prove like the Sin of Witch-craft but the latter will be better accepted than Sacrifice because in that you only offer up a beast to God but in this you Sacrifice your Passions you slay them and offer them up to Gods service Remember Error seldom goes in Company with Obedience and that none are so likely to find the way to Eternal happiness in the end as they who follow the Conduct of their Superiors from the beginning not with Eye service as Men pleasers but in singleness of Heart Fearing God and the King and whatsoever you do do it heartily as unto the Lord and not unto us Men And the Lord give you understanding in all things The Speech being ended the Lords adjourned till the Afternoon to the Common Room of the College FRIDAY Afternoon AT which time the Court being sat Dr. Hough in behalf of himself and the Fellows demanded a Copy of their Lordships Commission which was denyed him and the Court ordered to proceed and then admonished the Fellows to produce the Registery of the College Affairs and also to give an account of what Leases had been Lett for two Years last past together with the Benefactions given to the College and likewise ordered them to bring in the Buttry Book to Morrow Morning to which time they adjourned §. 3. SATVRDAY Morning October 22d 1687. DR Hough was called in and it appearing to their Lordships that his Election to the Presidents place was made null and void by a Sentence given by the Lords Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes and that he the said Dr. Hough had legal notice of the same but notwithstanding the said Sentence he had and did still refuse to submit thereunto The Court ordered him forthwith peaceably to depart the College and deliver up the Keys of the Lodgings and struck his Name out of the Buttry-Book and having so done declared to the Fellows that he was Actually Expelled and admonished them not to own him as their President Then the Court askt the Fellows whether they would amdit the Bishop of Oxon their President according to the Kings Mandate but all of them refused except Mr. Charnock but said they would not oppose it Then adjourned till the Afternoon SATVRDAY Afternoon DR Hough came into the Court and made his protestation against the proceedings and appealed from the same as Illegal Unjust and Null as he asserts Whereupon there was a Tumultuous Hum or Acclamation made by the by-standers which gave the Court some disturbance in so much that they thought fit to bind over Dr. Hough in 1000 l. and two Sureties in 500 l. each to appear at the Kings Bench and again admonished Dr. Hough to quit the College which he accordingly did that Night Then adjourned to Tuesday Morning Thus far out of the Register But because the Paper sent with the Letter to the Earl of Sunderland is more full in several particulars I shall Insert it after the following Letter together with such Additions as the Bishop of Chesters own Journals afford me §. 4. The Lords Commissioners sent the Following Letter to my Lord President Dated 22d October 1687. MY LORD BY His Majesties Messenger See the Answer to this after the Programma §. 6. we have sent your Lordship a particular account of our proceedings here to which we humbly refer in which your Lordship will perceive the Temper of that Society My Lord we hope your Lordship will easily believe that we are not unwilling to do any thing which may vindicate the Kings Honor and Authority but we humbly desire to be well advised by your Lordship in the Methods of it for we are now a little at a stop by reason of the Bishop of Oxon's not appearing in Person having no Power as we humbly conceive either by the Kings Mandate or by our Commission to Admit him by Proxy His Majesties Letter Mandatory for the same being directed to the College who all but two or three do as yet refuse it We therefore humbly Pray your Lordship to dispatch His Majesties Mandate directed to Us to Admit the Bishop or his Proxy or that you would please to give us some other Directions such as your Lordship in your Great Wisdom shall Judge more expedient We do crave leave also to Intimate to your Lordship that it is our humble Opinion that We cannot proceed any further then Expulsion against Dr. Hough which your Lordship will find already done according to the Power we have by the Commission and we humbly Pray your Lordships Pardon and further Commands which shall be readily obeyed by His Majesties most Dutiful Subjects and Your Lordships most humble Servants Tho. Cestriensis R. Wright Tho. Jenner My Lord since the Writing of this Letter We have reason to believe we shall have an entire submission from the College on Tuesday next for Dr. Hough since his Expulsion hath left the College and taken Lodgings in the Town §. 4. The account sent by the Lords Commissioners of their proceedings till Saturday night Octob. 22. Oxford the 22d Octob. 1687. HIs Majesties Commissioners for Visiting the College of St. Mary Magdalen in Oxford Note that what is conteined betwixt these is what is in the Bishop of Chesters and Dr. Thâ—mas Smiâ—hs Diary and not in the Account sent by the Lords Commissioners Friday Afternoon being Yesterday viz. Thursday the 20th of October come at the time appointed viz. Friday Octob. 21. for the President Fellows and Schollars thereof to appear their Lordships took upon them the Execution thereof My Lord Bishop of Chester made a Speech to them upon the occasion of the Visitation and after an adjournment of the same to the Afternoon there then appeared Dr. Hough and several of the Fellows and most of the Schollars and Officers of the College Dr. Hough objected to the shortness of the time from the notice of the Visitation and prayed a Copy of the Commission and time to consider of it which was over ruled by the Court saying that if he and they could take any advantage from the Commission he hoped the King and their Lordships did not intend to bar them of it And in his own Name and the greatest part of the Fellows said that he submitted to the Visitation so far as was consistent with the Laws of the Land and the Statutes of the College and no further and that he could suffer no alteration of the Statutes neither by the King nor any other Person for which he had taken an Oath from which he could not swerve and thereupon Quoted the Statutes confirmed by King Henry the Sixth and their Oath that they should submit to no Alteration made by any Authority The Oxford Relation saith that my Lord Chief Justice answered you cannot Imagin that we Act contrary to the Laws of the Land and as to the Statutes the King has dispensed with them Do you think we come here to Act against Law Then the Sentence given the 22d Day of June 1687.
pronounced against him That whereas he had denyed the Authority of the Court and in Contempt of the Sentence of Suspension given against him by the Lords Commissioners at Whitehall taken his Commons and Battled in the College as a Fellow of the College notwithstanding his said Suspension the Court proceeded to deprive him of his Fellowship and Ordered his Name to be struck out of the Buttry-Book The Sentence pronounced against him I find in the Register tho' not in this place in the words following By His Majesties Commissioners c. WHereas in our Visitation of the said College it appeareth unto us that Henry Fairfax Doctor in Divinity one of the Fellows of the said College has been guilty of Dis-obedience to His Majesties Commands and obstinately contemned his Royal Authority and doth still persist in the same we have thought fit upon mature consideration thereof to Declare Pronounce and Decree that the said Dr Henry Fairfax be Expelled and Deprived of his said Fellowship and accordingly we do hereby deprive him and Expel him from the same Given under our Seal the 25th day of October 1687. Then the Lords issued the following Order By His Majesties Commissioners c. WHereas we have thought fit to Deprive and Expell Dr. Henry Fairfax from his Fellowship in the said College you and either of you are hereby required to cause our said Sentence and Decree a Copy whereof is hereto annexed to be affixed on the Gate of the said College to the end that due notice may be taken of the same and of the due Execution hereof you are to certifie us Given under our Seal the 25th of October 1687. To Thomas Atterbury and Robert Eddows Or either of them He then gave in his Protestation against their Proceedings which the Court over-ruled and ordered him to depart and quit his Lodgings in the College in Fourteen Days Then the Doctor prevailed with much a do saith the Oxford Relation to Read the following Protestation and left it in Court which was as followeth I Henry Fairfax Fellow of St. Mary Magdalen College Dr. Fairfax's Protestation do under my former Answer heretofore made and to the Intent it may appear that I have not consented nor agreed to any thing done against me to my prejudice I protest that this Sentence given here against me is Lex nulla and so far forth as it shall appear to be aliqua I do say it is iniqua injusta and that therefore I do from it as iniqua injusta appeal to our Sovereign Lord the King in his Courts of Justice as the Laws Statutes and Ordinances of this Realm will permit in that behalf Henry Fairfax §. 14. The under Porter deprived Then the Lords askt Robert Gardiner the Under Porter if he would submit to the Bishop of Oxon as President of the College which he refusing to do the Lords deprived him of his Office and adjourned the Court till the next Morning Mr. John Gilman's Paper I find thus That the Statutes of the College This Paper is mis-placed and should have been October 22d Afternoon to which I am positively Sworn are the only Rule of my Actions and Obedience in this and all other Cases of the like Nature and I conceive the Bishop of Oxon has not those Statutable Qualifications which are required therefore I cannot Assist at the Admission of the Bishop of Oxon. The submission of Dr. Thomas Smith was as followeth Dr. Tho. Smiths submission which he gave in when the Fellows gave in theirs I have put here by it self because I would not mix it with the other given in in Writing also MY LORDS I Own from my Heart and acknowledge the Kings Supremacy I do now and will always pay all Dutiful Just and Humble Obedience to His Majesties Authority as becomes a Priest of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of England Establish'd by Law. I make no exception to the Legality of your Lordships Commission nor to the exercise of it in this present Visitation I am ready and willing to obey in licitis honestis the President whom the King has pleased to Constitute President when ever he shall come and preside in the College Thomas Smith D. D. The Paper given in by Mr. Craddock was as followeth ABout Six Years since This Paper was given in October 22d Afternoon when I was made Fellow by the Kings Permission I took an Oath that I would not be dispensed with from my Local Statutes by which Statutes and Oaths it does not belong to me to Admit any Man President besides I conceive Dr. Hough cannot be Legally dispossessed of the Presidentship of Magdalen College till he has Appealed to Westminster or an Higher Court and till then I shall not cease my obedience to him Willi. Craddock I shall now insert the Lords Commissioners Answer to my Lord Presidents last Letter and then proceed in the Narrative §. 15. The Answer to the Lord Presidents Letter of the 23d of October Oxon the 25th October 1687. MY LORD IN Obedience to your Lordship of the 23d Instant and the Kings Letters Mandatory we have this day Installed the Lord Bishop of Oxon's Proxy by placeing him in the Presidents Seat in the Chappel and some while after Dr. Hough having left the College and the Keys being deny'd us we caused the Doors of the Lodgings to be broken up and gave his Proxy Possession thereof My Lord we proceeded to examin the Fellows concerning their submission to the Lord Bishop of Oxon now their President their Answers were Unanimous in scriptis that they would all submit but Dr. Fairfax whom for that and denying the Jurisdiction of the Court and Contempt of his former Sentence of Suspension we have Deprived and Ejected and one Robert Gardiner a Porter all the rest of the College we left this Night in good temper and the Bishops Servants in quiet Possession We have likewise looked into the Constitutions Orders and Statutes of the College and cannot find any of the Society to have offended therein or in mis-applying their Revenues They having given us as we conceive a clear Answer to the Accusation against them for Imbezling such a part of it as was pretended to be set a side for Pilgrims and poor Travellors which we will bring up and transmit to your Lordship * * Here may be noted how tender the Lords Commissioners were and willing to have won them to obedience And this we must say my Lord that generally they have behaved themselves with great regard and deference to His Majesties Command saving in that particular whereof we gave your Lordship an account in our last and even for that they have expressed a very hearty sorrow and submission and we do humbly conceive that the Bishop of Oxon when he comes in Person to the College which he promises suddenly to do so soon as his health will give him leave will be best able to find out those faults of
Moderation and Reason how great a scandal to our Religion how great a stain to the liberal and ingenuous Education which this Society would afford you and how very mischievous it will be to your selves at last I endeavored to convince you at the first Opening of our Commission Since which time some of you have been so unreasonably inconsiderate and obstinate as to run yet farther upon the score of His Royal Patience and Pardon for which you are now to receive the just and necessary Animadversions of this Court that the Honor and Authority of the King may be Vindicated and the Peace of Church and State not be endangered by your Impunity or our Connivance at this your petulant humor and contumacious behavior No Subjects can be wise or safe but they who are so sincerely honest as to take all fair occasions of doing their Prince acceptable services and executing his Will Reputation abroad and Reverence at home are the Pillars of safety and Soveraignty these you have endeavored as much as in you lies to shake nor can the King hope to be well served at home or observed abroad if your punishment be not as public as your Crimes No Society of Men in this or the other University ever had so many Male-contents and Mutineers in it as this College your continual clashings and discords sometimes with your President at others with your Visitor and so frequently among your selves ever since his late Majesties happy Restauration have been too public to be concealed I have more than once heard your late Visitor of Pious Memory bewaile the great unhappiness of this Noble Foundation in being over-stockt with a sort of Men whom a wantonness of Spirit had made restless and unquiet who would never be satisfied whose disease was fed by Concession and then most violent when they knew not what they would have You have been long experienced in the Methods of Quarreling with your Visitor President and your selves and by these steps you are at last arrived to the top and highest degree of insolence which is to Quarrel with your Prince which as it dis-honors your Religion so it Proclaims your Pride and Vanity for every dis-obedient Man is proud and would obey if he did not think himself wiser than his Governor You have dealt with His Sacred Majesty as if he Reigned only by Courtesie and you were resolved to have a King under you but none over you and till God give you more self denyal and humility you will never approve your selves to be good Christians or good Subjects whose Patience and Petitions are the only Arms they can ever honestly use against their Prince You could not be ignorant of the Kings being your Supreme Ordinary by the Antient Common Law of this Land of which the Statutes are not Introductory but declaratory you have Read what Bracton says de leg lib. 1. c. 8. ◠5. who was Lord Chief Justice of England for Twenty Years in Henry the Thirds time Nemo de factis suis praesumat disquirere multò minùs contra factum suum venire Now His Majesty the Fifth of April sent his Letters Mandatory to you to Elect and Admit one Mr. Farmer into your Presidents place then void by the Death of Dr. Clark your last President Whom the Tenth of April you represented to His Majesty as incapable of that Character in several respects and besought him as His Majesty should think fittest in His Princely Wisdom either to leave you to the discharge of your Duty and Consciences according to his late Gratious Declaration and your Founders Statutes or to recommend such a person who might be more serviceable to His Majesty and the College This Paper was delivered to my Lord President the Tenth of April and on the Fifteenth of April without expecting His Majesties Answer as your Hypocritical submission would have persuaded all Charitable Men to believe you did and would expect in Contempt of his former Mandate which had the force of an Inhibition you proceeded to Elect Dr. Hough for your pretended President Upon the first notice whereof the Sixteenth of April my Lord President sent a Letter by His Majesties Command to the Bishop of Winchester not to Admit him But they who have ill designs in their Heads are always in hast by which you surprized your Visitor which occasioned my Lord President the 21st of April to Write another to you to let you know how much the King was surprized at your Proceedings and that he expected an Account of it Then were you Cited before the Ecclesiastical Commissioners at Whitehall where upon mature deliberation and a Consultation had with the best Common Lawyers and Civilians Dr. Houghs Election was declared void the 22d of June and he amov'd from the same by their Lordships just Sentence Of this you were certified by an Instrument under the Seal of the Court of the same Date affixed to your College Gates which being dis-obeyed you were once more Cited by an Instrument of the first to appear before their Lordships the 29th of July to Answer your Contempts You pretended when you came before their Lordships that you were deeply affected with the late Sense of His Majesties heavy dis-pleasure and beg'd leave to prostrate your selves at His Royal Feet offering all Real Testimonies of Duty and Loyalty as Men that abhorr'd all stubborn and groundless resistance of His Royal Will and Pleasure So said and so done had been well but you were resolv'd it seems to give him nothing but good words and that your Practice should confute your Profession I wish you had known in time as well as you pretended to do how entirely your welfare depended upon the Countenance and Favour of your Prince it would then have been as great a grief to you to have dis-obeyed His Majesties Commands as it was a guilt and will be a punishment both in this Life and that to come if not repented of in time On the 14th of August His Majesty signified His Will and Pleasure to you by His Letters Mandatory and thereby Authorized and required you forthwith to Admit the Bishop of Oxon into the place of President any Statute or Statutes Custom or Constitution to the contrary notwithstanding wherewith he was Graciously pleased to dispense to which he expected your ready obedience but all in vain for to your shame be it spoken you had done an ill action and resolv'd to set your busie Wits on work to defend it And Conscience the old Rebellious Topick must be call'd in at a dead lift to plead for you But you are not the first who have mistaken an humor or a disease for Conscience your scruples were not such but that they might without sin have been Sacrificed to your Princes pleasure as a Peace-offering to the Father of your Country to your Mother Church and to the good of this and all other such Charitable Seminaries of good Learning and Religion and Men as wise as you perhaps may think
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
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
generally are bred up to Divinity and the hours of Devotion Lectures in Divinity Disputations c. are mostly about Spiritual matters in Ordine ad Spiritualia and Grammar Schools being for Education Vertue and Learning are called Spiritual much more Colleges which are Founded ad Studendum Orandum and if there were none of these considerations yet it is well known that Colleges are to an Eleemosinary end and it is clear in the sense of the Law where persons are lay there may be a Spiritual end 11 H. 4.47 of which matter the curious may find more in * Keebles Reports 2d part page 166. c. Dr. Patricks Case As to the Statute of Magna Charta The Kings Prerogative is not against Magna Charta altho' it grants and confirms many Liberties and Immunities to the people yet it does not deprive the King of his Prerogative who hath the power to Create Courts at Law and give them Jurisdiction as also to Establish Courts by Commission for Regulating deceits oppressions frauds and other matters as seems best to his Royal Will which is no encroachment on our Liberties Temporal or Spiritual as is objected §. 13. The eighth objection concerning liberty of Appeals This leads me to the Eighth Objection made by the favorers of the Ejected Fellows viz. That it is contrary to the Laws of the Land that any person should be deprived of his Fellowship by the Lords Visitors without having liberty to Appeal to the King in his Courts of Justice See pa. 70. here as Dr. Hough words it in his Protestation against the Illegality and Inustice of the Lords Visitors Sentence against him See here pa. 116. and Dr. Fairfax in his Protestation in the same words with the Addition as the Laws Statutes and Ordinances of this Realm will permit in that behalf whose Case differed from Dr. Houghs in that particular that Dr. Fairfax had long enjoyed his Fellowship and was Ejected for his dis-obedience to the Kings Mandate whereas it was disputable whether Dr. Hough was lawfully Elected President But in one particular they alleged that their Cases were alike in that they might have remedy against all such dis-possession of Headship's or Fellowship's in the Kings Courts where relief in all Cases of Property and Free-hold ought to be had ☞ In Crroboration of this Dr. Coveneys Case urged they bring the Instance of Dr. Coveney as in the last Objection is urged that he being deprived by the Local Visitor and Appealing to the Queen by the advice of all the Judges it was held that the Queen by her Authority as Supreme Visitor could not medle in it but he must bring his Action at Westminster Hall because deprivation was a cause merely Temporal §. 14. The Answer In Answer to this First It is apparent in matter of Fact by what I have before from Records made clear that Heads of Colleges Chap. 5. sect 1. §. 10. sect 2. per totum sect 3. §. 3. Fellows c. have been Expelled and deprived by Commissioners for Visitation as appears in the places quoted in the Margent Secondly Coke Instit 4. fol. 339.340 341. Stephen Gardiners Case It is owned that it is not only an usual practice of the Crown to grant Commissions ad revidendum the former proceedings before the proper Judges but likewise the Kings have often granted Commissions with a Clause of Appellatione remota which is a definitive conclusive Sentence from which no Appeals lies ☞ For clearing the point more fully we may consider that the Statute 25 H. 8. C. 19. grants an Appeal from any of the Arch-Bishops Courts to the King in Chancery Appeals according to the Statute 25 H. 8. c. 19. where the King may by Commission Delegate others to determin that Appeal according to the direction of that Act but where Sentence is given by Commissioners Delegated by the Prince and not in any Bishops Court as by Visitation pursuant to the Statute 1 Eliz. c. 2. there Appeals from such a Sentence is not within the Statute of 25 H. 8. c. 19. Yet the King may grant a new Commission to revise the former Sentence Likewise there may be an Appeal to the King in person from all Courts Erected by his Prerogative Appeals to the King in person as from the High Court of Chancery Coke 4. Instit fol. 340. and it is upon Record by Commission 14 Jac. 1. as the words are 14 Jac. 1. par 6. n. 25. that it appertaineth to our princely care and office only to be Judge over all our Judges the meaning whereof can be no other than that from the Judges Sentence and Decrees there may be an Appeal to the King in person 2 Andersons Reports fol. 163. So by the Commission granted by the King to the Commissioners to Visit St. Mary Magdalen College in Oxford the Commissioners were a Court then only for that purpose created by the King Goodmans Case 4. Instit 340. and from any Sentence or Decree pronounced by them the Fellows might Appeal to the King in person but could not Appeal to any Court in Westminster Hall so that the Appeal to the King in Chancery is in such cases as are particularly limited in the Statute of matters in sits in the Courts of Bishops Rolls Abridgment part 2. fol. 233. as Judge Rolls observes who likewise affirms that if a suit be by a Commission General of the King no Appeal can be to the King in Chancery by the words of the Statute for in such Appeals to the King it must be General as he is Supreme Head of all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction within the Realm and this must be by a Bill Signed by the King after which the King may grant a Commission to Delegates to hear it So that the case of Dr. Coveney is not rightly stated in the Allegation of those of Magdalen College The case of Dr. Coveney not rightly stated that because Dr. Coveney being deprived by the Bishop of Winchester Local Visitor and Appealing to the Queen it was adjudged that the Appeal did not lye because deprivation was merely Temporal and Tryable at Common Law Dyer's Reports fol. 209. for my Lord Dyer only shews that according to the Statutes of 24 and 25 H. 8. the Appeal was to be from a Sentence in the Arch-Bishops Court to the King in Chancery but Dr. Coveneys deprivation was not by any Sentence in the Arch-Bishops Court and consequently not within the Statutes to bring his Appeal to the Queen in Chancery Now the Artifice used by the favorers of the Fellows is The Artifice used by those of St. Mary Magdalen College in citing this case that they make Dr. Coveney to Appeal to the Queen without mentioning in Chancery and so it was not brought before the Queen as Supreme Visitor and so was not within the Statute either way since the deprivation was by the Local Visitor only and in that case his
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
your selves against the Afternoon to which time they adjourned the Court. The Court being Sate in the Afternoon Afternoon Dr. Hough appeared with a great Rabble of followers and after a short time said whereas your Lordships this Morning have been pleased pursuant to the former Decree of the Lords Commissioners to deprive me of my place of President of this College and to strike my Name out of the Buttry-Book I do hereby protest against the said proceedings and against all that you have done or hereafter shall do in prejudice of me and my Right as Illegal Unjust and Null and I do hereby Appeal to our Sovereign Lord the King in his Courts of Justice Dr. Tho. Smiths Diary Upon which there was a Tumultuous Hum in the Room which the Lords Commissioners resented very much and said they would never suffer the Kings Authority to be so affronted my Lord Chief Justice said he would defend the Kings Authority while he had Blood in his Body and told Dr. Hough that he was the occasion of this mis-behaviour by his popular Protestation which he might have made in the Morning that he had broke the Kings Peace and that now they had brought in the Civil Power over them and that if need were they would use the Military that he must Answer that affront of the Kings Authority at the Kings Bench Court. Upon which he was bound in a Thousand pound Bond and his Sureties in Five Hundred pound a piece Then the Bishop of Chester gave-the Doctor this Answer to his Appeal Doctor we look upon the Appeal as to the matter and manner of it to be unreasonable and not to be admitted by us First because it is in a Visitation where no Appeal is allowable Secondly because our Visitation is by Commission under the Broad Seal of England which is the Supreme Authority therefore we over-rule this Protestation and Appeal and Admonish you once for all to avoid the College and obey the Sentence The Doctor and Fellows declared their grief for the disorder of the Crowd and disclaimed their having any hand in it After which Dr. Pudseys Letter to the Lord President being Read See this Letter c. 1. sect 3. §. 3. their Lordships askt the Fellows concerning the Kings Verbal Command to them at Oxford to which they said it was to Elect the Bishop of Oxford which they could not Then being askt why they did not Admit him which was all the Kings Letter required and to which the Verbal Command referred Eight of the Fellows said they were not there and Thirteen owned they were and gave consent to the Letter §. 5. Vpon Complaint made by the Lords Commissioners of the Hubub before mentioned the Vice-Chancellor published this following Programma QUum nihil minus deceat Viros Ingenuos nedum Academicos ad optima enutritos quam morum Inelegantia Rusticitas Quam absonum videri debeat Adventantes strepitu sibilis excipere pro Coetu Philofophorum turbam Morionum Peregrinis ostentare Quocirca dolemus hac in parte peccatum esse in Viros Illustres admodum Reverendos quod omnium Gravissimum est Regia insuper Authoritate munitos speramusque hoc Indecentiae vel potius contumeliae aut saltem maximam partem ab Infrunitis hominibus de plebis Faecula natis omnino provenisse monemusque omnes quotquot sunt Scholares ut ab omnibus Illiberalibus Dicteriis sannis Pedum supplosione male feriatorum Turbinum Cachinno Screatu clamore murmure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 penitus abstineant Si quis vero in posterum in aliquibus istius modi deliquerit sciat se non mediocres Temeritatis Insolentiae suae paenas luiturum Octob. the 24th 1687. Gilb. Iron-side Vice-Cancelarius §. 6. My Lord Presidents Letter to the Lords Visitors in Answer to theirs of the 22d of October To the Lords Commissioners Letter and the account sent of their proceedings I find this Answer given by my Lord President Whitehall Octob. 23. 1687. MY LORDS I Have received your Lordships of the 22d with the account of your proceedings which His Majesty is well satisfied with I herewith send you such an Order for Admitting the Bishop of Oxford as you desired and am directed by His Majesty to acquaint you that if the Fellows of the College can be brought to submit to the Admission of the Bishop as their President His Majesty is Graciously pleas'd no Punishment should upon that account be Inflicted by you upon such as do submit but if any of them be refractory you are to proceed against them according to the Commission and His Majesty would have you also to Inspect the Constitutions Orders and Statutes of the College and to Enquire into the behaviours of the Members thereof and what abuses may have been Committed either by mis-applying their Revenues or other mis-doings a particular account of which together with the Names of the Offenders you are to transmit up to His Majesty that he may give such further Order as shall be requisite in the matter I am MY LORDS Your Lordships Most humble Servant Sunderland P. The Lords Commissioners Answer to this I shall Insert in it's place and now proceed to what was transacted at the Court held October the 25th In the Morning §. 7. Dr. Stafford Read the following Paper in Answer to what was objected on Friday October 25th Morning that a Mandate Implyed an Inhibition which I think fit to Insert out of the Printed Relation To the Right Reverend and Honorable the Commissioners for Visiting of St. Mary Magdalen College in Oxon. May it please your Lordships ON Friday last in the Afternoon you seemed to Insist very much upon this particular viz. That His Majesty in Commanding the Fellows of the said College to Elect Mr. Farmer President did thereby Inhibit them to Elect any other Person whatsoever which has not yet been made to appear to be Law To these Arguments Answer will be given in due place out of Civil Canon or Common-Law neither is it agreeable to reason that a Command to Elect a Person uncapable should oblige not to Elect a Person Capable that being a kind of Contradiction in Terminis yet this being granted it cannot at least affect the said Fellows or Invalidate the Election of Dr. Hough notwithstanding His Majesties Mandate in behalf of Mr. Farmer wholly uncapable of the place The Fellows cannot be said to be Guilty of any disobedience or disloyalty in proceeding to the Election of another Person who was qualified according to the Statutes being forced to make an Election for they are obliged by the Statutes of the College when called together to Elect a President or any other Officer under pain of Expulsion perpetual from that College to meet and make an Election which Punishment they Incur Ipso facto who either refuse to meet when so called or being met do not Nominate and Elect a Person into the Office void
if they would Admit and Instal the Bishop of Oxford made President by the King and declared such by their Lordships Dr. Pudsey being first asked the Question refused to Act but seemed to yield to be present Dr. Thomas Smith being askt the same Question by the Bishop of Chester Read the following Answer My Lords Commissioners I Answer with all Humble and Dutiful submission to the Kings Majesties Authority and your Lordships Visitatorial Power That it is not in my Power to do this Your Lordships who have deprived Dr. Hough and have declared the Bishop of Oxford President may Instal him This Method being altogether new and extraordinary I cannot be satisfied how I can or ought to be the Executioner of your Lordships Sentence Besides I beg leave to propose a short Case to your Lordships whether or no I can Instal or give Possession without being Impowered and Authorized by a Rule out of the High Court of Chancery or Kings Bench for my Security if there were nothing of Conscience in the Case To this the Lord Chief Justice replyed to this purpose that as they were His Majesties Commissioners for this Visitation they had the Kings Power of Chancery and Common Law. Then the Lords adjourned to the Chappel * The words of the Register are and forthwith admitted the Bishop of Oxon Presi ent by his said Procurator from thence they adjourned to the Presidents Lodgings and finding the Door lockt demanded the Keys but they being not to be sound they ordered the Door to be broken open which was accordingly done and the Lords went in and viewed the said Lodgings having so done adjourned to the Common Room and Entred the Bishops Name as President in the Buttry-Book where the Bishop of Chester put Mr. Wiggins into the Presidents Seat where he took the Oaths which the Statutes enjoyn to the President at his Admission and the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy the latter of which the Bishop of Chester Ordered him to take upon his Knees which he did accordingly then their Lordships Conducted him to the Door of the Presidents Lodgings where knocking Thrice and the Doors not being opened they returned to the Common Room and Commanded Mr. Atterbury to fetch a Smith to knock open the Door which was done accordingly their Lordships being present all the while and none of the Fellows but Mr. Charnock assisting or being as much as present at either of the performances §. 11. Then their Lordships being returned to the Common Room Oxford Relation pa. 30. they Entred the Bishops Name into the Buttry-Book Dr. Fairfax saith the Oxford Relation desired leave at leisure to speak and being permitted he told their Lordships that they had been doing that which he by no means could consent to The Bishop of Chester told him he was big to be delivered of his own Destruction and asked him if he would submit to the Bishop of Oxon Installed President by Vertue of the Kings Mandate to which the Doctor Answered he would not nor could not because they had a Statutable and Legal President already Register And the Lords having ask'd the Fellows if they would now submit to the Bishop of Oxon as their President they desired time and their Lordships gave them till the Afternoon to consider of it and the Court ordered them to give in an Account of what Gifts or Provisions were made by the Statutes for poor Travellors c. to Morrow Morning Then the Lords demanded of them if they had Elected or Admitted any Members since the Kings Inhibition to which they reply'd that they had Admitted none but Mr. Holden who was Fellow Elect before and his Year of Probationship Expired and if he had not then been Admitted he must have stood Expelled by their Statutes Then adjourned till two in the Afternoon §. 12. TVESDAY Afternoon THe Fellows being called in Register the Question was again put to them whether they would submit to the Bishop of Oxon as their President to which they gave in an Answer in Writing as followeth VVHereas His Majesty has been pleased by His Royal Authority The submission of the Fellows to cause the Right Reverend Father in God Samuel Lord Bishop of Oxon to be Installed President of this College we whose Names are hereunto Subscribed do submit as far as is Lawful and agreeable to the Statutes of the said College This Clause was Equivocal Alex. Pudsey Tho. Bayley Tho. Stafford Charles Hawley Rob. Almont Mainwaring Hammond John Rogers Hen. Dobson Ja. Bayley Jo. Davys Fran. Bagshaw Joseph Harwar Geo. Hunt. Tho. Bateman Willi. Craddock Jo. Gilman Geo. Fulham Hen. Holden Steph. Weelks Charles Penyston Dr. John Smith gave in a Paper Writ and Signed by himself in the same words Dr. Thomas Smith gave in his Paper of submission as followeth in § 14. The Demys subscribed a Paper in the same Form whose Names are Tho. Holt Senior Samuel Cripps Sam. Jenifar Rich. Adams Rob. Standard Rich. Vessey Charles Goreing John Brabourn Geo. Stonehouse Lawrence Hyde Geo. Woodward Charles Alleyn Willi. Fulham Rich. Watkins Dan. Stacy Willi. Sherwin Jo. Renton Maximilian Bush Ben. Gardiner Tho. Welles Willi. Bayley Tho. Higgains Jo. Cross Tho. Hanson Hen. Levet Harington Bagshaw Benjamin Mander The Chaplains subscribed the like whose Names were Tho. Mander Hen. Holyoake Tho. Brown. Fran. Haslewood The Choristers subscribed the like whose Names were Sam. Broadhurst Charles Wotton Tho. Price John Bowyer Tho. Turner John Shutleworth Edward Slack Willi. Inns. Miles Stanton Richard Wood. Rob. Wordsworth Joseph Stubbs The Clerks subscribed the like submission whose Names are Stephen Nicols Charles Morgan John Smith Willi. Ledford Willi. Harris Tho. Ryley Jo. Russel Tho. Williams The under Porter of the College would give in no Paper of submission The Oxford Relation saith that to the submission Oxford Relation the Clause was added and no ways prejudicial to the Right of Dr. Hough Page 31. In the Original Paper I found it scored out and as the Relation saith it was yielded to by the subscribers because the Lord Chief Justice and Barron Jenner as Judges declared that it was insignificant since nothing they should do could Invalidate Dr. Hough's Title but lest them still at liberty to be Witnesses for him or any other way serviceable to him in the Recovery of his Right upon which assurance the Society * If this be as related it shews the great condescention of the Lords Commissioners to have won them to obedience was prevailed with to leave it out §. 13. The Lords askt Dr. Fairfax if he owned their Jurisdiction Out of the Register Octo. 25th 1687. to which he reply'd (a) His words were under Correction I do not that he did not then he was askt if he would submit to the Bishop of Oxon as President to which he refused to do (b) His words were I will not nor cannot because he is not my Legal President And the Sentence was
learn from our Predecessors of those Rooms and as we may seem not without good grounds to believe since the Time that Pilgrimages were left off and dis-used here in England But my Lords if upon re-search which we will endeavor to make with all honest diligence we shall find any obligation lying upon us to use larger measures of Hospitality we assure your Lordships we will be just to that obligation and for the future will fully satisfie it as we will any other point of Duty which is Incumbent upon us as Fellows of the College This we hope will satisfie your Lordships at present and we humbly desire of your Lordships to make as we are assured your Lordships will do a fair and Candid Interpretation of this Answer to his Sacred Majesty whom God bless with long Life and an happy and glorious Reign Tho. Smith D. D. §. 18. The Stewards account Register THVRSDAY Morning the 27th Octob. 1687. THe Steward Mr. James Almont according to the Lords Order brought in an account in Writing of the Leases Lett and Fines taken for the two last years Then the Fellows desired that Dr. Aldworth their Vice-President his Suspension might be taken off his presence being so necessary at their Audit which was night at hand To which the Court reply'd that they must apply to the Lords Commissioners above who had Suspended him Then adjourned till Five in the Afternoon at which time they met and adjourned till the next day at Seven in the Morning before which Meeting the following Letter was delivered to the Lords §. 19. The Lord Presidents Letter to the Lords Commissioners in Answer to theirs of the 25th of Octob. Whitehall Octob. 27th 1687. MY LORDS I Have received your Lordships of the 25th and laid it before the King who Commands me to tell you that he thinks the Fellows who have submitted to the Bishop of Oxford as their President ought to make an Address to His Majesty asking Pardon for their late Offences and obstinacy and acknowledging the Jurisdiction of the Court and the Justice and Legality of it's proceedings in the whole matter His Majesty leaves the Wording of it to you and the manner of doing it but would have it done before you come away And if any Person shall refuse to joyn herein His Majesty would have you Expel them since he cannot look upon this which is called a Submission to be such indeed unless it be attended with these Circumstances The King is very well satisfied with the proceedings against Dr. Hough and Dr. Fairfax but thinks they deserve some further punishment and therefore when you return will have the whole Ecclesiastical Commission pass a Sentence of Incapacity upon them The King would have you before you come away By this it appears that the Fellows submission was expected place Mr. Willi. Joyner in the Fellowship lately enjoy'd by Dr. Fairfax and likewise appoint Judge Allibons ' Brother and Mr. Charles Goring to be Fellows of that College if there are two Vacances more If there is but one then Judge Allibons Brother to have that Fellowship and Mr. Goring to come in upon the first Vacancy In case Mr. Goring be a Fellow His Majesty would have Mr. Middleton who is his Nephew succeed him in his Demyship I am MY LORDS Your Lordships most humble Servant Sunderland P. §. 20. FRIDAY Morning the 28th of Octob. 1687. THe Lords in order to fill up the void places demanded of the Fellows how many places were Vacant and it appeared to their Lordships that there was none but Dr. Fairfax's and Mr. Ludfords who was lately Dead then enquiry was made for the Persons recommended and no body appearing the Lords could proceed no further in that matter Then the Lords told the Fellows c. That they could not heartily recommend them to His Majesties favour unless they did Address to His Majesty in Writing asking pardon for their offences and acknowledge the Jurisdiction of this Court. The Fellows making a little pause the Bishop of Chester told them they might word it themselves or if they thought fit Mr. Tucker should Assist them in a Form. Upon which the Fellows withdrew into the Hall to consider of it and after some time brought in a Paper with all their hands subscribed of the Tenor following §. 21. May it please your Lordships VVE have endeavored in all our Actions to express our selves with all humility to His Majesty By this it appears how far they were from making a submission according to his Majesties expectation and being conscious to our selves that in the whole Conduct of this business before your Lordships we have done nothing but what our Oaths and Statutes Indispensably obliged us to we cannot make any Declaration whereby we acknowledge that we have done amiss as having acted according to the principles of Loyalty and obedience to his Sacred Majesty as far as we could without doing violence to our Consciences or prejudice to our Rights one of which we humbly conceive that of Electing a President to be from which we are Sworn upon no account whatsoever to depart We therefore humbly beg your Lordships to represent this favourably with our utmost Duty to His Majesty whom God Grant long and happily to Reign over us Signed Alexander Pudsey Tho. Bayley Tho. Stafford Charles Hawley Rob. Almont Main Hammond John Rogers Ja. Bayley Hen. Dobson Jo. Davys Fran. Bagshaw Jos Harwar Geo. Hunt. Jo. Gilman Tho. Bateman Willi. Craddock Geo. Fulham Hen. Holden Steph. Weelks Charles Penniston This being Read and the Court saith the Register looking upon the same to contradict the submission they had given in before the Lords again asked them whether they would submit to the Bishop of Oxon as their President or not Dr. Pudsey Dr. Stafford Mr. Hollis and Mr. Register Penniston referred to their Paper of submission given in on Tuesday and the greatest part of the rest desired to be excused from answering the Question declaring that their obedience or dis obedience would best appear by their actions when the Bishop came amongst them and if they were dis-obedient to the President they were lyable to be punished by their Statutes and said further that they having given in their submission on Tuseday they thought their Lordships Honor was engaged to require nothing further from them But the Court insisting to have a positive Answer to the Question and the Bishop of Chester saying it was Protestatio contra factum Dr. Bayley Mr. Hammond Mr. Dobson Mr. Bayley Mr. Bagshaw Mr. Harwar Mr. Bateman Mr. Craddock Mr. Gilman Mr. Holden Mr. Weelks and Mr. George Fulham positively refused §. 23. The Oxford Relation gives this account of the Discourses following UPon their Lordships perusing the Paper they expressed their dislike of it and said it did not come up to what they delivered on Tuesday Dr. Bayley answered they had acted conformable to themselves and truly he could not confess any Crime To which the Bishop
would have been Aggravations of the former Contempts which upon better thoughts you desired and we gave you leave to withdraw What other Men who are led by Populacy which is the Fools Paradise but the Wise Mans scorn say of us while we are doing our Duty to God and the King we value no no more than what they dream of us For we set a greater estimate upon our own Duty than other Mens thoughts and will discharge our Consciences faithfully whatsoever becomes of our Credit We can allow those who are dis-affected to the Crown and to the Church of England to talk of us at their own Rate we shall vindicate the Kings Authority and redeem it from Contempt by all Just and Lawful means But yet Gentlemen the great concern we have for you and our earnest design to rescue you out of danger if you are not sturdily resolved to cast away your selves obliges us to offer you once for all that if you will freely and presently make such submission to His Sacred Majesty as the Heinousness of your Offences do's in our Judgment require we will pass by your faults and recommend you heartily to Gods and the Kings Mercy and accordingly we require the Deputy Register to Read the Form of such a submission to you as the Court upon mature deliberation hath judged necessary for them to expect and require in Point of Justice as an expiation for all the former dis-obedience and contempts of which they have found you guilty which they that are willing and well resolved may immediately Sign and the rest of you are Commanded to withdraw excepting Dr. Thomas Smith and Mr. Charnock with whose good behaviour towards His Sacred Majesty in the concern before mentioned we declare our selves to be well satisfied and doubt not but that His Majesty will be so too when we shall have further occasion to represent it to him §. 3. After the Bishops Speech all were ordered to withdraw Register except the Fellows and the Form of a Submission was ordered to be Read to them in the words following To the Kings Most Excellent Majesty The Humble Petition and Submission of the Fellows of St. Mary Magdalen College in the Vniversity of Oxford whose Names are Subscribed May it please your Majesty WE your Majesties most humble Petitioners having a deep sense of being justly fallen under your Majesties displeasure for our disobedience and contempt to your Majesty and to the Authority of your Majesties Commissioners and Visitors We do in all humility prostrate our selves at your Majesties Feet humbly begging your Pardon for our said Offences and promising that we will for the future behave our selves more Dutifully and for a Testimony thereof we do acknowledge the Authority of your Majesties said Visitors and the Justice of their Proceedings and we do declare our entire Submission to the Lord Bishop of Oxon as our President He then told them that their Subscribing the same was the only means that could recommend them to His Majesties favour But all the Fellows to whom the said submission was proposed * Dr. Thomas Smith had not the Question proposed to him having been absent from the College during the heat of the contest and wholly unconcerned in it by which it appears how false the Oxford Relation p. 37. 38. is being severally ask't the Question peremptorily refused to subscribe Mr. Thompson desired to be excused from subscribing for that he had given his Vote for Mr. Farmer and had not concurred with the Society in any thing they had done since in this business and declared that he never had been disobedient nor ever would be whereupon their Lordships excused him §. 4. Dr. Aldworth desired The Oxford Relation is thus p. 37. 38. in the Name of himself and the Fellows time to consider of the submission and give their Answer in Writing to whom the Bishop of Chester said they must every one Sign or Refuse as they were called And Baron Jenner said there was no Answer to be given but Yea or No They all moved again for time but it was denyed then Dr. Aldworth said My Lords this is my first appearance before your Lordships since your sitting here therefore I pray to be heard My Lords I am as ready to comply with the Kings Pleasure as any Man living neither do I know that we have ever in this place been disobedient to the King when ever 't was in our Power to obey his Commands Our Founder in the first Clause of the Oath we take at the Election hath provided that no one shall be President of this College but who was bred in this or in the College wherein he himself was bred now for us who have Elected Dr. Hough a Person Qualified according to our Statutes who hath been Installed Sworn Confirmed and Approved of in all the ways and manners prescribed in the Statutes For us my Lord to accept and admit of a Stranger and a Forreigner in his place is to the best of my understanding a giving up the Rights of the College to other uses than the Founder designed it Here Dr. Aldworth was Interrupted by the Bishop of Chester saying the Statutes were over-ruled by the Kings Authority or words to that effect To which the Dr. Answered your Lordships sit here as Visitors which Implies there are certain Laws and Statutes which we are bound to observe and by which we are to be Governed and if it shall appear to your Lordships that we have Acted conformable to those Statutes I hope we shall neither incur the Kings displeasure nor your Lordships The whole Tenor of our Statutes run that we should Inviolably maintain our Right and observe the Rules of our Founder He has laid his Curse upon us if we vary from them here he repeated the words Ordinamus sub poena Anathematis Indignationis Omnipotentis Dei ne quis c. Item sub Interminatione Divini Judicis Interdicimus To which the Bishop of Chester reply'd are you not to obey the King as well as your Founders Statutes To this the Vice-President Answered I ever did obey the King and ever will do our Statutes which we are Sworn to are Confirmed by several Kings and Queens before and since the Reformation and as we keep them are agreeable to the Kings Laws both Ecclesiastical and Civil Whilst we live up to them saith the Printed Relation and whilst we keep up to 'em we obey the King. The Bishop of Chester reply'd the Statutes were never Confirmed by his present Majesty to which Dr. John Smith said neither have they been Repealed by His Majesty The Mandate being an Inhibition repeals them for the present time by Dispensation and what is not Repealed is Confirmed After this their Lordships pressing either to Sign or Refuse Dr. Aldworth said My Lords I 'll deal plainly in regard to my Oath and the Statutes to the Right of all our Successors and of Dr. Hough whom I believe
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
Bishop Writes another Letter to the President Informing him of the Receipt of the Secretaries Letter and adds I continue in my former Opinion towards them to wit that I would be loth that they should be Expelled if by any means the Statutes may relieve them and therefore I require you Mr. President and the Fellows that you choose none now at the next Election into their Rooms Here Obedience is payed to the Secretaries Letter of advice but that their places may stand in the same Terms as they are till I may hear what by you and them may further be spoken and considered by the Statutes to the end the Statutes may be truly observed and in the mean season no Men be of that Calling wronged I have willed them to absent themselves from the next Election for good consideration and my hopes is that none of that Society will move any troubles in or about the Election for any matter now hanging in doubt and not decided for that will breed slander to the Calling and danger to themselves so he orders the President and others to attend him the First of August about the Controversie Dated at Losely the same day and Year with the former I have not found among these Papers what was the Issue of this great Controversie but from what doth appear make these following remarks §. 8. The first observable from these short Statutes Upon the whole matter we may observe First That these strict and Indispensable Statutes in former times as well as now and in all times to come have and will Create great troubles in this College unless there be in the Sovereign a Visitatorial as well as Dispensing Power to Terminate endless Quarrels when as in this Case both Parties shall insist upon Grammatical and Literal sense of the Statutes and tho' the Bishop of Winchestr hath a power of Interpretation yet he is so tyed up to the Literal and Grammatical sense that he must unavoidably be put some times to great streights to determin matters ☞ Secondly However Rigidly the Statutes seem to be worded yet none can Judge that the Kings Dispensing Power can be restrained since neither the Founder could so bind either his Sovereign or the Pope nor could any of those bind their Successors by any Charter or Grant from such inhaerent Prerogatives annexed to their very Offices as I shall make clear when I come to consider the Arguments used concerning the force of these Statutes ☞ Therefore Thirdly I rather Judge that the Founder as Entaylers of Estates upon their Posterity to preserve nodosam Aeternitatem often do had a great desire that his Statutes should be perpetually observed but he could not be supposed to have such an over weening Opinion of his own prudence but that some Cases might happen whereby the Kings of England might Judge it convenient to alter them so that I Reasonably think the utmost of his design and hopes might be that the Society it self should not have the power of altering them but to Exclude the Sovereign by their Prerogative or Acts of Parliament to Suspend alter or Abrogate them was as much beyond his power to enjoyn as it was vanity in him to presume would thereby be effected Fourthly In the Secretaries Letter we may observe that he threatens the Queens Authority if the Bishop of Winchester their Visitor would not do the Fellows Justice and in the Bishops Letter to the President he Suspends all those on both parties from giving their Voices in the next Election which must be a force upon the Statutes for Election if the Bishop could not Interpret their Statutes but in the Literal and Grammatical sense for it is very probable it might be known by a Literal and Grammatical sense whether they were Fellows or not and if they were Fellows the President was as much bound by Oath to Admit their Voices as they obliged to give them and if the persons excepted against were no Fellows then the Five were unlawfully Expelled and so ought to have had Voices so that whether way soever the matter were determined I cannot conceive the Statutes or Interpretation was Literally and Grammatically observed which is the great plea of the Magdalen Fellows §. 9. The Case of Mr. Wilson I shall now shew that in the Controversie about the matter of the Head of a single College the Queen appointed Commissioners in a summary way to determin it Anno 1577. 19 Regni The Case was this A Controversie arising betwixt William Wilson Bachellor of Divinity In the Paper Office Bundel Anno 1577. 19 Eliz. and Thomas Bishop of Lincoln for that the Bishop refused to Admit him as chosen Rector of Lincoln College in Oxford the said Wilson Appealed to Edmund Grindal Arch-Bishop of Canterbury whose Official Dr. Bartholomew Clerk Admonished and Commanded the Bishop to Admit him and that the Bishops Commissioners should not under the pain of contempt do any thing to the prejudice of the said Wilson and the Arch-Bishop committed the determining the matter to certain Commissioners And Thomas Underhil Proctor of the University protested against the Commissioners of the Arch Bishop as not competent Judges and that the Examination of the matter belonged to the Chancellor of the University Upon all which The Queen takes the Cause out of all their hands and Grants a Commission to the Bishop of London and Rochester Sir Christopher Wray Knight Chief Baron of the Exchequer Sir William Cordel Knight Master of the Rolls Thomas Wilson John Gibson and John Griffith Doctors of Law upon the Petition of Robert Earl of Leycester Chancellor the Doctors Masters and Scholars of the University of her certain knowledge and sole motion and of the plenitude of her power Commanding them Eight Seven Six Four Three or Two of them calling the Reverend Bishop of Lincoln and William Wilson in person and all others by Law to be called in General Summarily and in plain Form without noise and Form of Tryals only seeing to the truth of the thing and the Fact Summarie in plano sinc strepitu forma Judicii and attending solely the aequity by all Manners and Forms by which they can better and more efficaciously proceed in and upon the Truth of the Premisses according to the Privileges and Exemptions of the said University and in the Cause or Causes aforesaid with their Incidents Emerging Depending Annexed or Connexed whatsoever and to determin it with a due end removing all Appeals and Complaints Nullity and Petition whatsoever and notwithstanding any Statutes Canons and Customs on the contrary published or the Law Suit depending causing all that in the premisses they shall Ordain to be firmly observed by Lawful remedies of the Law. Dated the 23d of April the 19th of her Reign 1557. By this it is apparent that the Kings of England may Suspend the power of the Arch Bishop and of the Chancellor and Local Visitor and by Commission appoint others in a Summary way not according
itaque non tollit nec excludit solitas conditiones gives the reason why in such like Oaths Tacit Conditions are to be understood Because an Oath follows the nature of the Act upon which it falls for the Accessory follows the nature of the principal as it is a known Rule in Law Therefore if the Act have a Tacit Condition the Oath is likewise to be Judged to have the same and this is Confirmed because the Oath is not therefore added that the promise purpose or contract shall be otherways observed than as it is wont in it self to be understood But in that manner to be Interpreted as those things are which cannot be revoked if the obligation be to keep them or e contra Therefore such an Oath neither takes away nor excludes the Customary conditions that is such as are before mentioned and are always supposed to be implyed Thus far that Judicious Author §. 7. If it be objected that the General Oath Objection See p. 16. here p. 25. which the Fellows take at their Admission to observe the Statutes which had the Kings Tacit consent did oblige the Fellows to take that Oath before the Election and so to go to Election ☞ For Answer we may consider Answer that tho' an Oath in it self be lawful especially so long as the Prince or Superior forbids not the performance of what was Sworn to yet in the case of the Magdalenians the King had expresly commanded them to choose one he appointed and that Included a Prohibition for he that Commands me to Elect this Man forbids me to Elect another and this is agreeable to the Explication the Church of England gives of the Fifth Commandment He that Commands me to Honor Father and Mother forbids me to dis-honor them And Bishop Sanderson (a) Si Superior quamprimum rem rescierit Statim dissensum suum palam peremptorie subdito significaverit prohibueritque Id in quod Juratum est fieri cessare continuò obligationem Illam Juramenti Transitorii subditum vi obligationis Officii quae permanens est perpetua rencri contra quam Juraverat facere Sanderson de Jurament oblig praelect 7. sect 6. pag. 243. well observes that if a Superior as soon as he knows the matter doth presently openly and peremptorily signifie to the subject his dissent and forbids that to be done which is Sworn to Instantly that Transitory obligation of the Oath ceaseth and the subject by force of the obligation to his Office or Supremacy which is permanent and perpetual is obliged to do contrary to what he hath Sworn to And the same most Judicious Bishop is so far from allowing such subjects at least Fellows of Colleges to resist the Mandate of their Sovereign under pretence that they have Sworn to the contrary that he saith expresly that the subject ought not in those things in which he is subject to another Swear to do any thing without at least presuming his Superiors consent his words are Non debet Subditus in iis rebus in quibus alteri subest Jurare se facturum quicquam absque praesumpto saltem Superioris sui Consensu Hence in the Instance Bishop Sanderson brings of the Sons obligation to obey his Fathers Command tho' it hinder him from performing his own Oath he observes that the Son Swore to act with the Tacit consent of his Father which he had reason to suppose the thing being lawful in it self and yet the Oath is rescinded which directly Answers the Objection ☞ It is further urged Second Objection that the Fellows bind themselves by Oath neither to seek to obtain any Dispensation with any of their Statutes nor yet Admit of any directly or indirectly obtained which is the highest of Tyes that an Oath can bind to without a direful Imprecation which is annexed in some Statutes To this I Answer that such Oaths are ill imposed by Founders not so much because the obligation is in it self not to be dissolved but because it may perplex some scrupulous Consciences and may afford Umbrages to such as are unwilling to yield to their Superiors dispensation to insist more earnestly and tenaciously upon the obligation I rather believe such Clauses have been Inserted by Founders to prevent as much as in them lay the Members of the Societies to Innovate matters than that they could foresee that it was more obligatory by the addition of that Clause We may easily Judge that all Munificent Founders would contrive all the ways whereby their Gifts and the uses and applications of them might be perpetuated as we see in several persons settlements of their Estates whereby they endeavor to Entayl them to their Heirs past all possibility of Alienations yet by the Laws of the Land which are not favorable to such perpetuities we find dayly examples of docking the most Artificially contrived Entayls ☞ Now that any Founder in the time when the Roman Catholic Religion was Established here could think that such Clauses could be perpetually obliging I can see no reason when they could not but know that none of their Statutes or Constitutions had any force but as they were confirmed by their Sovereigns whether Civil or Ecclesiastical and in all such Cases tho' the present Sovereigns whether the King of England or the Pope did ratifie them yet this could bind neither of their Successors ☞ For as to the King it is a Rule in Common-Law that general words of an Act of Parliament where the King is not named cannot bind him as may be seen in the Authorities Cited in the (a) Cro. 3d. part Ascoughs case fol. 225 Magna Charta c. 11. Margent ☞ If therefore the Common-Law which seems in many particulars less to favor the Prerogative be so just to the King that he is Exempted from the force of an Act of Parliament in which he is not named surely he must be exempted from a College Statute in which he is not named Secondly If the King had been excepted by Name the exception had been Null for the Founder neither if Living would have Exempted the Society from the Kings Paramount Jurisdiction neither could being a subject if he would have done it as (b) Cujus i. e. Regis Jurisdictioni sodalitium Illud neque voluisse fundatorem neque subditus cum fuerit si vellet potuisse omnino constare Wood Antiq. Oxon lib. 1. fol. 403. Dr. Bayly urged to Mr. Prynn upon the Parliaments Visitation Anno 1647. ☞ Thirdly If it be further urged that the Founders Founded the Colleges and Endowed them on condition the King would allow the Society to be Governed by their Statutes which is but an unproved presumption as not appearing in any Charter I have met with yet if such conditions were to be found the Succeeding Kings at least are not obliged in point of strict Justice to observe such Orders or Decrees of their Predecessors because Par in Parem non habet potestatem aut