Bishop of Oxford President § 6. pag. 50. Observations upon it pag. 51. CHAP. II. THe proceedings of the Lords Commissioners in the Local Visitation of St. Mary Magdalen College in Oxford pag. 52. SECT I. The Transactions from the Citation sent October 17th 1687. to the 19th of the same Month. pag. 52. Citation of Mr. John Hough the Fellows Schollars and other Members of St. Mary Magdalen College § 1. pag. 53. The proceedings of the Lords Commissioners Friday Morning October the 21st § 2. p. 54. The Bishop of Chesters Speech pag. 55. Proceedings Friday Afternoon pag. 62. Proceedings Saturday Morning Octob. 22d § 3. Ibid. Proceedings Saturday Afternoon pag. 63. The Lords Commissioners Letter to my Lord President October 22d § 4. pag. 63. The Account sent of the Lords Commissioners procedings till the Evening of October 22d with some supplemental Additions from the Bishop of Chesters Notes and Dr. Thomas Smiths Diary § 4. pag. 65. to 71. The Vice-Chancellor of Oxfords Programma which was published by the Vice-Chancellor without any complaint of the Lords Commissioners as by mistake is expressed § 5. pag. 71. My Lord Presidents Answer to the Lords Visitors Letter of the 22d of October § 6. pag. 72. Dr. Staffords paper in defence of Dr. Houghs Election c. § 7. pag. 74. The Bishop of Oxfords Proxy § 8. pag. 76. The Kings Mandate to the Lords Visitors to Admit the Bishop of Oxford or in his absence by his Proxy if the Fellows refuse to Admit him § 9. pag. 77. 78. Dr. Thomas Smith's Answer about Admitting the Bishop of Oxford § 10. pag. 79. The Admission of the Bishop of Oxford by his Proxy pag. 80. Other proceedings on Tuesday Morning § 11. p. 81. Submission of the Fellows to the Bishop of Oxon conditional § 12. pag. 81. Sentence against Dr. Henry Fairfax and his protestation against the proceedings of the Lords Commissioners § 13. pag. 84. 85. Papers from Mr. John Gilman Dr. Thomas Smith and Mr. William Craddock § 14. pag. 86. 87. The Answer of the Lords Commissioners to the Lord Presidents Letter of the 23d of Octo. § 15. pag. 87. The Account the Fellows gave in concerning their Hospitality and Charities § 16. pag. 90. 91. Dr. Thomas Smiths paper upon the same account § 17. pag. 92. Proceedings Thursday Morning Octo. 27. § 18. pag. 94. The Lord Presidents Answer to the Lords Commissioners Letter of the 25th Octo. § 19. pag. 94. 95. Proceedings Friday Morning Octo. 28. § 20. pag. 96. A paper of the Fellows Justifying their Election § 21. pag. 96. 97. The Fellows refusing to submit to what was required § 22. pag. 95. Dr. Bayleys explication of his Submission § 23. pag. 98. Mr. George Fulhams Answer to the Question about submission and the Sentence of Expulsion against him § 24. pag. 100. SECT II. The Second Visitation by Adjournment of St. Mary Magdalen College by the Lords Commissioners pag. 101. The Kings Mandate for Mr. William Joyner and Mr. Job Allibon § 1. pag. 102. The Lord Bishop of Chesters Speech § 2. pag. 103. to 112. The form of the Petition and Submission required of the Fellows and Mr. Thompsons Answer § 3. pag. 112. 113. Dr. Aldworths Reply and Justification of himself § 4. pag. 114. The Decree of the Lords Commissioners of Expulsion of the Fellows that would not submit § 5. pag. 116. The protestation of the Expelled Fellows § 6. pa. 117. Mandates for other Fellows Ibid and pag. 118. The proceedings of the Lords Commissioners at Whitehall after the return of the Lords Visitors from Oxford § 7. pag. 118. 119. The Sentence of Incapacitating the Expelled Fellows § 8. pag. 120. 121. The Method the Author intends to proceed in pag. 122. CHAP. III. OF the Nature and Constitution of the Societies of the Liberal Arts such as Colleges and Vniversities are pag. 123. SECT I. Concerning Incorporations in General and the Privileges granted to the Vniversities of Oxford and Cambridge by our Kings or by the Popes pag. 123. How all sorts of Societies and Corporations are Founded by the King. § 1. pag. 123. How all Colleges and Corporations are made such by the King. § 2. p. 124. Things requisite to a Corporation § 3. pag. 125. The end for which Corporations are constituted § 4. pag. 126. The power of conferring Degrees in Universities conferred on Subjects by the Sovereign § 5. pag. 127. 128. SECT II. From whom the Vniversity of Oxford hath had 〈◊〉 it's Privileges pag. 129. The Kings of England sole Donors of privileges during the Saxons time § 1. pag. 129. Privileges granted by Kings after the Conquest § 2. pag. 130. The Pope confirms them pag. 131. King Henry 3d. grants privileges during his pleasure § 3. pag. 132. Privileges granted by King Edw. 1st pag. 133. And King Edw. 2d pag. 134. And King Edw. 3d. Ibid. And King Rich. 2d § 4. pag. 135. Inferences from the before recited Charters pag. 136. And from those of King Hen. 4th and King Hen. the 5th and King Hen. 6th § 5. pag. 137. The Method of Founding a College § 6. pag. 137. 138. The confirmation of Pope Sixtus the 4th § 7. pa. 138. The Charters of King Henry the 8th and his power over the Universities § 8. pag. 140. Wrong Printed § 9. King Hen. 8th retaining the Statutes of the University § 10. pag. 141. Falsly § 11. The King seizeth all the privileges § 11. pag. 142. CHAP. IV. COncerning the Visiting of the Vniversities and particularly of that of Oxford pag. 144. SECT I. Concerning the Kings Supremacy and Power in Ecclesiastical Causes and Visitations pag. 144. What power the Kings of England used before the Conquest § 1. pag. 144. In what particulars some of our Kings exercised a power in Ecclesiastical matters § 2. pag. 145. Of Investiture of Bishops § 3. pag. 148. Concerning the Admitting the Popes Legats here Ibid. and 149. Disputes betwixt the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and the Popes Legats § 4. pag. 150. How the Popes Legats exercised greater power in latter times § 5. pag. 151. The Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Created Legatus Natus § 6. pag. 152. When the Style of Legatus a Latere began to be used here § 7. pag. 153. How the Legats power was allowed by the King in Visitations c. Ibid. and pag. 154. Concerning Arch-Bishops and Bishops Visitations § 8. pag. 155. How the King promoted Bishops c. § 9. pag. 155. How far the Canons were allowed here § 10. pag. 155. 156. Secular Courts Judged here what was to be held of Ecclesiastical Cognizance § 11. pag. 156. The Application of this Discourse to the matter of Visitation c. § 12. pag. 157. In what particulars our Kings claimed not Ecclesiastical Administration § 13. pag. 157. 158. How the Pope obtained greater power § 14. pag. 158. The Kings Supremacy asserted by King Henry the 8th § 15.
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
quod totum Archiepiscopatum in Dominium meum Redigam nec illum pro Archiepiscapo ultra recipiam Idem fol. 38.10 from the King that if he went he should for certain know that he would seize his whole Arch-Bishopric into his hands nor would he receive him for Arch-Bishop any more like as now the Writ no exeat Regno is used with a Penalty specified After this the Bishops of Winchester Lincoln Salisbury and Bathe with several Barons sent to him by the King tell him that he had troubled the King with many complaints How that at the Parliament held at Rockingham he had (d) Pollicitus es per te usus ac leges suas usque quaque deinceps servaturum cas sibi contra emnes homines fideliter defensurum Idem fol. 39.27 In this whole Relation of matter of Fact it is to be owned that it was the personal repair of a Peer or great Man to Rome to Appeal that was forbid without the Kings leave but Appeals by Proctors were Anciently used in several Cases promised for the future The promise of an Arch-Bishop in all respects to keep and observe the Customs and the Kings Laws and to defend them faithfully against all Men which was an Oath of Fidelity used in that Age and bound him in Allegiance by reason of his Temporalities but no ways like the present Oath of Supremacy upon which they tell him the King believed he would have been quiet for the future But that he had openly contravened his promise and Faith by threatning to go to Rome without the Kings leave Which was a thing altogether unheard of before and against the usages of the Kingdom that any of the Great Men and especially himself should presume any such thing and lest the King should either be wearied or importun'd with him any more or with any other who being aggrieved might follow his Example The King (a) Jubet ut quatenus jure jurando promittas quod nunquam amplius sedem St. Petri vel ejus Vicarsum pro quavis quae tibi queat ingeri causa Appellas aut si sub omni celeritate de terra suâ recedat Idem 39.36 Commands that by Oath he should promise that he would never Appeal to the See of St. Peter or his Vicar for any cause that might befall him or if he did that he should speedily depart out of the Kings Territories But the Arch-Bishop persisting in his resolution to go had not only his Arch-Bishopric seized but the Pope being shewed how his Carriage here was resented did not afford him either (b) Idem fol. 52.17 53 28. Consilium or Auxilium yet the Writers of that Age censure that as an exorbitance of the Kings power however it may be a Document to some not obstinately to oppose their Prince ☞ By this Relation of matter of Fact it is evident The Inference from this History These are to be understood of matters Political and of Government not in matters of Doctrin and Faith. that in the time of these two Kings whatever was directed from Rome hither or was done by the Arch-Bishop was to have the Kings Approbation otherwise it was not suffered to be executed so that the Kings allowance before made public as now used in France was requisite to give them a practicableness here §. 3. Of the Investitures of Bishops It is allowed by our Historians (c) Ingulphus fol. 500. vid. literas Paschaâ—lis 2 Henrico 2. apud Eadmerum fol. 113. 115. generally that the Receiving Investitures of Churches from our Princes their calling of Synods determining Causes Ecclesiastical without Appeal to Rome their Translating of Bishops c. have been practised here in Ancient times the Canons and Popes reclaiming sometimes quitted and resumed by our Kings as State Interest required It is clear in History This was no conferring holy Orders but in relation to their Baronies that Bishops received Investitures from the King by delivery of a Staff as an acknowledgment of a subjection to the King at least for their Baronies which was after yielded not to be done by Lay Hands yet King Henry the First at one time Writ to the Pope that he would (a) Nec pro Amissione Regni sui passurum se perdere Investituras Ecclesiarum Idem fol. 73.13 not for the loss of his Kingdom lose the Investiture of Churches and another time he threatned that without doubt he would resume his Investitures because he held them in Peace However I do not find that this went any further then Swearing Fealty to the King Oath of Fidelity which seems to have long continued and which was a sufficient badge of subjection So we find a Writ (b) Gervac Dorob 4.1187 Col. 1503.36 from R. de Glanvil to the Abbot of Batle c. wherein he Commands him on the part of the King by the Faith which he owes him and by the Oath which he made to him to do what he then enjoyned ☞ As to the Legatine Power Concerning the power of Legats it is apparent by several Instances that none Exercised any here without the Kings leave whether by the Grant of Pope Nicholas to Edward the Confessor I dispute not I shall only note some few King Henry the First had an Interview at Gisors with Pope Calixtus and obtained of him that he should Grant him all the Customs which his Father King William the First had in England and Normandy and especially (c) Maxime ut neminemaliquando Legati Officio in Anglia fungi permitteret si non ipsa aliquâ praecipuâ quaerelâ exigentur quae ab Archiepiscopo Cantuariorum Caeterisque Episcopis Regni terminari non possint hoc fieri a Papa postularet Kidm fol. 125.53 that he would permit none at any time to exercise the Office of Legat in England unless the King upon any special Plea should require it and the thing could not be determined by the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and the Rest of the Bishops of the Kingdom and that the King should desire it of the Pope How the Popes Legats were received may be best known by some Instances Instances how the Popes Legats were received The Wars betwixt France Scotland England might make this caution When Guido Arch-Bishop of Vienna Anno 1100. In the beginning of King Henry the First 's Reign by the Popes Authority was appointed Legat as he gave it out Eadmerus saith that it was an admiration to all in England for all knew that it was (a) Inauditum scilicet in Brittannia cuncti Scientes quemlibet hominum super se vices Apostolicas Gerere nisi solum Archiepiscopum Cantuarierum Idem fol. 58.40 unheard of in Brittain that any Man except the Bishop of Canterbury had the Popes power Therefore as he came so he returned being received by none as Legat neither did he perform the Office of a Legat while here The words of my Author are a nemine pro
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
Books say it was Robbed or derived Because such powers being taken away from the Pope and such as had Authority under him and neither settled in any Court or person by the Statute can re-vest or re-sult to none other but the King as Supreme in all Ecclesiastical as well as Temporal Causes which by Sufferance or Usurpation as the Act saith the Pope had excercised Fifthly By the several Acts and Instances whereby the Kings of England since the making of this Act of the 25th King Henry the 8th have exerted their Supreme Authority it is clear that the Crowns Re-assumption of what the Pope had exercised hath been according to the Laws in being of which I now proceed to give Instances in the Kings dispensing with College Statutes of which I shall give some few in several Cases of many hundreds which are to be found in the Paper Office or Secretaries Books §. 7. An account of the Queens Mandate about Electing of a Master of St. Johns College in Cambridge The first Instance I think fit to Insert is as followeth The Course that was held in the last Election of the Mastership of St. Johns College in Cambridge First Bundel Ecclesiastic Universities Paper-Office The Statute of that College appointeth the Twelfth day after the Vacation to be the day of their Election and no other Secondly The greater part of the Fellows of the College were made for Mr. Alvey a Senior Fellow Thirdly The Lord Treasurer being Informed that Alvey was an unfit Man set down an Inhibition in the Queens Name to defer the Election which Inhibition was obeyed Fourthly The 12th day being passed and no further power left to the Fellows to Elect The Lord Treasurer sent a Letter the second time in the Queens Name Nominating Dr. Clayton and Dr. Stainton Commanding the Fellows to choose one of them and no other Fifthly By Authority of those Letters they choose Dr. Clayton By this proceeding it is manifest that the King may not only by a Mandate of Inhibition stay the Electors from making any choice but nominate the person to be Elected altho' by College Statutes the day of the Election and the Electors were appointed §. 8. The Bishop of Londons Testimony that the King hath dispensed with College Statutes Before I enter upon the particular Mandates I shall produce the Testimony of George Montague Bishop of London in his Letter a Copy of which the Honorable Sir Joseph Williamson afforded me out of the Paper-Office directed to Sir Edward Conway Principal Secretary of State as followeth Right Honorable THe Noble and Vertuous Lady the Lady Denbigh hath layed a Command upon me to deliver my knowledge whether the King hath at any time by his Letters dispensed with the Local Statutes of any College by a Non-obstante and upon a search it appears that his Majesty hath sent Letters of that nature to divers Colleges If this Information may promote her desires and give you satisfaction I shall be right glad and will ever remain London Decemb. 10th 1623. Your Honors Friend to Command and humble Servant Geo. London §. 9. A Mandate dispensing with Incapacities to receive Degrees I now proceed to give some Extracts of Mandates wherein the King dispenseth with College Statutes in one of which Dated December the 11th Anno 1624. the persons within named being some ways Incapacitated to take their respective Degrees were dispensed with as followeth Trusty and Well-beloved We Great you well In a Bundel Docketed Ecclesiastic Universities in the Paper-Office at Whitehall We are Graciously please of Our Royal Favor to Gabriel More Harrington Butler George Bursey and Michael Gilbert to advance them to such Degrees as they are capable of and well deserve by their Learning and diligent Studies tho' in some respects not qualified Therefore Our pleasure is that notwithstanding any Statute or other Ordinance to the contrary you forthwith Create Gabriel More a Dr. in Divinity and you also admit Harrington Butler and George Bursey to the Degree of Master of Arts and Michael Gibert Bachellor of Arts in such Form as is usual in like Case and these Letters shall be your Warrant In a Mandate for one William Morley to be a Schollar of the College of St. A Mandate for a Schollar of St. Mary Winton College without examination Mary of Winton College Oxon without Examination are these words and tho' we have a favorable Eye to your freedom that are the Electors yet in this Our so Extraordinary Recommendation We expect your Dutiful respects to this Our Princely Pleasure and Command so that this Our Will be not dis-appointed for any respet whatsoever Directed to Our Trusty and Well-belove Dr. Princock Warden of St. Mary Winton College in Our University of Oxford and Our Trusty and Well-beloved Dr. Love Warden of St. Mary Winton College near Winchester the under Warden School-Master of the College and two Posers of the Schollars for the Election In a Mandate Dated 3 o. Regni Caroli 1. A Mandate dispensing with the Incapacity by reason of the County For one Gregory Isham I find these words But because We understand that the Country where he was Born layeth some formal Incapacity upon him We are pleased hereby to Dispense therewith and do require that his Country may not be any Impediment to him in that Election Ibid. notwithstanding any Statute or Order to the contrary And these Our Letters shall be sufficient Warrant in that behalf §. 10. The acknowlegement from St. Johns College in Cambridge of the Kings power in dispensing with College Statutes March the 28th Bundel Eccles Universities 1630. c. 1633. In a Letter of the Master and Fellows of St. Johns College to the Earl of Holland the Chancellor about their choosing Dr. Digby according to his Majesties Letters Dr. Beale being then Master I find they allege that he was not capable by some Statutes having not performed some things the Statutes required They write thus Yet his Sacred Majesties Request would have been tye enough upon his most Dutiful and Obedient Servants to have endeavored the accomplishment of his Royal desire had we been enabled thereunto by Dispensation with those opposite Statutes which otherwise we stand obliged by Oath to observe Which plainly shews that if a Dispensation had been obtained or inserted in the Mandate the King had been obeyed I find that the Master and Fellows of Christ College in Cambridge In the Paper Office Ecclesiastica Academica without date being desirous to Capacitate one Norton then but Senior Sophister for a Fellowship sent him with Letters Testimonial to Oxford whereupon he obtained his Bachellors Degree and so was Elected Fellow A Senior Sophister may take Bachellor of Arts Degree by dispensation The Relation saith that the Arch-Bishop hearing of it expressed some displeasure and said he would call him to an Account for his taking the Oath for Bachellor having not full time and being not dispensed with
Legato susceptus nec in aliquo Legati officio functus ☞ In the Letters of Paschalis the Second of the 30th of March and the 1st of April Fourteen Years after the returning of the Legat Guido the Pope Expostulats with the King about several matters one of which is his admitting neither Messenger (b) Sedis Apostolicae Nuncii vel litterae praeter Jussum Regiae Majesto tis nullam in Potestate tuae susceptionem aut aditum promerentur nullus inde clamor nullum inde Judicium ad sedem Apostolicam destinantur Idem fol. 113. 116. nor Letter to be received but by his leave and the Year following Anselm Nephew to the late Arch-Bishop and after Abbot of St. Edmundsbury shewed by Letters that he had Committed to his Administration Vices Apostolicas in Anglia This made known here the Queen Clergy and Nobility gather'd in Council at London concluded that the Arch-Bishop should go to the King to Normandy and make known to him the Ancient Custom of the Realm and by his Advice to Rome that these new things might be Annihilated haec Nova annihilaret So the Arch-Bishop went to the King to Roan and met Anselm there designing his Journey for England but King Henry not suffering that any prejudice saith my Author should be brought upon the Ancient Customs of England deteined Anselm from going to England §. 4. The Subjects repine at the Legats Praecedence of the Arch-Bishop Canterbury ☞ Soon after we find Legats sent and particularly John Cremensis Anno 1125. 25 H. 1. Who being but a Priest Cardinal yet using the Habit of a Bishop and performing the Office on Easter Day in a more Eminent Chair as an Arch-Bishop gave offence But in a Council which he held and presided in at London the Kingdom took more offence saith my Author for then (a) Videres enim rem hactenus regno Anglorum inauditam Clericum scilicet Presbyterii tantum Gradu perfunctum Archiepiscopis Episcopis Abbatibus totiusque Regni Nobilibus qui confluxerant in sublimi solio praesidere illos autem deorsum sedentes ad nutum ejus vultu auribus animum suspensum habentes Gerv. Dorob Acta Pontif. Col. 1663.42 saith he we might see a thing hitherto unheard of in the Kingdom of England A Clerk only having the Degree of a Priest preside in a lofty Throne above the Arch-Bishops Bishops Abbots and all the Nobles of the Kingdom that Assembled there they sitting below with Countenances and Ears attending his pleasure ☞ In this I take not so much notice that he assumed such a place that being due according to the Dignity of the Person he Represented and is no more to be wondered at then that the Lord Cromwell as Vicar General had place before the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury but I cannot but observe that it was looked upon as such a Novelty and a thing not used before even as the Vicar Generals place was in the latter Ages And it is supposed by some to be the first President of any Clergy Mans having Precedence here of the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury who was Styled Alterius Orbis Papa as having Vices Apostolicas here But in Anno 1127. To take off this Envy the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury William Corbet was declared Legat and in May following held a Council at Windsor wherein (b) Cui praesidet sicut Apostolicae sedis Legatus Florent Wigorn An. 1126.1127 he presided as Legat of the Apostolic See and it must be owned that tho' these first three Kings after the Conquest Contested with Popes in these matters yet afterwards Kings yielded more to the Canons of the Church §. 5. Further power exercised by Legats ☞ Anno 1138. 3 Steph. Albert or Alberic Cardinal of Hostia was the Popes Legat and Consecrated Theobald Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and called the Clergy to a (a) Gerv. Dorob Col. 1346.58 Colloquium by Apostolic Authority by which it appears that the Canons of the Church now obtained and the King assented to the powers the Legat had so that what was Decreed had the Kings Allowance In (b) Eadmerus fol. 24.11 this Council he Commanded the Prior and Convent of Canterbury to choose such an Arch-Bishop whom the Authority of the Holy Canons in nothing might obstruct and to whom the Bishops of his Province likewise ought to submit Here is to be noted that the Kings Assent was required and to whom the King neither might nor ought justly to deny his Assent and that if any (c) Gerv. Dorob can 9. Col. 1348. injured any Ecclesiastical person and did not give satisfaction after three Admonitions he might be Excommunicated and that none besides the Pope unless the danger of Death were Imminent might enjoyn the manner of his final Penance which my Author * Sir Roger Twisden ut supra says was the first Canon that was made whereby any thing done in England was referred to Rome but of this I doubt Anno 1139.39 H. 1. Pope Innocent the Third Conferred the Legatine power upon Henry Bishop of Winchester King Stephens Brother his Faculties (d) Malmsbury fol. 103. a. 31. were Read at a Council he called at Winchester bearing Date March the 1st There being some differences betwixt the Arch-Bishop and Monks of Canterbury Disputes betwixt the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and the Legat. they were referred from Rome to his Decisions so that he caused both Parties the second time to appear before him 1143. as Lagat and Commanded (e) Willi. Thorâ—s Col. 1853.32 Arch-Bishop Theobald to restore one Jeremy whom he had removed By these and other Carriages there grew great distasts betwixt these two great Prelates The Arch-BiNop prohibited (a) Jo. Hagulst Col. 275. H. 4. Winchester all Ecclesiastical Functions tho' he were the Popes Legat and both apply themselves to the Pope Whence a Learned (b) Sir Roger Twisden Vindis p. 27. Person saith our Historians do setch the use of Appeals to Rome tho' it may be Ancienter §. 6. The Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Created Legatus Natus ☞ These two great Prelates being before Lucius the Second Anno 1144. the Bishop of Winchester (c) Willi. Thorn Col. 1804.44 J. Hagulst Col. 273.61 Anno 1145. was dismissed his Legatine Commission and the Pope finding with how great difficulty the Ecclesiastic Affairs of the Kingdom could be managed by any Legate without the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Created him and his Successors Legati Nati by which such things as the Arch-BiNops did before and which seemed to Interfere with the Popes plenitude of power the exercise of which the Arch-Bishop was not so easily to be divested of he might be said to make use of by a Legatine power After this our Histories are full of Appeals to Rome Greater subjection to the Pope and of the Authority Exercised by Legats and we find some things allowed by the Decrees of Popes to be Transacted by the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury quâ Archibishop and
remedy had been at Common Law only It were easie to quote the resolutions of several Judges Savil's Reports fol. 83.105 that no Appeals lye to any but the King in person from a Sentence of the Kings Commissioners in Ecclesiastical causes so Baron Savile affirms that no Appeal doth lye from a Sentence in the High Commission Court and that the high Commission Court is not within the meaning of the Statute of the 25 of H. 8. but the Opinion of my Lord Dyer or others do not exclude an Appeal to the King in person Dyer's Reports for 42. who is the Fountain of Justice and all the Statutes of King Henry the 8th and Queen Elizabeth as to the Erecting of Courts and granting Jurisdiction do only remit and restore the King to his Ancient Jurisdiction of Visiting and Reforming abuses recieving Appeals and other Judicial Acts as Supreme Head and Ordinary as Serjant Dacres observes §. 15. The Case of Charles Cottington Esq about Appeals I shall now Instance in a case of later date wherein there being an Appeal made to the House of Lords against a Decree of the Delegates the Lords dismissed it as not coming properly before them ☞ The case was this Ex Autographo In the Custody of the Clerk of the Parliament Charles Cottington Esq exhibited his Petition May the 10. 1678. to the Lords shewing that in the Year 1677. he Travailing into Foreign parts unfortunately fell into acquaintance with one Angela Margareta Gallina Daughter to a broken Gold-smith in Turin in the Dukedom of Savoy The Petition of Mr. Cottington and was contracted to her in the presence of a Romish Priest in Turin that afterwards he found her a vicious person Married to one Frichinone Patrimoniale upon which Information he left her and returned for England Then he sets forth that this Gallina came to England and claimed to be the Petitioners Wife that he had cited her before the Dean of the Arches in a cause de jactitatione Matrimonii and she alleged that before the contract with the Petitioner she was Divorced from Patrimoniale and the Divorce was pronounced by the Arch-Bishop of Turin and that tho' he made it appear that the Sentence was Collusory and in it self void and not to be regarded in England yet the Judge of the Arches had Sentenced the said Gallina to be the Petitioners Wife Then follows the premises so highly concerning your Petitioner both to the peril of his Conscience Honor Body and Estate and concerning this his Majesties Kingdom in the Establishing a Foreign Jurisdiction against the Laws of the Kingdom Your Petitioner humbly Appealeth in the premisses to this High and Honorable Court and humbly prayeth that the said Sentence of the said Dean of the Arches and Commissioners Delegates may be reversed This was referred to the Committee of privileges Referred to the Committee of privileges June the 6th it was ordered that Presidents and Records should be brought and Council to be heard June the 12th The Earl of Essex's Report from that Committee The Earl of Essex made report from the Committee that upon full hearing what was alleged by Council on both sides and upon perusal of several Presidents they are of Opinion that the said Appeal did not come properly before them the Earl of Shaftsbury only dissenting as by his Subscription appears The Order is entred in these words Die Lunae 17 o. Junii 1678. According to the Order of the 12th of this Instant June The House of Lords Order upon it the House took into consideration the Report from the Committee of privileges concerning the Appeal of Charles Cottington Esq from the Commissioners Delegates whether the said Appeals be properly brought before this House The Opinion of the Committee being that the said Appeal did not properly come before this House The Opinion of the Committee being that the said Appeal did not properly come before this House After debate and consideration of Presidents the Question being put Whither to agree with this Committee in the Report It was resolved in the Affirmative and it is thereupon Ordered that the Petition and Appeal of the said Charles Cottington be dismissed the House of Peers It is to be considered in this matter Considerations upon this Case that after the Sentence in favor of this Gallina by the Delegates Mr. Cottington Petitioned the King in person for a review or dis-annulling the Decree which the King refused to grant and upon that the Petitioner Addressed himself to the Lords whose Order I have recited and tho' it be not expressed in the same Order why the matter was not properly brought before their Lordships yet it is well known that the cause was by reason that Appeals in Ecclesiastical causes do not lye before their Lordships If I could have procured the Printed Case I might have enlarged upon this matter and if it be my good fortune to meet with it before the Publication hereof I shall take notice of what may be material in the Appendix §. 16. The Ninth Objection that matter of Fact proves not right It is Ninthly Objected that tho' it be allowed that the Kings of England have sometimes dispensed with College Statutes and done those things I have all along Instanced in yet that proves not the Right or Justice of the thing since à facto ad jus non valet consequentia To this I Answer The Answer there is a vast dis-proportion betwixt the Acts of Kings and of Subjects Constant and un-interrupted usage are the Foundations of the Customs of England which are Incorporated into the Common Law of the Land and so many Rights are determined for private persons But in the Orders of the Sovereign one declaration of his pleasure by Mandate in several Cases is sufficient Precedent tho' but rarely made use of upon the presumption in Law that such Acts of Kings are not without deliberate consultation However the constant practice of the Kings of England which I hope I have fully proved takes away all colour for this Argument And it is most certain if the Kings dispensing power with Statutes and putting in Heads of Colleges Fellows c. by Mandates If the Kings Prerogative in this Case had been against Law it would have been questioned at some time had been against the Law we should at some time or other heard of Actions brought before the Judges against the Kings Authority in that matter and found determinations upon them in favor of the aggrieved which I think is not to be found But the Kings of England have been in Possession of this Prerogative in all Ages The King in Possession of this Prerogative tho' most conspicuously since the Reformation and so this Prerogative must be adjudged to appertain to the King till by some Legal Tryal it shall be determined otherwise It may be upon this Topick rationally urged that tho' the Kings dispensing power in other matters be in