructed and to avoid som Stomake that ellys might be taken Without dout Sir th' Universitie is wonderfully decayed and if your Visitation entendyd be too stoutly Executed in some like sorts as hath been practised that wil I fear so much rustle the State thereof that it will be hardly recovered in Years and yet Authorytie must bridel willfull and stubborn Natures and hie time it is here I trust the prudence of the Visitors for good wil toward you wil diligently note how ye receyved the Universities after others
thereunto but also be so far Lord over them that when he seeth cause he may abate or totally remit the Penalty Incurred by the breach of them and dispense with others for not observing of them at all yea generally Suspend the Execution of them c. §. 2. Why the Author Treats not largely on this subject But I foresee it will be alleged that what is urged thus in General and in Theory is to be applyed to the Constitution of the Government of England otherwise it reacheth not the point in Question concerning the Kings power of dispensing with College Statutes To which I Answer first That the Kings power in dispensing with Penal Laws in General having by Solemn Judgment in the Kings Bench been determined and several Treatises published to clear the point of Law and there being so lately a * Jus Coronae Treatise Writ by a Judicious person wherein the Kings power in that matter is Learnedly discussed I may be excused from treating more particularly of that § 3. Observations on the 25 H. 8. C. 21. I shall therefore only note a few observables from the Statute of the 25 of King H. 8. Chapter the 21. Entituled in Kebles Edition 1684. An Act concerning Peter-pence and Dispensations but Originally Entituled otherwise as may be seen in the * 1 2 Phil. M. c. 8. sect 10. Act of Repeal in Queen Maries time and the * 1 Eliz. c. 1. sect 8. Act of restoring it in Queen Elizabeths time to which I shall add the explication of another Act 8 Eliz. Cap. 1. and some few other remarks upon that Head. The Foundation of this Act is grounded upon an Hypothesis The Statute 25 H. 8. c. 21. is founded upon the usage of a dispensing power that a dispensing power is needful in Government and altho' it be the constant Opinion and Judgment of the Courts of Law and all Lawyers that the principal intendment of that Act was to Abolish the Popes power and Authority in England in granting Licences Dispensations Faculties c. Yet from this Act many particulars may be observed I must refer the Reader to the Act it self which will shew not only the allowed usage of a dispensing power by the Popes and Prelates in matters of Ecclesiastical Cognizance by sufferance as the Act Styles it of our Kings but that the Original Right of such dispensations was in the King and so continues It is then First to be noted from the Act The Pope excercised a dispensing power that the Pope claimed by Usurpation as it is there Styled and persuaded the Subjects that he had a power to dispense with all Human Laws yea and Customs of all Realms in all Causes which he called Spiritual But the same Act saith that such claim of the Pope was in Derogation of the Kings Imperial Crown and Authority Royal contrary to Right and Reason The power excercised by the sufferance of the King and in derogation of the Royal Authority Therefore in the close of this Section it is added that because it is now in these days present seen that the State Dignity Superiority Reputation and Authority of the said Imperial Crown of this Realm by the long sufferance of the said unreasonable and un-charitable usurpations and exactions practised in the times of the Kings most Noble Progenitors is much and sore decayed and diminished c. Therefore remedy is provided c. From hence I think with submission Nota. it must be owned that if the Pope usurped this power in derogation of the Authority Royal then that power must be owned to be originally in the King otherwise in the Construction of the Act it could be no Usurpation §. 4. The Ecclesiastical power originally in the King according to this Act. ☞ Besides it 's the general Opinion of the greatest Lawyers of England that according to the Constitution of our Laws all Ecclesiastical power and Authority in England is Originally in the King so derived from him or if otherwise it is adjudged Usurpation and encroachment It being an undeniable Maxim That no person hath power or Jurisdiction in England but the King or what is derived from him and this power of the King cannot be disposed away nor abolished but by express words in an Act of Parliament Yea so Sacred are the Prerogatives of the Crown that tho' in some Cases the Kings of England have by Act of Parliament departed with their Prerogatives So the Statutes of the 23 H. 6. about Sheriffs and 31 H. 6. about Justices of Assize are frequently dispensed with Coke 12 Rep. 14. Hoberts Reports Colt and Glovers Case p. 146. and yielded not to dispense with the contrary by a non-obstante yet such Acts have been judged void So my Lord Hobert upon this very Statute saith that he holds it clear that tho' this Statute says that all Dispensations c. shall be granted in manner and form following and not otherwise yet the King is not thereby restrained The Kings prerogative not restrained by Acts of Parliament on several Cases 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. Dyer 211. The Commission of Tryal of Pyracy upon the Statute of 28 H. 8. cap. 53. is good tho' the Chancellor do not nominate the Commissioners as that Statute appoints yet it is a new Law and Mich. 5. and 6 Eliz. Dyer 225. the Queen made Sheriffs without the Judges notwithstanding the Statute of 9 E. 2. and Mich. 13. and 14 Eliz. Dyer 303. The Office of Aulnage granted by the Queen without the Bill of the Treasurer is good with a non-obstante against the Statute 31 H. 6. cap. 5. For these Statutes and the like saith the Reverend Judge were made to put things in Ordinary Form and to ease that Sovereign of Labor but not to deprive him of Power He further adds that notwithstanding the excercise of the Popes Authority yet the Crown always kept a Possession of it's Natural power of Dispensations in Spiratualibus as 11 H. 4. so to retain Benefices with Bishoprics and 11 H. 7. to have double Benefices I might add to these to Reservation in the Statute 2 R. 1 Hen. 4. cap. 6. 2. c. 4. saving to the King his Regality to be found in the Parliament Roll in the Kings Confirmation of Liberties which Sir Ed. Coke 4. Instit 51. complain of for being un-printed as also of King Henry the 4th that he will by the Assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal aforesaid and at the request of the said Commons be Counselled by the Wise Men of his Council in things touching the Estate of him and of his Realm saving always his liberty that is his Prerogative for that is properly the King Liberty §. 5. Where to find Arguments for the dispensing power I shall not trouble the Reader with
thus expressed est Actus quo Divinum numen fidei faciendae causa adhibemus vel Invocatio Divini numinis in Testimonium I need not trouble the Reader with the divisions of Oaths or with the Schoolmens Opinions who can Absolve persons from the obligation of them ☞ The forementioned Author asserts that Superiors (b) Possunt enim Superiores ut Papa Princeps alii irritare Juramenta facta de re sibi subjecta sicut possunt irritare vota qualem facultatem habet pater respectu liberorum Superior respectusubditorum Dominus respectu Servorum maritus respectu Uxoris in iis rebus in quibus tales personae sunt subjectae ratio est quia nullus Jurare potest in praejudicium alterius Id. Ibid. puncto 17 proposit 4. as the Pope Princes or others may Vacate the Oaths made in a matter subject to them as well as they can Vows which kind of faculty he saith a Father hath in respect of his Children a Superior in respect of his Subjects a Lord in respect of his Servants an Husband in respect of his Wife in those things in which such persons are subject the reason of which is because none can Swear in prejudice of another As to the several ways how the obligation of an Oath is taken away the School-men (a) Quando Materia juramenti promissorii subest alterius potestate sive ille sit Ecclesiasticus sive Laicus sive persona publica vel privata hoc modo interdum irrita redduntur a Conciliis summis Pontificibus Juramenta qua fiunt in Capitulis a Canonicis de Servandis Statutis consuetudinibus de acceptando vel non acceptando Beneficio similia quaesiunt in Universitatibus c. alia Id genus censetur enim in hujusmodi semper excepta potestas Superioris quam Inferiores per suum Juramentum restringere non possunt Lessius lib. 2. c. 42. Dub. 12. num 61. call it by Irritation when the matter of a Promissary Oath is subject to anothers power whether it be an Ecclesiastic or Lay a public or private person ☞ In this manner saith my Author both by the Decrees of Councils and Popes if the Superior forbid those Oaths are void which are made in Chapters by the Canons of the same for observing Statutes and Customs of receiving or not receiving Statutes and the like of the observing of Statutes of Universities and gives the Reason out of Cajetan because in all such Promissory Oaths the power of the Superior is to be excepted whom the Inferiors cannot bind by their Oaths So they who have Sworn to observe (b) Illi qui Statuta Civitatis Jurarunt observare Juramenti Vinculo non tenentur postquam Statuta legitimi Superioris Authoritate fuerint abrogata Bonacina Disp 4. q. 1. punct 17. prop. 1. n. 15. the Statutes of a City are not obliged by their Oaths after the Statutes have been Abrogated by the Authority of a Lawful Superior The like may be said of all College Statutes and Constitutions And that the Kings Dispensation is a Temporary Abrogation at least of any such Statutes will be made appear below So Bishop Sanderson (c) Cum quis Juravit Statuta alicujus Collegii sibi praelecta observare postea contigerit ea Statuta revocari vel abrogari Jurans absolvitur a vinculo Juramenti Sanderson de Juramento obligatorio praelect 7. Sect. 7. p. 225. saith when any hath Sworn to observe the Statutes of any College Read to him if it happen that those Statutes are Revoked or Abrogated he that Swears is Absolved from the obligation of that Oath The reason of which is That the Sovereign hath Power to alter and adnul See Cap. 6. Sect. 2. here For that if the Sovereign have power to take away a College Statute and hath Abrogated and Suspended it for a time The Oath to observe that Statute is Null because they Swear to observe that which is not in Being for de non ente nulla sunt praedicata And in the particular Case of St. Mary Magdalen College they Swore to observe the Statute about Election which the King had taken away by his Mandate §. 3. Thus Martinus (a) Tom. 2d Disp 4. q. 1. punct 17. prop. 1. fol. 228. Bonacina saith the obligation of an Oath is hindred first by a Law which destroys the Human Contract or matter of the promise upon which it is built For the Foundation being taken away the Superstructure is likewise destroyed and Lay-man gives the reason for that (b) Quia Juramentum est accessorium contractui seu promissioni sicut ergo promissio hanc habet tacitam conditionem nisi promissio remittatur a promissario vel rescindatur ita etiam eandem conditionem habet Juramentum Lay-man lib. 4. Tract 5. c. 8. n. 3. an Oath is an Accessary to the Contract or Promise so that as a promise hath that Tacit condition unless the promise be remitted by the person to whom it was promised or be rescinded by the Judge so the like condition hath the Oath which is Appendant to the promise The forementioned Bonacina speaking of the observance of Statutes of a Society c. subjoyns this which is opposite to our Case From which we (c) Ex quo licet inferre Jurantem revocato Statuto non amplius obligari ad illud servandum Ratio est quia Juramentum obligat ad servanda Decreta sicut continentur in Statutis ita explicandum est Juramentum sicut res supra quamcadit tum quia Juramentum stricte Interpretandum est non vero dilatandum propter periculum perjurii Idem Disp 4. q. 1. punct 16. prop. 1. n. 2. fol. 226. a. may conclude saith he that a Statute being revoked the Swearer is no longer obliged to the keeping of it and the reason he gives is That the Oath obligeth to the keeping of Decrees as they are contained in the Statutes and the Oath is so to be explained as the thing is which enforceth the obligation and for that the Oath is to be Interpreted strictly not to be enlarged for that otherwise one may be endangered to be perjured The meaning of which is that supposing a Lawful Authority which I presume none will deny the King hath shall Suspend or for the time revoke the Statute the persons that have taken an Oath to observe them are absolved from all obligation to that Oath because an Oath that really obliges is to be taken in the strictest sense because perjury is a great Sin therefore all the Latitude is to be allowed that rationably may be before an Oath be adjudged obligatory lest Men be Involved in it To back this he Cites many School-men which the Reader may have recourse to if he pleaseth Secondly By prohibiting (a) Idem ibid. vide Sanchez in summa lib. 3. cap. 11. the Execution so tho' a Prince cannot (b) Lege civili Impediri posse
the late Noble Chancellor The Relation of the grounds of the Petition touching the validity of one of our Statutes viz. de Morâ Sociorum in Collegio upon which a Letter for the Suspending of it was granted by his Majesty we now the present Master and a greater part of the Fellows of the said College finding many inconveniences which do and may ensue upon it contrary to his Majesties Royal intendment and desire of our relief and advancement by it in that Suspension graciously declared and signified become humble Petitioners to your Lordship as being the Noble Ornament of our College and most honorable Chancellor of the University that you would vouchsafe to take it into your serious consideration and move his Majesty for the Revocation of the said Suspension in regard of these Reasons which we presume to tender to your Honor. 1. The main ground the former Petitioners went upon Nine Reasons for this Petition was a persuasion that either this was no Statute or not of like validity with the rest which upon full proof after long debating being by the Heads of Colleges Confessed to be otherwise they did surcease their suit and some of them became Petitioners that the said Statute might be re-established 2. The Master by his Oath which he took at his Admission is bound both to keep all the Statutes inviolably himself as also to see the same done by others which the Suspension forbiddeth him in this Statute de Morâ Sociorum c. 3. The Fellows by their Oath at their Admission are debarred from accepting any dispensation either against any of the Founders Statutes or against that their Oath and thereby seem to be disabled from taking any benefit of this Suspension expresly containing a dispensation with the said Oath 4. None of the Fellows to our knowledge was ever yet by vertue of the said Statute turned out of his Fellowship unprovided excepting one only of the present Petitioners who notwithstanding before he left the College was provided of a good Parsonage from whence he was since chosen Master of the said College 5. Since the Suspension six of the Fellows before their time granted by Statute was expired have been called to good Benefices with Pastoral charge four of which were the Petitioners for the qualification of the said Statute 6. We conceive just grounds of fear partly by what we have heard partly for other sufficient reasons that the said Suspension hath already been and may prove hereafter a discouragement to those who otherwise would be Benefactors to our College 7. The Fellowships being but few in this College if they be enlarged to perpetuity younger Scholars will be dis-couraged in their Studies seeing small hope of preferment for them be forced to leave the University before they be well fitted for a Pastoral charge 8. Whereas our Honorable Founder Erected this College for a Nursery to the Church of England and expresseth this to have been his meaning that those who were brought up in it should upon a fair Call be transplanted hence after they were fitted for the Ministry the aforesaid liberty of longer continuance will in likelihood make some unwilling to take on them a Pastoral charge being offered whereby the Founders Pious intent shall be crossed the Church deprived of the labors of such and they shall not only remain unprofitable in the College but also may in short time draw to themselves the Chief Government of the same the Master having no Negative voice to hinder it as all other Masters of Colleges have 9. The Statute standing in it's former force would have prevented no small disturbances of the peace of the College which have lately hapened For all which Reasons we continue our former suit and rest your Lorships humble Petitioners William Sandcroft Anth. Tuckney Thomas Hill. William Bridge Samuel Bowles David Ensing Anth. Burges §. 14. Observations upon this Petion Upon this Petition King Charles the First in the beginning of his Reign referred the matter to the Vice-Chancellor and some Heads of Colleges as I am informed upon whose report the King saw no reason to take off his dispensation altho' the Grandson of the Founder promised to add more Spiritual Benefices to the Revenue of the College whereby the Fellows might be better provided for Here first we may note that one part of the Oath which the Fellows take being in these words Nullam dispensationem contra Statuta fundatoris impetrabo nec impetrari curabo nec Impetratam acceptabo viz. that they will neither obtain any dispensation contrary to the Statutes of the Founder nor will endeavor that any other should obtain them or will accept of any such being obtained so that the Fellows of this College were under the like obligation as these of St. Mary Magdalen College were Yet Secondly they all own the Kings power in dispensing with this Statute and only by way of Petition shew their Reasons why the King should be desired to revoke it but we hear of no persisting in the matter so as to cause the King to exercise his Supreme Authority to enforce their obedience but pay a ready obedience and that dispensation is in force to this day Thirdly It is to be noted that this dispensation was granted and yielded to in a time when there were no public animosities or that any Factious Combinations in the State Caballed against the Crown but all was Calm it being in the Halcyon Days of King Charles the First and the Prerogative of the Crown was not disputed Therefore we ought to allow this as a most Authentic Precedent of the Kings dispensing power not for one or more single persons but with an entire Statute which concerned the Succession of several persons in that and in succeeding Ages Fourthly As to the persons that Petition Dr. Sandcroft was then Master and Unkle to the present Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Dr. Tuckney was in the time of the long Parliaments Usurpation Master of St. Johns College in Cambridge and Dr. Hill Master of Trinity College Dr. Bridge and Dr. Burges were great Preachers and Daemagogs of that Parliament §. 15. Dr. Brady's Account of the Kings Nominating the Provost of Kings College in Cambridge I shall now close this with an Account which the Learned Dr. Brady Regius Physic Professor in Cambridge hath given me at my desire when he was at the last Commencement That in Kings College in Cambridge they have a Statute that directs them to choose a Provost in such Form and with such Qualifications as are appointed in the Statute and by Oath are bound not to accept of any Dispensation to the contrary yet from the very Foundation by King H. 6. the Provost was ever named by the King to be chosen by the Fellows and it hath been so constantly observed The Fellows as the present Provost informs put up a Petition to King James the First that he would be Graciously pleased to leave them to their free choice But his Answer was that the Statute was Abrogated by the very practice of the Founder who Named two Provosts Successively in his Life time and by the constant practice of Succeeding Kings and that he was their Founder for that the King never Dyes and he would not part with his Right of Nomination but in other things would leave them to the free use of their Statutes Thus far the Doctors Letter I might add many other Modern Instances of the entire obedience payed to the Kings Mandates by Masters and Fellows of Colleges and the unquestionableness of the Kings dispensing with Statutes in both Universities and particularly in St. Mary Magdalen College in the Reign of King Charles the Second but understanding that a Member of that College hath Writ a Tract on that Subject I shall here Conclude FINIS