were to receive their final determination * Idem fol. 152. a. But it seems here it was not ended for both Parties chose their Advocates who appeared at Avignion or Rome but the Pope to save Expences refers them back to have the matter determined in England The next Year Anno 1313. I find Arch-Bishop (a) Reg. Reynold fol. 32. Gualter Reynolds Writes to the University in their favor and the Year following Anno 1314. They put the matter to Arbitration (b) Compositione ad Regem ut ab eo firmaretur transmissâ Pat. 7. E. 2. part 2. M. 10. and send the Composition to be Confirmed by the King. Still it is the Royal Authority that is requisite to make any Act binding The Dominicans were an Order then in great esteem for I find that they were mostly the Kings Confessors and so Anno 1316. They obtained the Kings Letter in their favors to the Pope and Anno 1318. They obtained from the Pope a Privilege of Exemption from the Jurisdiction of the University By all these it appears The observation upon the forecited Records that the ordering of all matters appertaining to the very taking Degrees c. were settled by the Kings Assent and Confirmation of Popes I now proceed §. 10. (c) Wood fol. 160. b. Anno 1325. 19 E. 2. Gulhardus Cardinal of St. Lucy in Celice then Arch-Deacon of Oxford claimed the (d) Harpsfield Histor Eccl. Sec. 14. c. 28. Cognizance of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and (e) Reg. Reynold fol. 145. Henry Gower the Chancellor the Proctors c. resisted And the Pope directed his Bull to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury to be Published by the Abbots of Osney and Rewley to Cite the Chancellor and Proctors to appear in 60 Days at Rome The Bishop of Lincolns Archdeacon of Oxford claimes Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and the Pope cites the Chancellor and complaint being made to the King * Rot. Rom. 19. Ed. 3. The King writes to the Pope that the matter may be heard in England he Writes to the Pope to Nominate persons here to determine and compose the Controversie which was accordingly done By which it appears how Appeals were made to the Pope in such cases yet the King of England were not willing to have their Subjects grieved with chargable Appeals and Journies to Rome §. 11. Anno. 1350.24 E. 3. John (a) Wood c. fol. 172. b. The King removes a Chancellor the Bishop of Lincoln denies to Confirm the Kings Chancellor The University Appeals to the Arch-Bishop Wyllyot being unduely chosen Chancellor the Year before and removed by the King Mr. William Palmorna was chosen Chancellor and John Synwell Bishop of Lincoln delaying to Confirm him the University apply themselves to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Simon Islip who Commanded the Bishop to Confirm him within Seven Days after the Receipt of his Mandate or Five Days after to shew cause why he did not who not Confirming or appearing upon a second complaint the Arch-Bishop (b) Vide Mat. Parker Antiq. Brit. fol. 268. sent Commissioners to whom he gave power to Confirm the Chancellor and he deputed others (c) Regist Islip fol. 20.28 35. Contests betwixt the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and Bishop of Lincoln about confirming the Chancellor of Oxford Judicially to determin concerning the Election and Confirmation and of the injury done by the Bishop of Lincoln Who thereupon Appealed to the Pope and for Contempt being Excommunicated by the Arch-Bishop he Appealed again and thus the Suits depended before the Pope till saith Arch-Bishop Parker (d) Vide Parker Antiq. Brit. fol. 283. the Bishop renounced his privileges and yielded to the Arch-Bishop and thus the matter stood till Willi. Wittsley Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Anno 1375.49 E. 3. obtained from Pope Vrban the Fifth that the University should be exempt from the Bishop of Lincolns Jurisdiction and that the Scholars should have free liberty to Elect their Chancellor who thereby might enter upon his Magistracy without any farther Ceremony of Admission I have Inserted this to note that when the Visitatorial power was claimed the Confirmation of the Chancellor was then required but the Election was always in the Regents and non-Regents as it is now In this particular only it varies that since Sir John Masons time Anno 1553. Excepting Cardinal Pool and the two late Arch-Bishops Laud and Shelden the Chancellors have been Noble men and commonly the respective Kings have recommended the person by a kind of Conge d'eslire of which I shall give one instance hereafter Anno 1376. 50 E. 3. Dissentions still continuing betwixt the Chancellor c. And the Civil and Common Lawyer the King (a) Pat. 50 E. 3. part 1. M. 13. Commissionated William Courtney Bishop of London Thomas Arundel Bishop of Ely Adam Howton Bishop of St. Davids Ralph Ergham Bishop of Salisbury and William Read Bishop of Cicester or four or three of them and gave them power to take cognizance and determin all matters in difference By Command (b) Id. M. 14. The matter commanded before the Parliament and determined by the Kings Commissioners likewise the Deputies or Proctors from the Doctors and Masters of Arts and the Canon and Civil Lawyers offered the State of the case to the Parliament and from thence to the Bishops who meeting in St. Pauls London (c) Wood Antiq. lib. 1. fol. 185. b. Abrogated the Statutes which occasioned the disagreements and Decreed other two Statutes in favor of the Civilians yet thus the Controversie by the obstinacy of the Parties ceased not and tho' other Commissioners were appointed yet King Edward dying his Grandson King Richard the Second suceeding those Acted nothing and fresh broyles and tumults arising the Chancellor Proctors and three Monks (a) Claus 1. R. 2. M. 4. 28. The King Suspends their privileges were cited to give an account of them and in the interim the University was Mulcted by the Suspension of their privileges but by submitting themselves to the Kings Clemency they were pardoned and a Tribute (b) Pixide P. P. N. 17. lately sot upon them was taken off In these proceedings we find the King Abrogating Statutes and appointing new ones by his Commissioners What is to be noted from hence and the privileges of the University Suspended which are sufficient presidents of the Kings power §. 12. Disturbances in Queens College and the proceedings of the Local Visitor and the King thereupon Anno 1379. 3 Ric. 2. The King having granted several Immunities to the University and settled matters betwixt the University and Dominicans he took into consideration a matter which had been three Years in Debate The case was this there having been disturbances in Queens College whether upon the Election of a Provost or upon occasion of new opinions it is not certain which there had been Suites and Appeals to Alexander Nevil Arch-Bishop of York their Local Visitor and he sent persons
appoint Visitors and the giving this power to the King is Cumlative not Privative as appears 2 H. 7.6 B. 5 Coke 5 B. and it leaves a concurrent Jurisdiction as is clear in F. N. B. 21 C. and 51 B. and 80. which is sufficient to Answer the Objection of the Fellows of St. Mary Magdalen College that the Bishop of Winton being their Local Visitor if he were satisfied to confirm the Election they could not be adjudged faulty by any other Visitors Here cap. 7. sect 3. of which point I shall have occasion to Treat hereafter ☞ But to proceed (a) Idem Patricks Case Hill. 18 19 Car. 2. Keebles Reports fol. 164. 2d part Thirdly By 10 H. 7.18 and the Bishop of Winchesters Case the King may exempt any Ecclesiastical Corporation from Ordinary Visitation and consequently hath the power in himself ☞ Fourthly If there be no (b) Idem fol. 166. Visitor properly appointed by the Founder the Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor have the Government of any College who are the proper Officers of that distinct Common-wealth of Learning and they are Established or fortified in that by the Kings Letters Patents Fifthly Altho' King James the First (c) Id. fol. 168. 3 Regni gave the Chancellor of Cambridge power of Visiting Queens College there yet the King remains Visitor as Heir to King H. 6. Husband to Queen Margaret that Founded it as the Judge there Asserts but if it had been a private Founder the King shall not lose the Right of Visitor as Sovereign since the Licence for the Foundation is from the King of what private Foundation soever so if there were no Visitor appointed by the Charter of a Founder the Chancellor is Visitor and Superior to him is the King. Sixthly In the same Case it is laid down (d) Idem fo 169. Statutum de as Argument that there is a Visitor Temporal as the Founder and Ecclesiastical to examin correct and amend things done contrary to the Rules of their Order which were declared by the Canons of the Church whereof the Bishops were the Natural Visitors and it is plain that (e) Asportatis Religiosorum 35 E. 1. Anno 1307. cap. 2. no Abbot Prior Master Warden or any other Religious person of whatsoever condition State or Religion he was being under the Kings power or Jurisdiction should depart into any other Country for Visitation or upon any other color by that means to carry the Goods of their Monasteries or Houses out of the Kingdom It is also in the Argument laid down as the Reason why the claim was made in the time of King Richard 2d and the Act 13 H. 4. for the Arch-Bishop of Canterburies Visitation of the University of Oxford that it was only about matters of Faith by Reason of Heresie and Lollardism But in matters of breach of Statutes c. the Founder or Visitor Communi Jure had the right and tho' the King granted the power which the Founder had yet he never intended to grant away his own Supreme Authority thereby or could grant the Right of his Successors ☞ These matters I have noted in this Case that the Ingenuous Reader may know that what I have discoursed of in this Section is agreeable to the sentiments of the Reverend Judges an expression of (a) Judge Windham Patricks Case fol. 166. ut supra one of whom I find in these words Both Jurisdictions Lay and Spiritual are derived from the King as the Sun and Moon take light of God. I lay no stress upon any Analogy of the comparison further than that it thereby appears how fundamental a matter it is in our Laws that all exercise of Authority Discipline Government and external Oeconomy in Church and State are derived from the King as having a Creative and annihilating power in several things that depend solely upon his good pleasure which if any thing do in his whole Dominions it is in the disposal of matters of the Universities as I now shall make more evident in the following Chapter CHAP. VI. Concerning the Kings of Englands dispensing with the Statutes of the Universities by their Mandates SECT I. Concerning the Kings dispensing Power in General and in several particulars to the beginning of King Charles the Seconds Reign §. 1. Concerning the Kings dispensing power in General HAving given a large account of the Kings power in Visiting the Universities and in Abrogating old and making new Statutes by his absolute and Supreme Authority To clear the point yet more I shall shew by particular Instances wherein our Kings have dispensed with the Statutes of the Universities or particular Colleges For there can be no greater Argument of the Right and Prerogative of any power than the un-interrupted excercise and usage of the same Before I descend to particulars it may be expected that I should discourse something of the Kings dispensing power in General but the point being determined by the Judges and the Arguments for it being so generally known I shall be the shorter upon this head ☞ This power of dispensing seems to be a most necessary Prerogative that no Sovereign whether Ecclesiastical or Civil can want whence we find in a (a) Omnibus autem à nobis dictis Imperatoris excipiatur fortuna Cui ipsas Deus Leges subjecit Legem animatam committens hominibus Novel 105. circa finem Constitution of Justinian de Consulibus a reservation of that power which he thus expresseth from all these things which have been said by us Let the Emperors State be excepted whereunto God hath subjected the very Laws themselves sending him as a living Law to Men as it is Translated from the Greek Agreeable to which is what Aeneas Sylvius (a) Convenit Imperatori Juris Rigorem Aequitatis fraeno Temperari cui soli Inter aequitatem jusque interpositam interpretationem licet incumbit Inspicere de Ortu Authoribus Imperii observes that it is the part of the Emperor or Sovereign to attemper the Rigor of Law with the Bridle of Equity to whom alone it is lawful and a duty to see to the Interpretation which lyeth Interspersed betwixt Law and Equity since no Law can sufficiently Answer the varieties and un-thought on plottings of Mans nature and in Tract of time Laws at first just and equitable become unprofitable and harsh and this moderating of Laws saith he is so annexed to the Prince that by no Decree of Man it can be taken from him This is also agreeable to the Opinion of the most Learned Primate (b) Ushers power of Princes pag. 76. of Ireland whose Judgment most of our Judicious Protestant Divines have ever held in high esteem His words are positive Laws as other works of Men are imperfect and not free from dis-commodities if the strict observation of them should be pursued in every particular Therefore he saith it is fit that the Supreme Governor should not himself only be exempted from subjection
more plausibly In the first place it is urged that no Commission can be granted under the Broad Seal to Visitors to place and dis-place Members of Colleges but so as they must proceed according to Legal discretion viz. by the Laws and Statutes of the Land and Local Statutes of the Colleges By this Allegation they would Insinuate that the Lords Visitors did not proceed according to such Laws and Statutes nor could proceed summarily as in the latter part of the Objection they Insinuate To this I reply The Kings Prerogative a part of the Law of the land See chap. 4. §. 1. 2. here that the Kings Prerogative in such Cases is to be taken and accepted as a Fundamental of the Laws of the Land and I hope I have sufficiently cleared the continued use of the Kings of Englands exercising this power in granting Commissions to Visit the Universities and particular Colleges c. Amongst the Patents 26 E. 3. There is a Commission directed to several Commissioners to Visit St. Mary Magdalen College in Rippon which by the Foundation of that College was under the Visitation of the Arch-Bishop of York and to enquire of the several mis-carriages of the respective Members and whether they consumed or wasted any of the Lands or Goods of that College and to return the same to the King who would take care therein So in the Parliament Rolls (a) Rot. Parl. 40 E. 3. n. 12. the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge complained in Parliament of the Fryers Mendicants of both the said Universities how Injurious they were to the Ancient Immunities of the Universities and how faulty and offensive they were to them and it was declared and resolved in Parliament that the King had sole power to redress those Controversies at his Will and Pleasure In the Plea (a) Placit 15 E. 2. n. 10. Rolls 15 Ed. 2. It is declared that the King hath an absolute power to punish contempts and the offences against him as Supreme Ordinary without proceeding in the Common and usual Course of Judicial proceedings ☞ Conformable to this King Henry the 8th granted his Commission for the Visitation of Monasteries and dis-placing several Monks and other Regulars for their mis-carriages as the Inquisitive Reader may find in Dr. Burnets History of the Reformation and that by his Sovereign and Supreme Authority without Act of Parliament So King Edward (b) Rot. Pat. 3 E. 6. 1 part the 6th Commissioned Cranmer Ridley and others to proceed de plano in a summary way against Bonner by the Examination of Witnesses against him and so to Imprison Suspend or Deprive him as they saw cause in pursuance of which Commission they Deprived him of his Bishopric So Queen Mary (c) Rot. Pat. 1 Mariae part 7. granted Commission to the then Bishop of Winchester and others to Impower them to proceed in a summary way to the Deprivation of the then Arch-Bishop of York and other Bishops So Queen Elizabeth (d) Pat. 24 June 1 Regni granted Commission to the Earls of Derby and Northumberland and others to Visit all the Clergy in the North to place and displace them as they saw cause §. 11. Inferences from the foregoing Records By all which Authorities See chap. 4.5 6 and 7. here the Opinion of Parliaments the Antiquities of Presidents and frequent Instances in later days which I have abundantly produced in the foregoing Chapters I hope I have convincingly cleared that the King in all Ages by his Prerogative hath Regulated and Reformed Universities and Colleges punished their offences placed and dis-placed their Members without anything of the Ceremony of Westminster Hall and have been advised by their Judges and Learned Council that it was their Prerogative to proceed by their Commissioners Delegated by them in a summary way to the Suspension and Deprivation of the Bishops and Clergy nor can it be denyed but the Bishops of England have great Free-holds Temporalities and Honorable Baronages to lose by such Deprivations and such were more considerable in the Eye and esteem of the Law than the Exhibitions Headships or Fellowships of any College ☞ Hence it may be noted The Kings of England exercising the power of supension and deprivation by Commissioners upon Bishops Abbots Priors c. may well do it on Members of Colleges that since our Kings have exercised such a power over Monasteries Colleges purely Religious arch-Arch-Bishops and Bishops they may much more exercise the like over Universities and Colleges since whatever power they or their Founders had or have it was never given them by any Statute or any part of the Common Law it being the Kings sole Prerogative to Constitute Coporations or Bodies Politic sole or Aggregate Ecclesiastical or Civil under several and distinct qualifications conditions and trusts and the Universities and Colleges derive their Existence from the Royal bounty of the Prince who made them Corporations Constituted them by the direction of their respective Founders Bodies with Heads and Members to be Governed by such Rules and Statutes as the Founder by the Kings Licence should appoint But it was never certainly Intended that the King by such Grant or Licence should Delegate such Authority to Founders Visitors or the Members of Colleges See chap. 4. sect 1. here whereby to injure his Prerogative or determin the Supremacy which the Law of the Land had Annexed to his Imperial Crown as at large I have cleared before That the King is Supreme Head and Visitor in all Ecclesiastical and Civil causes See cap. 4. here hath been fully proved and that from the King all Judges Ecclesiastical and Temporal derive their Authority And sure a Delegation of power from the King can be no Bar or Estople to the King to exert his Prerogative that he thereby can be concluded from Delegating power to others to correct and reform misdemeanors and offences in Communities created by him or his Ancestors or to supervise the Actions and Management of his Judges Ecclesiastical Local Visitors or persons Commissioned by him As to Dr. Thomas Coveneys Case I shall consider it when I come to Treat of Appeals §. 12. Whether Colleges be of Temporal or Spiritual nature ☞ Concerning the Temporal Estates of the Fellows and the profits of the Fellowships being Free-holds that alters not the Case of the Kings power of Visiting for altho' it is disputed by Learned Authors whether Colleges be of a Lay or Spiritual nature yet it is most clear that they have undergone Visitations the reason of which is because they are the Nurseries of Learning and Piety Qualifications of great Moment to the well-being of Government and consequently require the Princes special care since upon the purity or impurity of these Fountains much good or bad must be derived to the Sovereign and Subject And altho' in the Universities some Studies relate not at all to Divinity as Civil Law Physic c. yet the Body of the Students
Bishop of Oxford President § 6. pag. 50. Observations upon it pag. 51. CHAP. II. THe proceedings of the Lords Commissioners in the Local Visitation of St. Mary Magdalen College in Oxford pag. 52. SECT I. The Transactions from the Citation sent October 17th 1687. to the 19th of the same Month. pag. 52. Citation of Mr. John Hough the Fellows Schollars and other Members of St. Mary Magdalen College § 1. pag. 53. The proceedings of the Lords Commissioners Friday Morning October the 21st § 2. p. 54. The Bishop of Chesters Speech pag. 55. Proceedings Friday Afternoon pag. 62. Proceedings Saturday Morning Octob. 22d § 3. Ibid. Proceedings Saturday Afternoon pag. 63. The Lords Commissioners Letter to my Lord President October 22d § 4. pag. 63. The Account sent of the Lords Commissioners procedings till the Evening of October 22d with some supplemental Additions from the Bishop of Chesters Notes and Dr. Thomas Smiths Diary § 4. pag. 65. to 71. The Vice-Chancellor of Oxfords Programma which was published by the Vice-Chancellor without any complaint of the Lords Commissioners as by mistake is expressed § 5. pag. 71. My Lord Presidents Answer to the Lords Visitors Letter of the 22d of October § 6. pag. 72. Dr. Staffords paper in defence of Dr. Houghs Election c. § 7. pag. 74. The Bishop of Oxfords Proxy § 8. pag. 76. The Kings Mandate to the Lords Visitors to Admit the Bishop of Oxford or in his absence by his Proxy if the Fellows refuse to Admit him § 9. pag. 77. 78. Dr. Thomas Smith's Answer about Admitting the Bishop of Oxford § 10. pag. 79. The Admission of the Bishop of Oxford by his Proxy pag. 80. Other proceedings on Tuesday Morning § 11. p. 81. Submission of the Fellows to the Bishop of Oxon conditional § 12. pag. 81. Sentence against Dr. Henry Fairfax and his protestation against the proceedings of the Lords Commissioners § 13. pag. 84. 85. Papers from Mr. John Gilman Dr. Thomas Smith and Mr. William Craddock § 14. pag. 86. 87. The Answer of the Lords Commissioners to the Lord Presidents Letter of the 23d of Octo. § 15. pag. 87. The Account the Fellows gave in concerning their Hospitality and Charities § 16. pag. 90. 91. Dr. Thomas Smiths paper upon the same account § 17. pag. 92. Proceedings Thursday Morning Octo. 27. § 18. pag. 94. The Lord Presidents Answer to the Lords Commissioners Letter of the 25th Octo. § 19. pag. 94. 95. Proceedings Friday Morning Octo. 28. § 20. pag. 96. A paper of the Fellows Justifying their Election § 21. pag. 96. 97. The Fellows refusing to submit to what was required § 22. pag. 95. Dr. Bayleys explication of his Submission § 23. pag. 98. Mr. George Fulhams Answer to the Question about submission and the Sentence of Expulsion against him § 24. pag. 100. SECT II. The Second Visitation by Adjournment of St. Mary Magdalen College by the Lords Commissioners pag. 101. The Kings Mandate for Mr. William Joyner and Mr. Job Allibon § 1. pag. 102. The Lord Bishop of Chesters Speech § 2. pag. 103. to 112. The form of the Petition and Submission required of the Fellows and Mr. Thompsons Answer § 3. pag. 112. 113. Dr. Aldworths Reply and Justification of himself § 4. pag. 114. The Decree of the Lords Commissioners of Expulsion of the Fellows that would not submit § 5. pag. 116. The protestation of the Expelled Fellows § 6. pa. 117. Mandates for other Fellows Ibid and pag. 118. The proceedings of the Lords Commissioners at Whitehall after the return of the Lords Visitors from Oxford § 7. pag. 118. 119. The Sentence of Incapacitating the Expelled Fellows § 8. pag. 120. 121. The Method the Author intends to proceed in pag. 122. CHAP. III. OF the Nature and Constitution of the Societies of the Liberal Arts such as Colleges and Vniversities are pag. 123. SECT I. Concerning Incorporations in General and the Privileges granted to the Vniversities of Oxford and Cambridge by our Kings or by the Popes pag. 123. How all sorts of Societies and Corporations are Founded by the King. § 1. pag. 123. How all Colleges and Corporations are made such by the King. § 2. p. 124. Things requisite to a Corporation § 3. pag. 125. The end for which Corporations are constituted § 4. pag. 126. The power of conferring Degrees in Universities conferred on Subjects by the Sovereign § 5. pag. 127. 128. SECT II. From whom the Vniversity of Oxford hath had 〈◊〉 it's Privileges pag. 129. The Kings of England sole Donors of privileges during the Saxons time § 1. pag. 129. Privileges granted by Kings after the Conquest § 2. pag. 130. The Pope confirms them pag. 131. King Henry 3d. grants privileges during his pleasure § 3. pag. 132. Privileges granted by King Edw. 1st pag. 133. And King Edw. 2d pag. 134. And King Edw. 3d. Ibid. And King Rich. 2d § 4. pag. 135. Inferences from the before recited Charters pag. 136. And from those of King Hen. 4th and King Hen. the 5th and King Hen. 6th § 5. pag. 137. The Method of Founding a College § 6. pag. 137. 138. The confirmation of Pope Sixtus the 4th § 7. pa. 138. The Charters of King Henry the 8th and his power over the Universities § 8. pag. 140. Wrong Printed § 9. King Hen. 8th retaining the Statutes of the University § 10. pag. 141. Falsly § 11. The King seizeth all the privileges § 11. pag. 142. CHAP. IV. COncerning the Visiting of the Vniversities and particularly of that of Oxford pag. 144. SECT I. Concerning the Kings Supremacy and Power in Ecclesiastical Causes and Visitations pag. 144. What power the Kings of England used before the Conquest § 1. pag. 144. In what particulars some of our Kings exercised a power in Ecclesiastical matters § 2. pag. 145. Of Investiture of Bishops § 3. pag. 148. Concerning the Admitting the Popes Legats here Ibid. and 149. Disputes betwixt the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and the Popes Legats § 4. pag. 150. How the Popes Legats exercised greater power in latter times § 5. pag. 151. The Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Created Legatus Natus § 6. pag. 152. When the Style of Legatus a Latere began to be used here § 7. pag. 153. How the Legats power was allowed by the King in Visitations c. Ibid. and pag. 154. Concerning Arch-Bishops and Bishops Visitations § 8. pag. 155. How the King promoted Bishops c. § 9. pag. 155. How far the Canons were allowed here § 10. pag. 155. 156. Secular Courts Judged here what was to be held of Ecclesiastical Cognizance § 11. pag. 156. The Application of this Discourse to the matter of Visitation c. § 12. pag. 157. In what particulars our Kings claimed not Ecclesiastical Administration § 13. pag. 157. 158. How the Pope obtained greater power § 14. pag. 158. The Kings Supremacy asserted by King Henry the 8th § 15.
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
Legato susceptus nec in aliquo Legati officio functus ☞ In the Letters of Paschalis the Second of the 30th of March and the 1st of April Fourteen Years after the returning of the Legat Guido the Pope Expostulats with the King about several matters one of which is his admitting neither Messenger (b) Sedis Apostolicae Nuncii vel litterae praeter Jussum Regiae Majesto tis nullam in Potestate tuae susceptionem aut aditum promerentur nullus inde clamor nullum inde Judicium ad sedem Apostolicam destinantur Idem fol. 113. 116. nor Letter to be received but by his leave and the Year following Anselm Nephew to the late Arch-Bishop and after Abbot of St. Edmundsbury shewed by Letters that he had Committed to his Administration Vices Apostolicas in Anglia This made known here the Queen Clergy and Nobility gather'd in Council at London concluded that the Arch-Bishop should go to the King to Normandy and make known to him the Ancient Custom of the Realm and by his Advice to Rome that these new things might be Annihilated haec Nova annihilaret So the Arch-Bishop went to the King to Roan and met Anselm there designing his Journey for England but King Henry not suffering that any prejudice saith my Author should be brought upon the Ancient Customs of England deteined Anselm from going to England §. 4. The Subjects repine at the Legats Praecedence of the Arch-Bishop Canterbury ☞ Soon after we find Legats sent and particularly John Cremensis Anno 1125. 25 H. 1. Who being but a Priest Cardinal yet using the Habit of a Bishop and performing the Office on Easter Day in a more Eminent Chair as an Arch-Bishop gave offence But in a Council which he held and presided in at London the Kingdom took more offence saith my Author for then (a) Videres enim rem hactenus regno Anglorum inauditam Clericum scilicet Presbyterii tantum Gradu perfunctum Archiepiscopis Episcopis Abbatibus totiusque Regni Nobilibus qui confluxerant in sublimi solio praesidere illos autem deorsum sedentes ad nutum ejus vultu auribus animum suspensum habentes Gerv. Dorob Acta Pontif. Col. 1663.42 saith he we might see a thing hitherto unheard of in the Kingdom of England A Clerk only having the Degree of a Priest preside in a lofty Throne above the Arch-Bishops Bishops Abbots and all the Nobles of the Kingdom that Assembled there they sitting below with Countenances and Ears attending his pleasure ☞ In this I take not so much notice that he assumed such a place that being due according to the Dignity of the Person he Represented and is no more to be wondered at then that the Lord Cromwell as Vicar General had place before the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury but I cannot but observe that it was looked upon as such a Novelty and a thing not used before even as the Vicar Generals place was in the latter Ages And it is supposed by some to be the first President of any Clergy Mans having Precedence here of the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury who was Styled Alterius Orbis Papa as having Vices Apostolicas here But in Anno 1127. To take off this Envy the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury William Corbet was declared Legat and in May following held a Council at Windsor wherein (b) Cui praesidet sicut Apostolicae sedis Legatus Florent Wigorn An. 1126.1127 he presided as Legat of the Apostolic See and it must be owned that tho' these first three Kings after the Conquest Contested with Popes in these matters yet afterwards Kings yielded more to the Canons of the Church §. 5. Further power exercised by Legats ☞ Anno 1138. 3 Steph. Albert or Alberic Cardinal of Hostia was the Popes Legat and Consecrated Theobald Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and called the Clergy to a (a) Gerv. Dorob Col. 1346.58 Colloquium by Apostolic Authority by which it appears that the Canons of the Church now obtained and the King assented to the powers the Legat had so that what was Decreed had the Kings Allowance In (b) Eadmerus fol. 24.11 this Council he Commanded the Prior and Convent of Canterbury to choose such an Arch-Bishop whom the Authority of the Holy Canons in nothing might obstruct and to whom the Bishops of his Province likewise ought to submit Here is to be noted that the Kings Assent was required and to whom the King neither might nor ought justly to deny his Assent and that if any (c) Gerv. Dorob can 9. Col. 1348. injured any Ecclesiastical person and did not give satisfaction after three Admonitions he might be Excommunicated and that none besides the Pope unless the danger of Death were Imminent might enjoyn the manner of his final Penance which my Author * Sir Roger Twisden ut supra says was the first Canon that was made whereby any thing done in England was referred to Rome but of this I doubt Anno 1139.39 H. 1. Pope Innocent the Third Conferred the Legatine power upon Henry Bishop of Winchester King Stephens Brother his Faculties (d) Malmsbury fol. 103. a. 31. were Read at a Council he called at Winchester bearing Date March the 1st There being some differences betwixt the Arch-Bishop and Monks of Canterbury Disputes betwixt the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and the Legat. they were referred from Rome to his Decisions so that he caused both Parties the second time to appear before him 1143. as Lagat and Commanded (e) Willi. Thorâ—s Col. 1853.32 Arch-Bishop Theobald to restore one Jeremy whom he had removed By these and other Carriages there grew great distasts betwixt these two great Prelates The Arch-BiNop prohibited (a) Jo. Hagulst Col. 275. H. 4. Winchester all Ecclesiastical Functions tho' he were the Popes Legat and both apply themselves to the Pope Whence a Learned (b) Sir Roger Twisden Vindis p. 27. Person saith our Historians do setch the use of Appeals to Rome tho' it may be Ancienter §. 6. The Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Created Legatus Natus ☞ These two great Prelates being before Lucius the Second Anno 1144. the Bishop of Winchester (c) Willi. Thorn Col. 1804.44 J. Hagulst Col. 273.61 Anno 1145. was dismissed his Legatine Commission and the Pope finding with how great difficulty the Ecclesiastic Affairs of the Kingdom could be managed by any Legate without the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Created him and his Successors Legati Nati by which such things as the Arch-BiNops did before and which seemed to Interfere with the Popes plenitude of power the exercise of which the Arch-Bishop was not so easily to be divested of he might be said to make use of by a Legatine power After this our Histories are full of Appeals to Rome Greater subjection to the Pope and of the Authority Exercised by Legats and we find some things allowed by the Decrees of Popes to be Transacted by the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury quâ Archibishop and
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
account of these things from the Chancellor and Proctors intending to Deprive the (a) In Turri Scholar pix 2. N. 5.6 c. University of that Right And after some debate it was agreed that when he appointed a Visitation of the University if any Masters Scholars or any Members of the University were faulty in any thing which appertained to the Ecclesiastical Court they should be referred to the Chancellors Disquisition and Sentence but in greater faults or where any submitted not to the Chancellors Sentence their Names should be sent to the Bishop who promised not to promote them till they had satisfied the Chancellor However I find (b) Wood fol. 128. that the Regents and non-Regents in Convocation declared that the University was in full Possession of certain Rights and Customs there expressed And this I suppose they were (c) Wood fol. 125. b. encouraged to do because the Year foregoing viz. 1279. (d) Turri Scholar pix 2. M. 2. The Arch-Bishop of Canterbury defends the University against the Bishop of Lincoln John Peckam Arch-Bishop of Canterbury at a Synod held at Reading moved by reason of Complaints made to him by the Chancellor determined to defend the Privileges of the University and take the Goods of the University into his protection For which purpose he Ratified the Sentence of Suspension and Excommunication made by the Chancellor or his Deputy against the Scholars that were Delinquents or that Appealed to any Dioecesan Subject to the Archiepiscopal See. Hereupon * Wood. Ant. Fol. 127. a. The Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Visits Anno 1284. 11 E. 1. The Arch-Bishop Visited the University about the end of October and interposed his desires and Authority having Writ to the University not to be disobedient to their Dioecesan and to the Bishop of Lincoln to use moderation Oxoniensem Academiamjure Metropolitico Visitaturus adiit Parker Antiq. fol. 204. tho' I find the most of what he did was as his Predecessor Kilwardly had done to Condemn certain Erroneous Positions used to be maintained in the Schools by the the Minorite Fryers Preachers and opposed by the Augustins yet I find (a) Regist Peckham Richard Knapwell a Dominican Appealed to the Pope Anno 1285. Against the Arch-Bishops Sentence Anno 1287. (b) Si in jure contenderent vinci eos superari necesse esse presertim cum his quibus uterentur privilegiis a Jurisdictione Episcopali jure communi stabilita eximi nequaquam potuissent Antiq. Brit. p. 204. In the life of John Peckham Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Arch-Bishop Parker Writes that there was a contest betwixt the Bishop of Lincoln Oliver Sutton and the University of Oxon for some Years concerning the Jurisdiction of the Bishop over the Scholars in which when the Arch-Bishop understood the Cause of the Scholars to be feeble and not able to be Defended by the Laws he Writ to them that if they continued the Suit they should undoubtedly be overcome while they no ways could exempt the privileges they used from the Episcopal Jurisdiction Established by Common Law that is the universally received Canons By which we may Judge The University subject to several Visitations that the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury allowed the Ordinary Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Lincoln in whose power Oxford then was yet this hinders not but that they might be subject to other Superior Visitations as the Kings or the Popes Legates §. 7. Anno 1301.30 E. 1. Pope Boniface the Eighth the 11th of the Ides of June 1 o. Pontificatus * A. fol. 95. Twynus lib. 3. sect 19. Pope Boniface the 8th grants several privileges and exempts the University from Archiepiscopal and Episcopal Visitation grants to the Chancellor Masters Doctors and Scholars of the University of Oxford a Bull wherein is expressed that they had set forth in their Petition that several Kings of England of Famous Memory had granted them several privileges confirmed after by the present King and did humbly supplicate him that he would make to them the like Concession and by his Apostolical Dignity would vouchsafe to exempt them from all Jurisdiction and power of whatsoever Arch-Bishop Bishops and other Ordinary Judges which he grants and Confirms their Exemption made by Pope Innocent the Fourth Mr. Wood gives many Reasons why this Bull should rather be ascribed to Pope Boniface the Ninth Anno 1389. almost an Hundred Years after but I need not enter into that enquiry since all that I infer from this or any other account I give of this matter is that the Kings of England were the first bestowers of the Secular privileges at the least and the Popes of the Spiritual and Ecclesiastical and and what the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury as Metropolitan and the Bishop of Lincoln as Dioecesan did was by the Ordinary power of Visiting their Dioecess which the Canons gave them as I shall shew hereafter §. 9. The Dominicans make disturbances This leads me before I proceed further to give an account of a difference that happned betwixt the University and the Dominicans wherein it will appear wherein it will appear that matters relating to the Ordering the manner and Method of taking Degrees and Establishing and performing Exercises and Lectures were disposed by the King or the Pope The Case was this There having been a difference * Wood Antiq Oxon fol. 150. b. betwixt the Dominicans and the University of Paris about the Observance of Statutes of the University the Dominicans claiming an Exemption from it's Jurisdiction and denying that the Inceptors in Theology should ask Licence of the Chancellor or undergoe any Examination but from those of their own Family after an Appeal to Rome the cause was adjudged in favor of the Fryers which the University took so ill that they abstained from public Lectures The Dominicans in Oxford Anno 1211. Cavilled at the Statutes of that University Wood ut supra which for brevity sake I shall refer the Reader to peruse in my Author but generally they were about taking their Degrees in Philosophy and Divinity according to the prescripts of the Statutes and that they should be Admitted to no Degrees unless they Swore to the Observation of the Statutes and that they should perform some Exercise in the Schools and Preach in St. Maries whereas they would Execute them in their own Fraternity Upon which they fixed their Appeal the Chancellor having refused it upon the Gates of St. Maries Church Anno 1312. (a) Id. fol. 151â—â— Claus 2. Ed. 2. M. 12. The Dominicans apply themselves to the King who orders that they shall enjoy their privileges and that at the next Parliament the University by their Atturny shall Answer to their Allegations and bring their Charters and Privileges granted by the King or his Predecessors By which it appears how the King was their proper Judge and what is called Parliamentary Judgment was before the Lords as the Kings Supreme Court where differences among his Subjects
LICENS'D By COMMAND this 23d of July 1688. JA. VERNON THE KING'S Visitatorial Power ASSERTED BEING An Impartial Relation of the late Visitation of St. Mary Magdalen College in Oxford As likewise an Historical Account of several Visitations of the Universities and particular Colleges Together with some necessary Remarks upon the Kings Authority in Ecclesiastical Causes according to the Laws and usages of this Realm By NATHANIEL JOHNSTON Doctor in Physic Fellow of His Majesties College of Physicians in London Pereunte Obsequio etiam Imperium Intercidit Tacitus 1 Histor LONDON Printed by Henry Hills Printer to the King 's Most Excellent Majesty for His Houshold and Chappel And are sold at his Printing-house on the Ditch-side in Black-Fryers 1688. TO THE Judicious Reader AS soon as His Majesty had been pleased to lay His Commands upon me to Collect materials for this Subject I could not but reflect that it was to Treat of a matter that I knew not any had Writ upon before and of such a largeness that it takes in not only the Case of Magdalen College but regards all other Corporations and Societies of that Constitution and spreads it self into some branches of the Prerogative Royal Wherefore the nature of the Thing requires a Treatise of me not altogether unsuitable to the Dignity of the persons concerned viz. The King and the Universities which would induce persons of all Ranks to peruse it who desire satisfaction in a matter of such importance both to the Prince and Subject This suggested to me a necessity of enquiring into Records of preceding ages and to render the Work at least a Collection of various instances in several Cases of Visitations Therefore finding no compleat History of any Visitation of our Universities except that of the long Parliament I judged it necessary to give an Impartial account of the proceedings from the Kings Mandate for Mr. Farmer to the close of the Visitations by the Lords Commissioners whereby this and after ages might have an Authentic Precedent if any occasion should happen of this kind and that people concerned might know their Boundaries and in this part I followed the Registers Original Papers Authentic Copies of Letters and Orders or the Diaries accounts of such as were present and actors in the disquisition and in this particular I have used as much diligence as I could not to be imposed upon and had finished most of this before the Oxford Relation was Printed and wherein I differ from that I have done it upon the best Intelligence I could obtain After the finishing of this I judged it not improper before I entred upon Answering the Objections I found urged by the Vice-President and Fellows of St. Mary Magdalen College to clear the Kings Prerogative over the Universities in making and Abrogating their Statutes or dispensing with them and placing or dis placing of their Members which obliged me to consider the matter not only in General but also to descend to many particulars and shew who by the Kings Authority or sufferance have exercised the like Authority In which I have endeavored to follow the most approved Authors and surest Records I have the rather enlarged upon this head that I might afford variety of Cases whereby the distinct claims of Right of Visitation might be Illustrated and this Tract might be a Repertory whereby upon emergences the Original Records might be enquired after If some may judge me too tedious I desire them to consider that it was not enough to clear the point of St. Mary Magdalen College but likewise to discover in what other Cases the Kings of England had exerted their Prerogatives The Contemplation of this led me to touch tho' with a trembling hand the Regalia of our Kings and look into the Laws and usages of former times and in what sort the Soveraignty and Supremacy of our Kings in matters of Ecclesiastical cognizance are declared by the Laws in being In which part I treat of the Kings Authority abstractedly from Doctrinal Religion This I the rather have done that the Subjects of all conditions may observe how great the Authority and Prerogative of the King is in dispensing with University and College Statutes since by the plain and direct Laws that Assert the Kings Right in opposition to all Foreign powers his Supremacy is so Established in Ecclesiastical matters and causes that it is applicable to other purposes than at the first view may appear obvious which I leave to the discussion of those better versed in the Laws than I shall ever presume to be Nevertheless I hope in the treating of this subject it will be owned that I have Introduced no Novelty but Copy'd what is found in History or the public Records and brought to light a Prerogative inseparable from the Royal State of our Kings which some for want of consulting the same have not so well discerned It is to caution the Heads and Fellows of our most eminent Universities not to contend with their Sovereign that I have so copiously produced Instances of the practice of former times and have so largely treated of them before and since the Reformation It was for this end solely and not in the least to erect Trophies for any Victory over the unfortunate that I have pointed out these Sea-marks that others may avoid dashing themselves against the Rock upon which the British Monarchy is so firmly placed that no Tempests of open Rebellion or the highest swelling Seas much less any single Billow can be able to shake It is far from my Intention in this to enter into any dispute about the limits of Ecclesiastical or Secular power It is sufficient that I shew it in some particulars of known practice without examining the grounds any more than as declared by the positive Laws or practice of the respective Sovereigns I know some may look upon this as a matter treated of ex superabundanti yet I thought my self obliged so far to enter into a dissertation upon it as I might thereby make it appear that by the extensiveness of the Sovereignty Universities much more private Colleges both which the Law accounts among the Creatures of the Crown must own a subjection of themselves and their private Statutes to the King as Supreme Neither hath it been any desire to render the Kings Prerogative greater than the Laws and usages of our Kings do manifest that I have shewn how it hath been insisted upon even against some exemptions of the Apostolic See or to Establish any Paradox but only to Assert the just Rights of the Crown at least according to my Reading and do with all deference submit what I have composed to the Judgment of the Learned in our Laws But to leave this I desire the Candid Reader will peruse the Contents of the Book in the following Pages before he enter upon the whole whereby he may see the connexion and sequences of the matter and he must not expect that those Contents are exactly according to the
pag. 158. 159. The Kings power of Visiting § 16. pag. 159. The Kings power in Ecclesiastical matters and his being Supreme Visitor pag. 160. SECT II. Who Exercised Jurisdiction by way of Visitation or otherwise over the Universities from the 11th of King John to the Year 1390. 14 Ric. 2. pag. 161. The Pope and Legat Suspend Offenders § 1. pag. 161. Cardinal Otho Visits by Legatin Authority § 2. pag. 163. The Bishop of Lincoln Ordinary Visitor of the University of Oxford § 3. pag. 164. 165. The Bishop of Lincoln sometimes opposed § 4. p. 166. The Arch-Bishop of Canterburys Visitation of Oxford § 5. pag. 167. Disputes betwixt the Bishop of Lincoln and the University and the Arch-Bishop with both about Visitation § 6. pag. 168. 169. The University subject to several Visitations pa. 169. The disturbance the Dominicans made in the University of Oxon for setling which the King and Pope shewed their Authority § 9. pag. 171. 172. Appeals to the Pope § 10. pag. 174. 175. Differences betwixt the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and Bishop of Lincoln about Visitation and the King Interposeth his Authority § 11. pag. 172. Disturbances in Queens College and the proceedings of the Local Visitor and the Kings Orders thereupon § 12. pag. 175. Arch-Bishop Courtneys Visitation § 13. pag. 176. SECT III. Who Visited the Vniversity of Oxford after the 13th of King Richard the Seconds time to the beginning of King Henry the 8ths Reign pag. 178. The King redresseth certain grievances complained of by both Universities § 1. pag. 179. What is to be observed from thence § 2. pag. 180. The Kings Mandate to extirpate Lollards out of the University § 3. pag. 181. Arch-Bishop Arundel Visiting by the Kings leave Commands the Univesity to obey § 4. pag. 182. The Kings power not lessened by such Visitations pag. 184. Arch-Bishop Arundels Visitation resisted § 5. pa. 185. The King hears the Cause of the Universities claiming exemption and determins it pag. 186. An account of this whole matter in Parliament § 6. pag. 186. The King may deprive the University of privileges for dis-obedience pag. 187. An account of a latter Visitation 12 H. 4. § 7. pag. 188. The Reason why the Author hath given so large an account of this Controversie § 8. pag. 189. Mr. Pryns mis-application of the Records about this pag. 189. The King gives Sentence for the Arch-Bishop of York against the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and gives leave to the Bishop of Lincoln to Visit § 9. pa. 191. The Visitation of the Metropolitan and Diocesan by the Canons § 10. pag. 191. 192. CHAP. V. COncerning the Visitations of the Vniversity of Oxford since the Renouncing the Popes Supremacy in England pag. 193. SECT I. Concerning the Visitations in the Reigns of King Henry the 8th and King Edward the 6th pag. 193. The Charters and Bulls of the University of Oxford Surrendred to the King and Cardinal Wolsey for him and the Kings Visiting the University § 1. pag. 194. The usual Method of proceeding in Visitations of the Universities pag. 194. 195. The Commission of King Edw. 6th to Visit the University of Oxford § 2. pag. 196. The Kings Supremacy and Authority to Visit pa. 196. The places and persons to be Visited § 3. pag. 197. The punishments are Deprivation Sequestration of profits and Ecclesiastical Censures c. § 4. pag. 198. Several other powers granted to the Visitors § 5. pag. 199. Other powers § 6. pag. 200. Further powers given § 7. pag. 200. 201. Command to Sheriffs to Assist Non-obstante c. § 8. pag. 201. What may be observed from this Commission § 9. pag. 201. to 205. What the Commissioners did in this Visitation A Suspension of the Execution of Statutes § 10. pag. 205. 206. A new Book of Statutes made § 11. pag. 206. The severe proceedings of the Commissioners § 12. pag. 207. SECT II. The Visitation in Queen Maries Reign pag. 208. Queen Maries Visitation by Bishop Gardyner § 1. pag. 208. Cardinal Pools Visitation § 2. pag. 209. The Questions proposed pag. 210. The Cardinal appoints new Statutes § 3. pag. 210. The Cardinal Visiting as the Popes Legat. pag. 211. SECT III. The Visitations in Queen Elizabeths Reign pag. 212. Queen Elizabeths Inhibition § 1. pag. 212. Queen Elizabeth appoints Visitors § 2. pag. 212. The Heads of Colleges and others Expelled § 3. pag. 213. Letters about the Visitation of Cambridge by Dr. Parker after Arch-Bishop of Canterbury § 4. pag. 215. Some observations concerning that Visitation pag. 218. An account of the Visitation of Merton College § 5. pag. 218. Observations upon it pag. 219. Secretary Cecils Letter about Visitation § 6. pag. 220. Disturbances about the Election of a President in Corpus Christi College and the Queens Mandate for Electing § 7. pag. 221. The Queen appoints Visitors Ibid. What the Earl of Leicester did as Chancellor § 8. Ibid. SECT IV. A further account of the Visitations of the Vniversities or single Colleges together with the Alteration Abrogating or new Imposing of Statutes of the Vniversities by the Sovereign pag. 223. An account of what is to be Treated of in this Section The Reason why Princes should have a greater power over Universities § 1. pag. 223. 224. Queen Elizabeths Letters Patents for confirming the Statutes of the University of Cambridge altered by her § 2. pag. 225. A Controversie betwixt Dr. Humfreys President and some Fellows of Magdalen College § 3. pag. 227. An account given of it in the first paper § 4. pag. 228. The second paper § 5. pag. 231. to 236. The third paper § 6. pag. 236. to 240. Abstract of Secretary Walsinghams Letter about this matter and the Bishop of Winchesters Answer § 7. pag. 241. Observations from these strict Statutes § 8. p. 242. 243. The Case of Mr. Wilson chosen Rector of Lincoln College § 9. pag. 244. Dr. Fulks Letter about the Queens appointing Visitors of Cambridge § 10. pag. 246. Necessity by Visitation to alter Statutes tho' the University have power to do the same Ibid. Statutes about Apparel § 11. pag. 248. Concerning the need of confirmation of the Spiritual Jurisdiction to the Chancellor c. pag. 248. The Kings appointing constitutions of the University without Visitors § 12. pag. 249. Concerning some Visitations in King Charles the firsts time pag. 250. Concerning Arch-Bishop Lauds Visitation of the Universities jure Metropolitico pag. 250. 251. King Charles the firsts determination concerning the Arch-Bishops Visitation of the Universities § 13. pag. 252. Considerations thereupon pag. 253. The Form of a Commission from King Charles the 2d for Visiting a free Chappel § 14. pag. 254. Inferences from this Record pag. 255. The Conclusion of this Section pag. 255. The Opinion of an eminent Lawyer as to the Kings power over Corporations Colleges c. pa. 255. 256. The Opinion of several Judges in this
matter confirming what hath been Asserted in the preceding discourse § 15. pag. 257. 258. 259. CHAP. VI. COncerning the Kings of England's Dispensing with the Statutes of the Vniversities by their Mandates pag. 260. SECT I. Concerning the Kings dispensing power in General and in some particulars to the beginning of King Charles the 2ds Reign pag. 200. Concerning the Kings dispensing power in General § 1. pag. 260. Why the Author treats not largely on this subject § 2. pag. 262. Some observations upon the 25 H. 8. C. 21. § 3. pag. 262. That the Statute is Founded upon the usage of a dispensing power Ibid. That the Pope exercised a dispensing power by sufferance in Derogation of the Royal Authority pag. 263. The Ecclesiastical power originally in the King according to this Act. § 4. pag. 263. The Kings Prerogative not restrained by Acts of Parliament in several cases pag. 264. Where to find Arguments for the dispensing power § 5. pag. 265. Some Paragraphs of the Act 8 Eliz. C. 1. explained Ibid. The Queens power in matters Ecclesiastical Supreme and absolute pag. 266. Inferences from this Statute pag. 266. Observations upon the Statute 25 H. 8. C. 1. by Judge Hobart pag. 267. Greater powers seem to be Implyed in Section 17. and 18. of this Statute worthy consideration pag. 267. Some further observations upon the Statute 25 H. 8 C. 21. § 6. pag. 267. An account of the Queens Mandate about Electing a Master of St. Johns College in Cambridge § 7. pag. 269. The Bishop of Londons Testimony that the King hath dispensed with College Statutes § 8. pag. 270. A Mandate dispensing with Incapacities to receive Degrees § 9. pag. 270. A Mandate for a Schollar of St. Mary Wintons College without Examination pag. 271. A Mandate dispensing with the Incapacity by reason of the County Ibid. An acknowledgment from St. Johns College in Cambridge that the King may dispense with College Statutes § 10. 272. A Senior Sophister may take Bachellor of Arts Degree by dispensation pag. 272. SECT II. Concerning Dispensations with the Statutes of the Vniversities or particular Colleges from the Year 1670. 22d of King Charles the Second to this present time pag. 273. Mandate for Dr. Lloid taking his Degree two years before the Statutes allow § 1. pag. 273. The words of Dispensation to be noted § 2. pag. 244. Mandate for Thomas Chapman to have the Degree of Master of Arts without performing exercises pag. 274. Dispensations for Charles Otway otherwise Incapable either as to the County or his Years pag. 275. Mandate for Mr. Josuah Ratcliff contrary to the Statutes of the College pag. 275. Dispensation for Mr. Edward Finch not being of the County c. for Dr. Hawkins not to perform exercises § 3. pag. 276. Dispensing with the Statutes of St. Mary Magdalen College for Mr. Craddock Ibid. A Statute of the Lady Margaret the Foundress dispensed with § 4. pag. 277. Concerning conferring Honorary Degrees pag. 277. Dispensation with Statutes for entring into Orders § 5. pag. 278. Another of the same nature for Sir John Lydcote with it's revocation pag. 278. A Mandate endeavored to be eluded re-enforced § 6. 279. The Mandate for removing the Duke of Monmouth from being Chancellor and substituting the Duke of Albemarle § 7. pag. 280. The Kings power to Interpret Statutes and nominate Chancellor pag. 280. 281. The King grants power to the University to confer Degrees upon such as the Chancellor or Vice-Chancellor shall recommend § 8. pag. 281. The re-enforcing of it pag. 282. The Kings Mandate for making new Statutes for regulating Degrees at the Universities Petition § 9. pag. 282. A Command to the University to grant a dispensation § 10. pag. 283. The revoking of a Mandate pag. 284. The Kings Order that Mandates should not be granted without Testimonials of the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London § 11. pa. 284. The recalling of a Mandate after the former § 12. pag. 285. The Conclusion § 13. pag. 286. CHAP. VII THe Answer to the Arguments used by the Vice-President and Fellows of St. Mary Magdalen College in defence of their proceedings pag. 288. SECT I. Answer to what is urged in their Justification from the Obligation of their Oaths to observe their Statutes p. 288. The Objection concerning the Statutable qualification of the persons for whom the King granted Mandates § 1. pag. 288. The Answer of the definition of an Oath and the divisions of it and who may vacate them § 2. p. 289. Oaths subject to the power of a Superior pag. 290. The Sovereign hath power to alter and adnul Statutes pag. 290. A Statute being revoked the Swearer no longer obliged to observe it § 3. pag. 291. So by the Sovereigns prohibition the execution pag. 292. The Superior can remit the obligating of an Oath § 4. pag. 292. The Tacit condition of the Superiors allowance always to be understood pag. 293. This head further Insisted upon § 5. pag. 294. The reason of it § 6. pag. 295. The Objection that the Kings Tacit consent is Implyed and the Oath before the Election Answered § 7. pag. 295. The Objection Answered that the Fellows Swear to Admit no dispensation pag. 296. to 300. SECT II. wrong put SECT III. Some other Objections considered either relating to the Visitation in General or urged in defence of some particular Member of the Society pag. 300. A second Objection Answered that the Local Visitor should have first ordered the business before the Lords Commissioners had taken cognizance of it § 1. pag. 300. The Objection Answered that Dr. Hough was not cited nor appeared by Proxy § 2. pag. 301. The Objection that Dr. Hough was Ejected out of his Free-hold without Tryal at Common Law. § 3. pag. 302. Answer to the Objection that a Mandate doth not Imply a prohibition § 4. pag. 304. In some Grants a reservation of power to dispense with Statutes pag. 305. What power the Emperors Edicts and Mandates have in Civil Law. pag. 305. 306. That a Mandate Implys a prohibition § 5. pag. 307. The Judgment of Civilians in this matter pag. 308. An epxress and Tacit Inhibition § 6. pag. 309. Dr. Staffords Dilemma Answered pag. 309. A parallel Case of Dr. Haddon in King Edward the 6ths time § 7. pag. 310. The Reason why the Author Inserted this no sooner pag. 310. An Abridgment of Dr. Haddons Case pag. 311. A fuller account of it to be in the Appendix pag. 312. The Sixth Objection in behalf of Dr. Fairfax § 8. pag. 312. The Answer to it pag. 313. Dr. Fairfax punished for dis-obedience and denying the Lords Commissioners Authority Ibid. Observation from the Civil Law upon it pag. 314. The Reason why the Kings Mandates ought not to be disputed pag. 315. The seventh Objection out of the Oxford Relation § 9. pag. 316. The Answer § 10. pag. 317. The Kings Prerogative a part of the Law
and in defence of the Doctrin of the Church of England As also to let all know how happy it had been if the Fellows had hearkned to his honest sober and faithful advice which was assented to by Dr. Aldworth Dr. Fairfax and Dr. Pudsey at their private Conference before proceeding to Election tho' they after changed their minds ☞ It hath been the practice in former times and according to the Canon Laws that when any Superior enjoyned any matter upon Inferiors which they judged to be prejudicial to their Rights It was their Duty rescribere to Write to the Prince or other Superior to shew him wherein by such Mandate their Rights were invaded or what other inconveniences might ensue and not to proceed forthwith to do that which was forbid especially not to proceed to Election as here they did when the King had after their Petition presented to him expressed himself that he would be obeyed In Duty and Obedience therefore they should have stayed their Election and represented their Case more particularly and it is most certain that the neglect of this and the contempt of the Kings Authority were the Original causes of all that hath befallen them but I shall leave this and proceed in the matters of Fact. §. 7. My Lord President to the Bishop of Winchester Whitehall April the 16th 1687. My Lord I Have received your Lordships Letter of the 8th Instant with an Address or Petition inclosed in it from St. Mary Magdalen College in Oxford which I laid before the King who had before granted his Mandate in behalf of Mr. Farmer to be Elected and Admitted President of that College and being since informed that notwithstanding the same they have made Choice of Mr. Hough His Majesty Commands me to acquaint your Lordship that his pleasure is you should not Admit Mr. Hough to be President till further Order from him Lord Bishop of Winchester I am MY LORD Your Lordships most humble Servant Sunderland P. This being sent to the Bishop he returned this following Answer the next Day My Honorable Lord THis Morning I received yours of the 16th Bishop of Winchesters Answer by the hands of Mr. Smith one of His Majesties Messengers In which your Lordship signifies to me His Majesties pleasure not to Admit Mr. Hough to be President of St. Mary Magdalen College Oxon until further Order from him But Mr. Hough being Yesterday Morning presented to me by some of the Fellows of the College as Statutably Elected I did according to the Trust reposed in me by the Founder after he had taken the Oath enjoyned by the Statute Admit him Presdent and am certain when the Statutes of the College are laid before His Majesty he will find that I have not violated my Duty in performance of which I never was nor ever shall be remiss as I desire you to assure him from Farnham Castle April the 17th 1687. Your most humble Servant P. Winchester §. 8. By the Statutes there are five days allowed for the Bishop of Winchester's confirmation ☞ By this it appears how sedulous the new Elected President and the Fellows were to have the Election confirmed presuming that this being done the President would have a Legal Right and could not be removed but by course of Common Law But I hope to shew hereafter that the practice of the Kings of England and of the Visitors appointed either by the Kings or the Popes the latter of whose power our present Laws give his Majesty hath been to dispense with Statutes and to place and displace for disobedience Heads of Colleges and Fellows by the significaton of their Royal pleasure or to Impower Visitors by Commission to do the same and of this it cannot be conceived that the Members of the College could be Ignorant but that they rather were animated to lay hold of this opportunity to see if they could dispute the Kings Authority or which is of equal concern to many render the King's Actions disobliging whereby they might gain the point of raising iealousie and male-contentedness in peoples minds with which designs I will not charge all the Members of the Society But it is too apparent that those who underhand encourged them to persist in their opposition designed some such matter I now pass to their Application to his Grace the Duke of Ormond their Chancellor and the Representing their Case in the best dress they could and shall only note at present that these were like to have little effect since they were the justifyings of their actions upon such slender grounds as in the sequel will be made appear and carried no tokens of relenting or repentance for their by-past disobedience so that the King could not look upon them as any Acts of theirs that might induce him to a Clemency or Pardon where they would not own their failor of duty but were a denial of his Sovereign and Supreme Authority of dispensing and being obeyed contrary to the known Laws and practice of his Royal Predecssors as I shall make clear when I come to Answer their Objections and shew the obligation to their Oaths of owning the Kings Supremacy and the Sovereign Jurisdiction the King hath to alter and make null their Statutes that any ways Impugn his Prerogative over such Societies and Corporations which owe their Foundation and subsistence to the Royal pleasure and may be proceeded against when the King pleaseth by a more sever method of Quo Warrante whereby they may be totally suppressed Whereas the King in great Clemency proceeded only by way of Visitation which is a most undoubted Prerogative of the King that must ever be owned by those who question the extent of the Ecclesiastical Commission I now proceed to the Address the Society made to his Grace the Duke of Ormond as followeth §. 9. The President and Fellows of St. Mary Magdalens College Oxon to the Duke of Ormond then Chancellor May it please your Grace VVE the President and Fellows of St. Mary Magdalens College in Oxford sensible of the Honor and Benefit we enjoy under your Graces Patronage and how much it Imports us to have recourse to your Advice in all those difficulties wherewith we are prest having as we fear displeased His Majesty in our late Election of a President do humbly beg leave to represent to your Grace a true State of our Case and hope you will please to Inform the King how uncapable we were of obeying his Commands His Majesty was pleased upon the Death of Dr. Henry Clark President of this College to Command us by his Letter to Elect and Admit Mr. Anthony Farmer into that Office a person utterly uncapable of it by our Statutes as we are ready to make appear in many particulars And since we have all taken a positive Oath of obedience to them and that Exclusive of all Dispensations whatsoever We humbly conceive we could not obey that Command in favor of Mr. Farmer unless he had brought those Qualifications with him
at St. Mary Magdalen College MR. Thomas Atterbury Messenger was sent with this Order to the College and he returns Answer June the 24th that he came thither that day and enquired for Dr. Pudsey who he understood was Senior Fellow upon the place and told him that he was directed by the Lords Commissioners to apply himself to him as Senior Fellow and desired him to Assemble the rest of the Fellows that he might deliver to them the Orders from the said Lords Dr. Pudsey reply'd That he did not Act as Senior Fellow for that he was made Burser but would endeavor to get him an Answer at Five a Clock as soon as Prayers were done at which time he told him that he had no power to Assemble the Fellows neither could he any ways do it so long as there was a President on the place the Fellows had no Authority to Act There being two or three Fellows with this Doctor one of them asked Mr. Atterbury to see the Orders to which he Answered If he with Dr. Pudsey and the rest would receive them he would deliver them to them but would not Read them So he shewed them the Indorsment that they were directed to them and offered to deliver them to them But they refused saying they had no Authority to call an Assembly neither could they do it therefore it was not fit they should receive them and being desired to tell him if that was their final Answer they said yes so he told Dr. Pudsey he must give a speedy Answer to the Register Mr. Bridgman to whom he sends this account and adds that the Doctor treated him with very good words and Invited him to Dine with them while he stayed in Town Thus far Mr. Atterbury's Letter I now proceed to what was done next §. 7. The Orders of the Lords concerning Mr. Farmer upon the Reading his defence At a Court held c. the 1st day of July 1687. Mr. Anthony Farmer gave in his Answer to the Complaint exhibited against him by the Fellows of Magdalen College which was Read and the Court Ordered to hear the matter at their next meeting when all parties concerned are required to Attend and that Compulsories should be granted to both sides for Witnesses e Registro The Form whereof was as followeth By His Majesties Ecclesiastical Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes c. YOu and either of you are hereby required forthwith to Cite and Summon James Fayrer Master of Arts of Magdalen College c. to appear personally before us in the Council Chamber Friday the 29th day of July Instant at Four of the Clock in the Afternoon then and there by vertue of this Citation as Witnesses to give their Testimonies in the matter depending before us betwixt the Fellows of St. Mary Magdalens College in Oxford and one Mr. Anthony Farmer under pain of the Law and Contempt thereof And of the due execution hereof you are to certifie us the day and year aforesaid together with these presents Given under our Seal the 1st day of July 1687. To Thomas Atterbury and Robert Eddows Or either of them July the 1st Their Lordships having been informed Out of the Register that their foresaid Order of June the 22d had not been obeyed Ordered the following Citation By His Majesties Commissioners c. WHereas We thought fit by our Order of the 22d of June last Citation of the Fellows for disobeying the former Order to enjoyn and require the Fellows of St. Mary Magdalen College in the University of Oxford to cause our Orders for the vacating the Election made by them of Mr. John Hough to be President of the said College and for Suspending Dr. Charles Aldworth from being Vice-President and Dr. Henry Fairfax from his Fellowship in the same to be affixed on the Gates of the said College and whereas we are given to understand that our said Order hath not been obeyed by the said Fellows You and either of you are hereby required to Cite and Summon the said Fellows of St. Mary Magdalen College requiring them to appear before Us in the Council Chamber at Whitehall upon Friday the 29th Instant at Four in the Afternoon to Answer the said Contempt and of the due execution hereof you are to certifie Us then and there Given under our Seal the first day of July 1687. Superscribed To Thomas Atterbury and Robert Eddows Or either of them §. 8. During this interim before the Fellows appeared before the Lords Commissioners the King according to former Presidents sends this following Inhibitory Mandate to the Fellows of St. Mary Magdalen College JAMES R. TRusty and Well-beloved Inhibitions sent to the Fellows neither to Elect nor Admit any Fellow or Demy till the Kings further pleasure was known which is according to former Presidents as in due place will be shown We Greet you well whereas We are informed that a Sentence or Decree lately made by Our Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Affairs touching an Election in that Our College hath not been obeyed Our will and pleasure is that no Election or Admission be made of any person or persons whatsoever to any Fellowship Demyship or other place or Office in our said College until We shall signifie Our further pleasure any Statute Custom or Constitution to the contrary notwithstanding And so expecting your ready obedience herein We bid you farewell Given at our Court at Windsor the 18th day of July 1687. In the third Year of our Reign By His Majesties Command Sunderland P. Superscribed To Our Trusty and Well-beloved the Fellows of St. Mary Magdalens College in Our Vniversity of Oxford §. 9. Order to Mr. Atterbury c. to affix the Decree concerning Mr. Hough Dr. Aldworth and Dr. Fairfax upon the College Gates The next Court was held the 29th day of July At which time I do not find that the Fellows of St. Mary Magdalen College did exhibit their Answer why they obeyed not the Order of the Lords Commissioners of the 22d of June nor that their Lordships required it but I find in the Register this following Order to affix the Sentence on the College Gates By His Majesties Commissioners c. WHereas We have thought fit to declare pronounce and decree Out of the Register that the Election made of Mr. John Hough Batchellor in Divinity to be President of St. Mary Magdalen College in the University of Oxford is void and to amove the said Mr. John Hough from the place of President of the said College And whereas We have also thought fit to Suspend Dr. Charles Aldworth from being Vice-President of the same and Dr. Henry Fairfax from his Fellowship in the said College you and either of you are hereby required to cause our Orders Vacating the said Election and Suspending the said Dr. Aldworth and Dr. Fairfax Copies of which under our Seal are hereunto Annexed to be affixed on the Gates of the said College to the end that due notice may be taken
Chester Sir Robert Wright Lord Chief Justice of the Kings Bench and Sir Thomas Jenner one of the Barons of the Court of Exchequer with particular Power to them or any two of them to visit St. Mary Magdalen College in the University of Oxford the Commissioners thought fit to meet at the Council Chamber this day being the 17th of Ooctober 1687. The Commission was Read and the same Officers confirmed as before The Lords Commissioners for Visiting Magdalen College agreed upon the following Citation in Order to their Visitation By Thomas Lord Bishop of Chester Sir Robert Wright Knight Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench and Sir Thomas Jenner Knight one of the Barons of His Majesties Court of Exchequer His Majesties Commissioners amongst others for Ecclesiastical Causes and for the Visitation of the Vniversities and all Cathedral and Collegiate Churches Colleges Grammar-Schools Hospitals and other the like Incorporations or Foundations and Societies and particularly Authorized and Impowered by His Majesties Letters Patents to Visit St. Mary Magdalen College in the Vniversity of Oxford c. YOu and either of you are hereby required forthwith to Cite and Summon Mr. John Hough the pretended President and also the Fellows and all other the Schollars and Members of the said College of St. Mary Magdalen in the said University of Oxford to appear before Us in the Chappel of the said College on Friday next being the 21st day of this Instant October at Nine of the Clock in the Morning to undergo our Visitation and further to Answer to such matters as shall then and there be objected against them Intimating thereby and we do hereby Intimate unto them and every one of them that We Intend at the same time and place to proceed in our said Visitation the absence or contempt of him the said pretended President or the said Fellows Schollars or other Members of the said College or any of them to the contrary notwithstanding And of the due Execution hereof you are to certifie us at the time and place aforesaid Given under the Seal which we in this behalf use the 17th day of October 1687. Subscribed To Thomas Atterbury and Robert Eddows Or either of them On Wednesday October the 19th the Citation was fixed on the College and Chappel Doors and on Thursday the Commissioners entred attended by the three Troops of Horse that Quartred in the Town §. 2. The Proceedings of the Lords Commissioners at Oxford on Friday morning Octo. 21. 1687. I shall from the Register Original Papers the Bishop of Chesters notes or the Printed Relation give a Faithful account of the First and Second Visitation FRIDAY Morning THe Lords Commissioners appointed by His Majesty under the Great Seal Out of the Register Note the reason why the Commissioners left the Chappel was by reason of the crowd and for that provision was not made for their sitting there for Visiting St. Mary Magdalen College in Oxford met on Friday Morning the 21st of October 1687. In the Chappel of the same College and Adjourned to the Hall where their Commission being Read their Lordships took upon them the Execution thereof and Ordered the Fellows Names to be called over And Dr. John Hough with several of the Fellows and Schollars appearing the Lord Bishop of Chester spoke to them upon the occasion of the Visitation as followeth Gentlemen IF he who provokes the King to Anger sins against his own Soul what a Complicated mischief is yours who have done and repeated it in such an Ingrateful and Indecent manner as you have done and upon such a trifling occasion You were the first and I hope will be the last who did ever thus undeservedly provoke him There is a great Respect and Reverence due to the Persons of Kings and besides the Contempt of his Authority in this Commission you were so unreasonably Valiant as to have none of those fears and jealousies about you which ought to possess all Subjects in their Princes Presence with a due veneration of his Soveraignty over them 'T is neither good nor safe for any sort of Men to be wiser than their Governors nor to dispute the Lawful Commands of their Superiors in such a licentious manner that if they sometimes obey for wrath they oftner disobey as they pretend for Conscience sake The King is God's Minister he receives his Authority from him and Governs for him here below and God resents all Indignities and injuries done to him as done to himself Now God hath set a Just and Gracious King over us who has obliged us in such a Princely manner as to puzle our Understandings as well as our Gratitude for he hath bound himself by his Sacred promise to support our Altars at which he does not Worship and in the first place to maintain our Bishops and Arch-Bishops and all the Members of the Church of England in their Rights Privileges and Endowments No doubt but he will do his own Religion all the Right and Service he can without unjust and cruel Methods which he utterly abhors and without wronging ours which is by Law Established and by his own Sacred and free promises which have been more than once renewed and repeated to us without our seeking or solliciting for them which we under some Princes might have been put to crave upon our bended Knees This is a most Royal and Voluntary Present the King hath made to his Subjects and calls for a suitable veneration from them notwithstanding the pretended Oxford Reasons which were Publish'd by whose means and endeavors you best know to obstruct it As if the King had not Thorns enough growing in his Kingdom without his Universities planting more Now a Prince so exceedingly tender of his Honor as he is so highly Just to all and so kind beyond example to his Loyal Subjects and Servants of what persuasion soever is one under whom you might have had all the ease satisfaction and security imaginable if you had not been notoriously wanting to your selves and under a vain pretence of acting for the preservation of our Religion you had not wilfully against all Reason and Religion expos'd it as much as in you lay to the greatest scandal and apparent dangers Imaginable Your disingenuous disobliging and petulant humor your obstinate and unreasonable stifness hath brought this present Visitation upon you and might justly have provoked His Majesty to have done those things in his displeasure which might have been more prejudicial to this and other Societies then you can easily imagin But tho' you have been very irregular in your provocations yet the King is resolved to be exactly Regular in his proceedings And accordingly as he is Supreme Ordinary of this Kingdom which is his Inherent Right of which he never can be divested and the unquestionable Visitor of all Colleges he hath delegated his Commissioners with full Power to proceed according to the just measures of the Ecclesiastical Laws and his Royal Prerogative against such offenders as shall
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
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
the Regal only and that the Regal privileges should be sent to the King but the Episcopal and Papal should be kept but my Author thinks the last were also sent After this when any office in the University was void the King appointed the Successors so that it is found that even one of the Bedles was so placed This Instance doth sufficiently manifest the Kings absolute power over the Universities in taking into his hands at his pleasure all or any part of their privileges and restoring them when he thinks fit as he did these Anno 1541. 33 H. 8. The King (a) F. F. fol. 107.6 appointed Rules about the Election of the Proctors and ordered several other things relating to the better Governing of the University Anno 1543.35 H. 8. The King restores their privileges conditionally The King restored the Liberties to the University which he had retained from the Year 1522. yet so as the Vice-Chancellor Tresham entred into a Recognizance of 500 l. that the University should exercise none of the privileges granted Anno 1523. by the means of Cardinal Wolsey Thus I have given an Abridgment of what the Laborious Mr. Wood hath related concerning the Kings or Popes Grants of privileges to the University or what I have met with other where relating to this business and shall now proceed in my designed Method referring the Reader for later Charters to the Arcives of the University and the Act of Parliament for Incorporating both Oxford and Cambridge CHAP. IV. Concerning the Visitations of the Universities and particularly of that of Oxford SECT I. Concerning the Kings Supremacy and Power in Ecclesiastical Causes and Visitations §. 1. First what Authority the Kings of England used before the Reformation IT cannot be expected that I should discuss the Controversie here how far the Popes power was exercised in England in matters Ecclesiastical or in things to be done in Ordine ad Spiritualia The Curious may have recourse to the Learned Marca de Regno Sacerdotio the Concordata the Regalia of France and Sir Roger Twisdens Historical Vindication if he would be satisfied in the bundaries of the Ecclesiastical and Secular power ☞ It will be sufficient for my purpose to shew first that long before the Reformation several Kings of England permitted no Canons or Constitutions of the Church or Breves and Bulls of the Apostolic See to be executed here without their Allowance and that in several particulars wherein the Pope in other places by the Canons or the Plenitudo potestatis exercised a special Jurisdiction either some of our Ancientest Kings did the same or if they apprehended any diminution of their Crown or Dignity to attend their exercise by any power not derived from their selves they prohibited them ☞ And Secondly Secondly What power they have exercised since the Reformation That since the Supremacy hath been Established by Acts of Parliament in the Crown The Kings of England may according to the Laws in force not only exercise all the powers they could as Sovereign Princes but likewise whatever the Pope de Jure if not de facto could or did do in the outward Regiment of Ecclesiastical matters and consequently whatever was done in Visitations by the Authority of the Popes Metrpolitans or Dioecesan Bishops may now be done by the Kings of England as Supreme Ordinary §. 2. Before I enter upon this Subject I desire it may be noted These Instances are produced to Induce the Subjects obedience to the King whose Authority ought to be well considered that I bring not the Instances to induce a belief that the Popes according to the Canons of the Church did not oppose some of the practices of the Kings I mention But to shew how Incongruously the Fellows of St. Mary Magdalen College acted who knowing these things and that later Laws had devolved upon the King even the power of the Pope exercised here inforo externo should dispute the Kings Authority in a matter so manifestly appertaining to his Royal Dignity ☞ For Brevities sake I pass the Saxon times King William the 1st for the sure Establishing his Conquest is noted by Eadmerus (a) Histor novorum lib. 1. fol. 6. to which he adds de hujusmodi personis Episcopes Abbates alies principes per totam tenam Justituit de quibus Indignum Judicaretur si per omnia suis legibus non obedirent Idem to have Introduced the Norman usages of his Ancestors tho' he calls them new here Among which he reckons that none in his Dominions should own the Pope but by his Command nor receive his Letters unless shewed first to him and if the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury called and praesided in a General Council of the Bishops he allowed nothing to be appointed or forbid unless they were accommodated to his Will and were first ordained by him nor suffered any of his Barons or Officers to undergo any Ecclesiastical Censure but by his precepts So that I think it not so strange What King William Rufus did Upon the Shism none more fit then the King to resolve whom to adhere to that during the Schism his Son William Rufus claimed as other Princes did a Right to declare to which Pope he would adhere some consenting to Pope Vrban others to Clement Therefore the King demanded of Anselm from which of those Popes he would receive his Pall and the Arch-Bishop Answered him he would receive it from Pope Vrban But the King (a) Rex dixit illum prō Apostelico nondum accepisse nec suae vel paternae Consuetudinis eatenus extitisse ut praeter suam licentiam aut Electionem Aliquis in Regno Angliae Papam nominaret quicunque sibi hujus dignitatis Potestatem vellît praeripere Unum foret ac si coronam suam sibi conaretur Auferre Eadm fol. 25.47 told him that he had not yet received him for Pope nor had it been his or his Fathers Custom hitherto that any should be received as Pope in England without his Licence and Election and whoever would take from him this Power of his Dignity should be esteemed by him as one that endeavored to take from him his Crown And when Anselm Answered that he would not in any thing depart from obedience and subjection to Pope Vrban The King in great wrath protested (b) Nequaquam fidem quam sibi debebat simul Apostolicae sedis obedientiam contra suam voluntatem posse servari fol. 26. N. 1. None to go to Rome but with the Kings leave that the Arch-Bishop could not keep alike or together the Faith which he ought to the King and the obedience to the Apostolic See contrary to the Kings Will. When in the same Kings Reign the Arch-Bishop was sollicitous to have leave to go to Rome and Visit the Successor of St. Peter for the being better instructed in the Government of the Church He received Answer (c) Sed si Iverit pro certo noverit
quod totum Archiepiscopatum in Dominium meum Redigam nec illum pro Archiepiscapo ultra recipiam Idem fol. 38.10 from the King that if he went he should for certain know that he would seize his whole Arch-Bishopric into his hands nor would he receive him for Arch-Bishop any more like as now the Writ no exeat Regno is used with a Penalty specified After this the Bishops of Winchester Lincoln Salisbury and Bathe with several Barons sent to him by the King tell him that he had troubled the King with many complaints How that at the Parliament held at Rockingham he had (d) Pollicitus es per te usus ac leges suas usque quaque deinceps servaturum cas sibi contra emnes homines fideliter defensurum Idem fol. 39.27 In this whole Relation of matter of Fact it is to be owned that it was the personal repair of a Peer or great Man to Rome to Appeal that was forbid without the Kings leave but Appeals by Proctors were Anciently used in several Cases promised for the future The promise of an Arch-Bishop in all respects to keep and observe the Customs and the Kings Laws and to defend them faithfully against all Men which was an Oath of Fidelity used in that Age and bound him in Allegiance by reason of his Temporalities but no ways like the present Oath of Supremacy upon which they tell him the King believed he would have been quiet for the future But that he had openly contravened his promise and Faith by threatning to go to Rome without the Kings leave Which was a thing altogether unheard of before and against the usages of the Kingdom that any of the Great Men and especially himself should presume any such thing and lest the King should either be wearied or importun'd with him any more or with any other who being aggrieved might follow his Example The King (a) Jubet ut quatenus jure jurando promittas quod nunquam amplius sedem St. Petri vel ejus Vicarsum pro quavis quae tibi queat ingeri causa Appellas aut si sub omni celeritate de terra suâ recedat Idem 39.36 Commands that by Oath he should promise that he would never Appeal to the See of St. Peter or his Vicar for any cause that might befall him or if he did that he should speedily depart out of the Kings Territories But the Arch-Bishop persisting in his resolution to go had not only his Arch-Bishopric seized but the Pope being shewed how his Carriage here was resented did not afford him either (b) Idem fol. 52.17 53 28. Consilium or Auxilium yet the Writers of that Age censure that as an exorbitance of the Kings power however it may be a Document to some not obstinately to oppose their Prince ☞ By this Relation of matter of Fact it is evident The Inference from this History These are to be understood of matters Political and of Government not in matters of Doctrin and Faith. that in the time of these two Kings whatever was directed from Rome hither or was done by the Arch-Bishop was to have the Kings Approbation otherwise it was not suffered to be executed so that the Kings allowance before made public as now used in France was requisite to give them a practicableness here §. 3. Of the Investitures of Bishops It is allowed by our Historians (c) Ingulphus fol. 500. vid. literas Paschaâ—lis 2 Henrico 2. apud Eadmerum fol. 113. 115. generally that the Receiving Investitures of Churches from our Princes their calling of Synods determining Causes Ecclesiastical without Appeal to Rome their Translating of Bishops c. have been practised here in Ancient times the Canons and Popes reclaiming sometimes quitted and resumed by our Kings as State Interest required It is clear in History This was no conferring holy Orders but in relation to their Baronies that Bishops received Investitures from the King by delivery of a Staff as an acknowledgment of a subjection to the King at least for their Baronies which was after yielded not to be done by Lay Hands yet King Henry the First at one time Writ to the Pope that he would (a) Nec pro Amissione Regni sui passurum se perdere Investituras Ecclesiarum Idem fol. 73.13 not for the loss of his Kingdom lose the Investiture of Churches and another time he threatned that without doubt he would resume his Investitures because he held them in Peace However I do not find that this went any further then Swearing Fealty to the King Oath of Fidelity which seems to have long continued and which was a sufficient badge of subjection So we find a Writ (b) Gervac Dorob 4.1187 Col. 1503.36 from R. de Glanvil to the Abbot of Batle c. wherein he Commands him on the part of the King by the Faith which he owes him and by the Oath which he made to him to do what he then enjoyned ☞ As to the Legatine Power Concerning the power of Legats it is apparent by several Instances that none Exercised any here without the Kings leave whether by the Grant of Pope Nicholas to Edward the Confessor I dispute not I shall only note some few King Henry the First had an Interview at Gisors with Pope Calixtus and obtained of him that he should Grant him all the Customs which his Father King William the First had in England and Normandy and especially (c) Maxime ut neminemaliquando Legati Officio in Anglia fungi permitteret si non ipsa aliquâ praecipuâ quaerelâ exigentur quae ab Archiepiscopo Cantuariorum Caeterisque Episcopis Regni terminari non possint hoc fieri a Papa postularet Kidm fol. 125.53 that he would permit none at any time to exercise the Office of Legat in England unless the King upon any special Plea should require it and the thing could not be determined by the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and the Rest of the Bishops of the Kingdom and that the King should desire it of the Pope How the Popes Legats were received may be best known by some Instances Instances how the Popes Legats were received The Wars betwixt France Scotland England might make this caution When Guido Arch-Bishop of Vienna Anno 1100. In the beginning of King Henry the First 's Reign by the Popes Authority was appointed Legat as he gave it out Eadmerus saith that it was an admiration to all in England for all knew that it was (a) Inauditum scilicet in Brittannia cuncti Scientes quemlibet hominum super se vices Apostolicas Gerere nisi solum Archiepiscopum Cantuarierum Idem fol. 58.40 unheard of in Brittain that any Man except the Bishop of Canterbury had the Popes power Therefore as he came so he returned being received by none as Legat neither did he perform the Office of a Legat while here The words of my Author are a nemine pro
others quâ Legate as appears in the Decretals where (d) De Officio Legati cap. 1. Alexander the Third resolves that the Arch-Bishop could not hear Jure Metropolitico matters Episcopal that came not to him per Appellationem that is by a Legal way but Jure Legationis he might such as were brought unto him only per quaerimoniam §. 7. The Style of Legates a Latare when first used ☞ The Name of Legatus a Latere is first found in our Historians to be given to Johannes (e) Hoveden Anno 1189.177 a. 10. Anagninus Cardinalis Anno 1189 and altho' the power of these Legates was great yet it is manifest that what they did was only so far as they had the Kings permission so that in some respects it may be said whatever they did in Visitations and other matters was by the Kings Authority and sufferance for which purpose we have that Memorable Letter (a) Vita Hen. Chichelsey ab Ant. Duck Edit 1617. p. 79. from Henry Chichelsey to King Henry the Fifth which I shall give in the words it was Writ in Be Inspection of Laws and Chronicles The Legatines power by our Kings permission was exercised in most Cases was there no Legate a Latere sent into no Lond and especially into your Reagm of Yngland witoute great and notable cause And that when thei came after thei had done her Legacie abiden but litul wyle not over a yer c. And yet evir that was tretyd with or he cam into the Lond whon he should have exercise of his power and how mych shold be put in Execution an a venture after he had bee reseyved he whold have used it too largely to great oppression of your peple A further proof that Legates here could do nothing contrary to the Laws and Customs of the Land appears in this particular I shall now recite ☞ Henry Beaufort the Rich Bishop of Winchester The first Cardinal that was a Privy Councellor who was Cardinal of St. Eusebius Son of John a Gaunt and so of the Kings Blood and was employed by Martin the Fifth as General against the Bohemians and to that end Erected his Cross Anno 1429. 8 H. 6. was sent Legate into England and was made one of the Kings Privy Council and is noted to be the first that of that Order was so Admitted Yet we find that he was to (b) Râ—t parlâ—â— 8 H. 6. N. 17. His protestation to absent himself when matters of difference betwixt the King and Pope were debnted make a protestation that as often as any matter cause or business did concern the King his Kingdom or Dominions on the one part and the Apostolic See on the other which was to be Communed and Treated of in the Kings Council the Cardinal should absent himself and no ways be present at the Communication of the same It further appears how Legates Executed by the Kings Allowance or Connivance the powers given them by the Pope because if they did otherwise no person being the Kings Subject was so great but he was forced to gain his pardon for the Offence if he Committed any Hence we find that even this (a) Rot. Parl. 10 H. 6. N. 16. He Petitions for pardon if he had done any thing against the Laws being the Kings Subject great Cardinal caused a Petition to be Exhibited in Parliament That he the said Cardinal nor none other should be pursued vexed impleaded or grieved by the King his Heirs or Successors nor by any other person for cause of any provision or offence or Misprision done by the said Cardinal against any Statute of provisions or per cause of any Exemption Receipt acceptation admission or execution of any Bulls Papal to him in any manner By all this I hope the Ingenuous Reader will sind The Inference hence that what the Popes Legats did in Visitation or otherwise was by the Kings superadded Authority that what Visitations were made of the University of Oxford by the Popes Legats whereof I shall give several Instances in the sollowing Section doth no ways Infer that thereby the Kings power of Visiting was exauctorated but that whatever they did was in subordination to the Kings pleasure or as allowed by his Laws §. 8. Concerning the Arch-Bishop or Bishops Visitations The other Visitors of the University were either the Arch-Bishops of Canterbury as Metropolitans or the Bishops of Lincoln as Dioecesans or the Local Visitors I shall now endeavor to prove that whatever they did in Visitation as well as other External Regiment was by order allowance or connivance of the Kings of England so that though I shall here after produce their Visitations yet it will appear that the Kings Supreme Authority was thereby no ways prejudiced I need not here enter into the claims our Ancient Kings made to the Investitures of Bishops having touched it before nor how for their Baronies Homage is required of them It is most manifest that our Kings have Interposed their Authority even in allowing or dis-allowing of their persons This is clear by the Speech of Wolstan (a) Ailred de Miraculis Edw. Col. 406.37 Here we may note that the Alteration was by agreement at the Confessors Tomb Bishops allowed by the King. that he had compelled him to take the Pastoral Staff. So King Edward the Third wrote to Pope Clement the Sixth that his Progenitors long since upon Vacancies by their Kingly Right conferred the Cathedral Churches freely on fit persons and afterwards at the Instance of the See of Rome under certain Forms and Conditions granted that Elections should be in the said Churches by their Chapters §. 9. I need not insist upon the Kings of England seizing the Temporalities of Bishops into their hands and so Suspending them a Beneficio for those who will take the pains to look into Mr. Pryns Historical Collections will find many Instances thereof ☞ The Statutes of Provisions the complaints against the Popes Provisions in Mat. (b) Anno 1240. fol. 532.43 fol. 549.18.22 Anno 1246. fol. 669.9 Paris and the Parliaments of King Edward the Third and Richard the Second clear this point And when Anno 1349. the Pope wrote to the King that he would not hinder or permit these to be hindered to receive the Benefices who were by the Court of Rome by Bulls promoted The King Answered that he well would accept those Clerks so provided which were of good condition and were worthy of Promotion but others he would not If then the very admitting the persons to the Dignity and Office were in the Kings power as by the Conge d'eslire is well known it cannot be doubted but that the Exercise of their Government I speak not here of their Sacerdotal Function was according to the Kings Laws §. 10. How far the Canons were allowed in England We may therefore now consider how far the Ecclesiastical Canons were allowed by our Kings and how called his Laws ☞
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
is solely derivative from the King as Sovereign Monarch and Supreme Governor SECT II. Who Exercised Jurisdiction by way of Visitation or otherways over the Vniversities from the 11th of King John to the Year 1390.14 Ric. 2. §. 1. The Pope and his Legate Suspend offenders HAving shown in a General way what Prerogatives the Kings of England have exercised in Ecclesiastical Affairs before the Reformation and how all the power the Pope claimed or exercised in point of Government is now by our Laws Invested in the Sovereign I shall proceed to give an Account how till the Reformation the University was Visited punished and governed by the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury some Popes Legats or the Bishop of Lincoln their Dioecesan Yet all these were by the appointment Approbation or consent of the respective Kings the most evident Vestigia of whose Supreme power appeared in the admitting or making void exemptions and privileges even granted by the Apostolic See so that it is not to be thought strange that since the Reformation the whole Ecelesiastical Government being declaredly derivative from the Crown and the Authority of the Pope being by the Laws in force devolved upon our Princes they have excercised a more Despotical Authority over the Universities then over other Incorporations ☞ The First Instance I find of the Popes Suspending and the Kings Recalling the Lectures in the University was Anno 1209. the 11th of King John The occasion of which in short was this (a) Wendover sub Anno 1209. Ms Upon themis-information of the Burgesses of Oxford to the King then at Woodstock that a Clerk had killed a Woman two or three Innocent Clerks were seized and Executed (b) Wood Antiq. Oxon. lib. 1. fol. 59. upon which severity and the detestation of the Burgesses Malice the Masters and Scholars removed out of the Inhospitable Town and Anno 1210. The Pope Interesting himself because they were Clerks Commands the Scholars to Read no Lectures and Anno 1213. sends over Nicholas Bishop of Tusculum his Legate who Anno 1214. (c) In Turri Schol. in pixide P. P. fasci c. 12. N. 2. 3. published his Bull at Ramsey the 7th of the Kalends of July in which besides the severe punishment inflicted on the Burgesses it is plainly expressed that the Bishop of Lincoln the Arch-Deacon of the place his Official the Chancellor or any other Deputy of the Bishop should see to the performance of what was enjoyned and those * Magistri vero qui post Scholarium recessum Irreverenter legerunt Oxoniae suspendentur per Triennium ab officio Legendi Ibid. Masters who Irreverently after the recess of the Scholars had Read Lectures contrary to the Popes Orders should be Suspended from the Office of Reading for three Years But I find that the King gave leave to all to return to the University and upon this occasion being willing to shew some special favor to it and prevent the like mischiefs for the future observing where in their privileges were defective Grants that the Chancellor should have Cognizance of Causes where one party was a Scholar or his Servant In this account it may be observed Inferences from this History that for contempt of the Popes Order the Legate Suspends the Offenders for three Years that the King Grants the leave for their return and gives them new privileges §. 2. Cardinal Otho Visits by Legatiné Authority ☞ Anno 1238. 13 H. 3. Mat. Paris ad Annum 1238. Cardinal Otho came to Visit the University of Oxford as Legate a Latere But had an unfortunate Journy for the Scholars coming in great numbers to pay their respects to him the uncivil Porter (a) Chron. Abendon Ms would not permit them to enter till they forced their passage and a Scholar going to the Legates Kitchin a Ladle full of scalding broth was cast upon him which the Scholars took so heinously that one of them Slew the Legates Brother and the Legate thereupon Fled with some danger to his person Of all which the King being Informed sent Peter (b) Pat. 22 H. 3. M. 7. The Kings Commissioners Interdict Divine Service de Rupibus Bishop of Winchester Ralph Nevil Bishop of Chester then Chancellor of England and others who met the Day after May day in the Church of St. Fridiswyde (c) Flovileg sub hoc Anno. And Suspend Lectures and Exercises and Suspended the University from Celebrating Divine Service and from performing their Exercises and usual Lectures And the Legate Excommunicated the University upon which many left the University but the King d Pat. 22 H. 3. M. 15. Cla. 22 H. 3. M. 15. Commanded that none should depart without his leave and several were Imprisoned and their Goods (e) Id. fol. 90. a. seized into the Kings Hands but by the 15th of May upon (f) Cl. Pat. 22 H. 3. M. 7. The King recalls the Students Sureties given for appearing most were set at Liberty and their Goods restored and those upon this occasion Imprisoned in the Tower of London were released and the Sheriffs (g) Cl. 22 H. 3. M. 13. of several Counties had the Kings Writ to return the Names of those that had retired from Oxford and of the Sureties of those that were to abide the Tryal and other (h) Gl. 22 H. 3. M. 13. Writs Issued out to the Chancellor and the Arch-Deacon of Oxford to warn all others that were in that Riot to return to the University to expect the Ecclesiastical Absolution for their faults and the Legate summoned the (i) Mat. Paris sub An. 1238. Arch-Bishop of York and all the Bishops to consult about this Matter Anno 1239.14 H. 3. The Legate (a) Wood Antiq. fol. 91. a. The Legate gives leave to the Students to return sent an account likewise to the Pope and Cardinals and after dismissing the Council the Legate Writ to the Chancellor that he Exhorting the Academians to repentance should give them all leave to return to the University from whence they had been absent above a Year and had been Interdicted of their Exercises Lectures c. And the punishment Imposed was that the Clerks (b) Idem fol. 48. a. should go from St. Pauls to Duresme House on Foot and after that all the Academians should go bare Foot without Caps or Mantles and should humbly ask the Legate Pardon Appointeth a Pennance which being done the Interdict was taken off and the Scholars returned to Oxford to attend their wonted Lectures and Exercises Thus were they punished there being Murther of the Legates-Brother in the Case the Bishop Robert Grosthead defended the Clerks Insisting that the Legats People gave the occasion However even in this case when the Pope was so much concerned for the affront done to his Ministers yet we clearly find that the King by his Commissioners Suspends the University from Celebrating Divine Service and performing their Lectures Which are sufficient badges of his
deputed by him with power to determin the matters But these were received so sharply at Oxford that they could not exercise their Visitatorial Authority till the King sent his Breve or Writ (c) Chartophyl Civit. Oxon. to the Chancellor and Major to assist the Visitors in executing their Office by which at present things were quieted But it broke out again till by a second Visitation or Peculiar Mandate sent to the College Mr. Henry Whylefield the Provost Mr. William French Robert Lydeford and John Trevis Fellows were Expelled These by private consultation among themselves took away the Charters Books the Jewels Mony and other Goods of the College till the Chancellor and Proctors upon the Kings (a) Iussu Regio 13. R. 2. M. 40. Mandate caused them to be restored by Whitefield the Expelled to Thomas Carvel the new Provost But still all was not quiet those Expelled especially making disturbances therefore on the Seventh of February the King issued out his (b) Pat. 3 R. 2. par 2. M. 12. Letters Patents to Mr. Berton the Chancellor John Sherburn Thomas Swindon and Robert Bixy under the Great Seal to examin and determin the matters By this it appears What is to be Inferred from this that either by the Local Visitor or the Kings absolute Authority the Provost and several Fellows were Expelled That the King Commissionated some under the Broad Seal to hear and determin the matters which no doubt was by some one way and demonstrates the Kings absolute power in Expelling and by Commission determining matters in the University without other Visitations and we may note when ever the Visitations were performed by the Ordinary Visitors viz. The Arch-Bishop or Bishops it was about some things relating to their Function settled by the Canons and allowed by the Laws of the Land but still the last resort was made to the King besides his first giving leave as in many particulars is very clear §. 13. Arch-Bishop Courtneys Visitation Anno 1389. William Courtney Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Visited his Province and the Scholars were troubled (c) Walsingham Hist Angliaead Annu 1389. fol. 341. for that they had never seen nor heard such a Mandate of Visitation that both Exempted and not Exempted should be Visited Therefore the Black Monks urged their (d) These were the Black Monks of Gloucester College Exemptions and applyed themselves to the Abbots of Westminster and St. Albans who advissed them not to yield to the Arch-Bishops Visitation Wood Antiq. Oxon lib. 1. fol. 196 a. and Letters were sent from the Abbot of st Albans to the Arch-Bishop to desire him to desist to which the Arch Bishop replyed that saving the Right of his Church he would willingly do what he could for his special friend the Abbot but faid he could not any ways desist saving that Right from Visiting the Prior and Black Monks Studying in Oxford even tho' the (a) Etiamsi Rex Angliae pro praedictis Instaret King should intreat for them because they were a College and had a Prior and Chapter and lived in Common The Monk sent from St. Albans said they were not a College Non fuit ibi Collegium cum ibi morantes sigillum Commune non habent nec locus sit donatus Terr poralibus Spiritualibus c. for that they had not a Common Seal or were Endowed with Spiritualities or Temporalities and wanted many other things which were required to Constitute a College The Arch-Bishop Answered therefore he would Visit to enquire how it was with them Then the Monk reply'd if he came to Visit them he had no Jurisdiction to enquire of such things c By this appears what are of the Essence of a College and that in this Age Monks of several Orders had their Schools here â—nd yet were reckoned as Members of the Convent they were sent from rather than of any Incorporate Society of the University but only to Visit such as were not Exempt for those that were Exempt were Visitable in their proper Monasteries by the Arch-Bishop and so not to be Visited a second time To this Allegation the Arch-Bishop Answered that they were not Visited by him in their proper Monasteries for the Abbots excused them for that they were in the Schools therefore he would Visit them there And then a Monk and Lawyer who came with the Arch-Bishop willing to enlarge the Arch-Bishops Jurisdiction said that the Arch-Bishop might Visit even the Exempts (d) Exempti ibi ita sunt privilegiati quod ubicunque fuerint non sunt sub Jurisdistione alicujus Episcopi nisi Romani Pontificis vel Legati a Latere missi as long as they were in the Schools for that they were under the Jurisdiction of the Chancellor to this the Monk of St. Albans replyed that the Exempt are so privileged that wherever they were they might not be under the Jurisdiction of any Bishop unless of the Bishop of Rome or his Legate a Latere sent hither To which the Arch-Bishop said if it were so he neither could nor would molest them in any thing A while after Simon de Southerey presented himself to the Arch-Bishop in the Church of St. Fridiswyde whith all the Monks Exempt and not Exempt and the Arch-Bishop asked them if they submitted to his Visitation and it was answered that they came to obtain (a) Ad Captandam ejus Benevolentiam advenerunt his favor and the Arch Bishop told them that he excused them and never intended to burthen them so there was an end of this matter By all which it appears that the Dispute was about the privilege of Exemption But that the power of Metropolitical Visitation was allowed and that power was by the then Laws and is now derivative from the King. SECT III. Who Visited the Vniversity of Oxford after the 13th of King Richard the Seconds time to the beginning of King Henry the 8ths Reign §. 1. The King redresseth certain grievences complained of by both Universities HOw far the King Interested himself in Ordering the Affairs of the University appears in what King Richard the Second did Anno 1390. 14 Regni of which I shall give a short account The Fryers Preachers or Dominicans were complained of by both the Universities that several of them Students there declined the Examination of the University in order to the taking their Degrees and going beyond Sea obtained the Titles of Masters not without Infamy to the Brothers or Fryers and the great loss of the University Thereupon the King writes to the Prior Provincial and all the Priors in England ☞ That since the order (a) Ordo praedictus Institutus sit firmatus ad resistendum destruendum Haereses Errores contra legem divinam fidem Catholicam indies emergentes c. Claus 14. Ric. 2. M. 32. was Instituted to resist and destroy Heresies and Errors against the Divine Law and the Catholic Faith dayly springing up
c. To effect which mature knowledge honesty of life and the Doctrin of Divinity was necessarily required of which qualifications in former time the Fryers of that Order used to be examined and approved as well among themselves as in both the Universities But now he understood that some of the said Fraternity little instructed or approved in the Divine Law but Apostates notably vitious c. have gone beyond Sea and there cunningly and fraudulently begged obtained to themselves the Degrees of Masters and other Exempting Graces That when they return they might be reputed and cherished among their Fraternity with the Honor of that faculty to the dammage and hurt of the Catholic Faith to the prejudice and scandal of the King and his Realm and mostly to the disgrace of the said Order Therefore the King not willing in any manner to Tollerate the premisses so prejudicial and damageable to the English Church the King and his people and in process of time redounding in all likelyhood to the subversion of the Order enjoyns (a) Vobis omnibus singulis subforisfacturd omnium quae nobis foris facere potiritis injungimus mandamus Ide Ibid. and Commands all and every the Provincial and Priors under the forfeiture of all things which they could forfeit streightly nevertheless as much as he could prohibiting them that they in no manner admit such to the Liberty Honors and favors which the Doctors in Divinity regularly made according to the Examination aforesaid ought to have nor that they Treat any such with the Honors Favors or Liberties c. but that they have no consideration to such Impetrations Provisions or Exemptions §. 2. What is to be observed from hence ☞ What is worthy noting from hence is that altho' this Order had many privileges and Exemptions from Visitations and subjection Yet we find the King under the penalty of the forfeiture of all they could enjoyns them to obey what he commands and tho' it is not to be doubted that some of these Men might receive Degrees in some Universities who had from the Pope privileges that whoever received Degrees there should enjoy all the Liberties Honors c. which those did of our own Universities yet the King dis allows all so that by this one Instance it appears that the Kings of England allowed or dis allowed at their pleasure Immunities Exemptions privileges c. which were granted by the Popes Emperors or Forreign Kings for from such those privileges to Graduates only could be granted From which it is manifest that the King challenged a power of being Supreme Judge of what Exemptions should be allowed in his Universities and by consequence was always to be reputed the Supreme Visitor Hereby also will appear the true Reason of the Application to the King in the contests I shall presently give an account of which happened betwixt the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and the University about his Visitation which by the Popes Bulls they were Exempted from §. 3. ☞ Anno 1395. 19 Ric. 2. The Lollards that is the favorers of Wickliffs Doctrin greatly increased sowing as the Writers of that time and others Style it Tares (a) Zizanium inter Triticum proseminantes among the Wheat choaking the Catholic Doctrin Upon which many complaints are made to the King and especially by the Bishops by which being moved he Writ to the Chancellor (b) Cl. 19 R. 2. M. 24. Commanding him as the words are utterly to Root out those wickedest (c) Ut nequissimos fidel Eversores overturners of the Faith and at the same time Writ to the Chancellor and Doctors by his Mandare enjoyning them to examin the Book of Wickliff called the Triologâ—s The Kings Mandate to extirpate what then was reputed Heresic and to send the heads of the Errors therein contained under the Seal of the University into the Chancery and it is noted forther that the Univelsity submitted it self to the King promising to stand to his Arbitrament for which purpose they sent an Instrument by their Chancellor Thomas Hindyman Thomas Merk Thomas Crawley c. to the King. By which it appears manifestly Inferences from hence that the King by his absolute power Commanded matters to be ordered in the University and that it submitted to his determination notwithstanding other Metropolitical Visitations which as such must be looked upon as done by the power of the King Ecclesiastical Laws as the most Learned of the Long Robe do maintain In the Year 1396. The 20th of Richard the Second a great contest was beowixt the Doctors of Divinity Masters of Arts and the Civil and Canon Lawyers The whole process of which may be seen in my (a) Wood Antiq. Oxon lib. 1. fol. 197. New contests betwixt Graduates and Lawyers Author the summ of which was that several Statutes were made to their prejudice and that the Chancellor pretended Bulls of Exemption from the Archiepiscopal Visitation of the University The conclusion of all which was that as King Edward the Third had Anno 1376. 50 Regni appointed Five Bishops to enquire into the matter and order it so the (b) Pat. 20 R. 2. part 3. M. 26. King the next April by his Royal Authority confirms their doom By which it still appears how the last resort was made to the King which will yet more fully be cleared by what I shall now relate as to the Visitation of Arch-Bishop Arundel under King Richard the Second and King Henry the Fourth The reason why the Author enlargeth upon the Visitations by Arch-Bishop Arundel which because they have been so much insisted upon as pregnant proofs even in King Charles the Firsts time that the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury by Right is the Visitor of the Universities I think it necessary to take notice of that I may shew the grounds upon which those Kings allowed the Arch Bishops Visitation and how it no ways prejudices the Kings Visitatorial power § 4. the Arch-Bishop Arundel Visiting by the Kings leave commands the University to obey ☞ Anno 1397. 21 Ric. 2. The Arch-Bishop of Canterbury determining to Visit for the suppressing of Heresies as then they were called and composing affairs of the University and understanding that the Chancellor and Proctors supported by the Popes Bull of Exemption intended to obstruct it He signifies this to the King. Here I hope is a craving the Kings leave and and aid what doth the King in this case He presently Writes to the Chancellor and Scholars and forbids (c) Literis praecepit ut in juris Regii detrimentum Haereticorum vero Lollardorum patrocinium Archiepiscopali sese aut Episcopali Authoritati nequaquam â—ubtraherent them that to the dammage of his Kingly Right or Patronage of Heretics and Lollards they no ways withdraw themselves from Archiepiscopal or Episcopal Jurisdiction Id. pat 21 R. 2. part 3. M. 32. or produce any Bull of the Pope to that purpose But that they
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
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
the many Authorities might be brought to prove this more particularly pa. 129. to 137. here the curious may find several Collected by the Author of the Church of England's Behavior under a Roman Catholic King to which may be added the Act declaring the making and Consecrating of the Arch-Bishops and Bishops of this Realm to be good lawful and perfect The ground of which Statute was some Mens questioning whether the same were duly and orderly done according to Law or not The Act lays this for a Foundation Some Paragraphs in the Act 8 Eliz. c. 1. explained 26 H. 8.1 That King Henry the 8th was justly and rightly re-cognized and acknowledged to have the Supreme Power Jurisdiction Order Rule and Authority over all the Estate Ecclesiastical of the Realm and after Recites how the Kings and Queens of this Realm had full power and Authority by Letters Patents c. from time to time to Assign Name and Authorize such person or persons as they shall think meet and convenient to excercise use occupy and execute c. all manner of Jurisdictions Privileges Preheminences and Authorities in any wise touching or concerning Spiritual or Ecclesiastical power or Jurisdiction within this Realm c. Then follows That the Queen being lawfully Invested in the Imperial Crown of this Realm c. and having in her Majesties Order and disposition all the said Jurisdictions Powers and Authorities over the State Ecclesiastical and Temporal The Queens power in matters Ecclesiastical Supreme and absolute c. hath by her Supreme Authority at divers times sithence the beginning of her Reign caus'd divers and sundry grave and well Learned Men to be duly Elected Made and Consecrated Arch-Bishops and Bishops c. and after Fellows which is to be noted that in her Letters Patents for the same she hath not only used such words and Sentences as were accustomed to be used by King Henry the 8th and King Edw. the 6th in their Letters Patents made for such Causes but also hath used and put into her Letters Patents divers other general words and Sentences whereby her Highness by her Supreme Power and Authority hath dispensed with all Causes or doubts of any Imperfection or dis-ability that can or may in any wise be objected against the same c. so that to all those that will well consider of the effect and true intent of the said Laws and Statutes and the Supreme and absolute Authority of the Queens Highness and which she by her Majesties said Letters Patents hath used and put in Ure c. it is and may be very evident and apparent that no cause of simple ambiguity or doubt can or may justly be objected From hence it is easie to infer Considerable Inferences resulting from this Statute that there is in the Crown such a Supreme and absolute power in Ecclesiastical matters as the King may dispense with Acts of Parliament even in such a concern as Consecration Confirmation or Investing of any person c. Elected to the Office or Dignity of any Arch-Bishop or Bishop within this Realm for if there had been no variation by the Queens Letters Patents from the Form and Methods in the Acts of King * 25 H. 8. c. 20.5 6 E. 6. c. 16. sect 3. u. 4. Hen. the 8th or Edw. the 6th or that of Queen Elizabeth 1 o. Cap. 2. there had been no need of Inserting general words or dispensations in the Queens Letters Patents This Note Answers all that can be alleged concerning Mr. Farmers Incapacity Hence may be noted if the Queen could by her Supreme power and Authority thus dispense with dis-ability in Bishops much more may the King with dis-abilities occasioned by College Statutes which at pleasure he can alter and abolish But to return to the 25th of H. 8. Observations upon this Statute by Judge Hoberts Reports fol. 156. The power granted to the Arch-Bishop by the Act is in Ordinary matters such as usually the Pope or Prelates of the Realm dispensed with and in un-wonted Cases also which it seems by the Letter of the Act to be of vast extent so that my Lord Hobert saith that tho' it seems to give power over all Dispensations granted from Rome wonted and un-wonted and all dispensations generally Yet it must have construction such as were allowable and allowed by the Laws and Practice of this Realm for else it should make our Yoke heavier than before Yet I cannot conceive but the power may be extended further than the ordinary power the Popes or Prelates practised See the Statute sect 17.18 where greater power seems to be implyed worthy consideration otherwise there needed not to have been such provision made that in un-wonted Cases the King or Council should allow them and if the Arch-Bishop refused the King might appoint two Prelates or other persons to grant them and it is probable that this Act may be construed to other purposes than a Faculty-Office only §. 6. Some further observations upon the Statute 25 H. 8. c. 21. But I shall conclude this matter with the following Observations upon this Statute which I take to be clear and undeniable First That the Pope did here by his Bulls and Breves grant Dispensations in various Cases Erected Constituted and Visited Colleges and Abrogated their Statutes as I have cleared in the foregoing Chapter Secondly That by this Act the Popes General or Universal power and Authority in England in all Cases was Totally abolished and taken away from him as to the excercise of it Thirdly That some part only of that general power and Authority which was excercised by the Pope was by that Act Vested Lodged and Delegated in and to the Arch-Bishop as the dispensing power for Marriages Bastardy c. and other matters there expressed which was properly to be called the Popes ordinary power and was so lodged and delegated in the Arch-Bishop to save the King from trouble in such ordinary and common Cases but not to take away the Kings ordinary power Supremacy Fourthly That the Popes extraordinary power which he exercised in England is as well abolished here by this and other Acts as his ordinary power But so much of the Popes Authority and power either ordinary or extraordinary as was at any time excercised by him here in England and which is not by the said Statute Vested and Delegated in the Arch-Bishop is by a necessary Construction revived and revested in the King and re-united to the Crown by all those Acts which declare the Kings * See. Stat. 24 H. 8. cap. 12.25 H. 8. c. 20. 21.26 H. 8. c. 1. c. 3. c. 13.31 H. 8. cap. 9.37 H. 8. c. 17.1 Eliz. c. 1. c. 4.8 Eliz. c. 1. Supremacy yea tho' the Statutes had been silent therein for that the Crown by this and other Acts is entirely remitted and restored to all it 's Ancient Jurisdictions and Prerogatives exercised by the Popes from whence our Law
Books say it was Robbed or derived Because such powers being taken away from the Pope and such as had Authority under him and neither settled in any Court or person by the Statute can re-vest or re-sult to none other but the King as Supreme in all Ecclesiastical as well as Temporal Causes which by Sufferance or Usurpation as the Act saith the Pope had excercised Fifthly By the several Acts and Instances whereby the Kings of England since the making of this Act of the 25th King Henry the 8th have exerted their Supreme Authority it is clear that the Crowns Re-assumption of what the Pope had exercised hath been according to the Laws in being of which I now proceed to give Instances in the Kings dispensing with College Statutes of which I shall give some few in several Cases of many hundreds which are to be found in the Paper Office or Secretaries Books §. 7. An account of the Queens Mandate about Electing of a Master of St. Johns College in Cambridge The first Instance I think fit to Insert is as followeth The Course that was held in the last Election of the Mastership of St. Johns College in Cambridge First Bundel Ecclesiastic Universities Paper-Office The Statute of that College appointeth the Twelfth day after the Vacation to be the day of their Election and no other Secondly The greater part of the Fellows of the College were made for Mr. Alvey a Senior Fellow Thirdly The Lord Treasurer being Informed that Alvey was an unfit Man set down an Inhibition in the Queens Name to defer the Election which Inhibition was obeyed Fourthly The 12th day being passed and no further power left to the Fellows to Elect The Lord Treasurer sent a Letter the second time in the Queens Name Nominating Dr. Clayton and Dr. Stainton Commanding the Fellows to choose one of them and no other Fifthly By Authority of those Letters they choose Dr. Clayton By this proceeding it is manifest that the King may not only by a Mandate of Inhibition stay the Electors from making any choice but nominate the person to be Elected altho' by College Statutes the day of the Election and the Electors were appointed §. 8. The Bishop of Londons Testimony that the King hath dispensed with College Statutes Before I enter upon the particular Mandates I shall produce the Testimony of George Montague Bishop of London in his Letter a Copy of which the Honorable Sir Joseph Williamson afforded me out of the Paper-Office directed to Sir Edward Conway Principal Secretary of State as followeth Right Honorable THe Noble and Vertuous Lady the Lady Denbigh hath layed a Command upon me to deliver my knowledge whether the King hath at any time by his Letters dispensed with the Local Statutes of any College by a Non-obstante and upon a search it appears that his Majesty hath sent Letters of that nature to divers Colleges If this Information may promote her desires and give you satisfaction I shall be right glad and will ever remain London Decemb. 10th 1623. Your Honors Friend to Command and humble Servant Geo. London §. 9. A Mandate dispensing with Incapacities to receive Degrees I now proceed to give some Extracts of Mandates wherein the King dispenseth with College Statutes in one of which Dated December the 11th Anno 1624. the persons within named being some ways Incapacitated to take their respective Degrees were dispensed with as followeth Trusty and Well-beloved We Great you well In a Bundel Docketed Ecclesiastic Universities in the Paper-Office at Whitehall We are Graciously please of Our Royal Favor to Gabriel More Harrington Butler George Bursey and Michael Gilbert to advance them to such Degrees as they are capable of and well deserve by their Learning and diligent Studies tho' in some respects not qualified Therefore Our pleasure is that notwithstanding any Statute or other Ordinance to the contrary you forthwith Create Gabriel More a Dr. in Divinity and you also admit Harrington Butler and George Bursey to the Degree of Master of Arts and Michael Gibert Bachellor of Arts in such Form as is usual in like Case and these Letters shall be your Warrant In a Mandate for one William Morley to be a Schollar of the College of St. A Mandate for a Schollar of St. Mary Winton College without examination Mary of Winton College Oxon without Examination are these words and tho' we have a favorable Eye to your freedom that are the Electors yet in this Our so Extraordinary Recommendation We expect your Dutiful respects to this Our Princely Pleasure and Command so that this Our Will be not dis-appointed for any respet whatsoever Directed to Our Trusty and Well-belove Dr. Princock Warden of St. Mary Winton College in Our University of Oxford and Our Trusty and Well-beloved Dr. Love Warden of St. Mary Winton College near Winchester the under Warden School-Master of the College and two Posers of the Schollars for the Election In a Mandate Dated 3 o. Regni Caroli 1. A Mandate dispensing with the Incapacity by reason of the County For one Gregory Isham I find these words But because We understand that the Country where he was Born layeth some formal Incapacity upon him We are pleased hereby to Dispense therewith and do require that his Country may not be any Impediment to him in that Election Ibid. notwithstanding any Statute or Order to the contrary And these Our Letters shall be sufficient Warrant in that behalf §. 10. The acknowlegement from St. Johns College in Cambridge of the Kings power in dispensing with College Statutes March the 28th Bundel Eccles Universities 1630. c. 1633. In a Letter of the Master and Fellows of St. Johns College to the Earl of Holland the Chancellor about their choosing Dr. Digby according to his Majesties Letters Dr. Beale being then Master I find they allege that he was not capable by some Statutes having not performed some things the Statutes required They write thus Yet his Sacred Majesties Request would have been tye enough upon his most Dutiful and Obedient Servants to have endeavored the accomplishment of his Royal desire had we been enabled thereunto by Dispensation with those opposite Statutes which otherwise we stand obliged by Oath to observe Which plainly shews that if a Dispensation had been obtained or inserted in the Mandate the King had been obeyed I find that the Master and Fellows of Christ College in Cambridge In the Paper Office Ecclesiastica Academica without date being desirous to Capacitate one Norton then but Senior Sophister for a Fellowship sent him with Letters Testimonial to Oxford whereupon he obtained his Bachellors Degree and so was Elected Fellow A Senior Sophister may take Bachellor of Arts Degree by dispensation The Relation saith that the Arch-Bishop hearing of it expressed some displeasure and said he would call him to an Account for his taking the Oath for Bachellor having not full time and being not dispensed with
Imperium and in such matters the Graces and Favors of Preceeding Kings are alterable and suspendible at the pleasure of the Succeeding Sovereign who cannot be Impaired in any Act of his Sovereignty by his Predecessor so that to think that a King of England can by any of his Subjects Constitutions be bound from Visiting or giving his own Interpretation of the Statutes is a great weakness of which I shall Treat more fully in it's proper place and only Infer at present that the obligation of any Subjects Oath neither to take nor Admit of any Dispensation is in it self of no force to obstruct the Sovereign from dispensing and when he doth dispense no Oath is obligatory to any that hath Sworn to observe such Statutes as are not in being while he dispenseth with them ☞ Thus much I thought fit to offer as to what relates to the Secular power As to the Popes Dispensing it was very Incongruous and weak for any Founder to expect that the Members of the Society could oppose the Popes dispensation with any Statute which his Holiness for the time being should think fit to alter or Abrogate for as (a) Validum esse vosum aut Juramentum non petendi dispensationem aut relaxationem voti quamdiu animae volentis utilius est non petere dispensationem Superior tamen potest non obstante tali voto disoensare dispensatio valida est nam vetum subditi non aufert Superiori potestatem dispensandi Jurantes vel volentes c. sub paena ut si fecerint non possunt ab alio absolvi vel dispensari quam à summo Pontifice possunt adhuc absolvi ab Episcopo nam hujusmodi votum vel Juramentum non aufert Episcopis Jurisdictionem Ita communiter D. D. Disp 4. q. 2. punct 1. n. 28. 29. Bonacina determins that tho' the Vow or Oath of any not to seek for a dispensation or relaxation of them be valid as long as the Swearers Conscience is convinced it is profitable to his Soul to keep it and not to seek a dispensation as Rodrique and other School-men there Cited allow and so in like manner not to use a dispensation yet the Superior notwithstanding such a Vow or Oath may dispense and the dispensation is valid and Assigns the Reason for that the Vow of the Subject doth not take away from the Superior the power of dispensing as Azorius Cap. 19. Quaest 13. Sanchez lib. 4. Cap. 8. n. 35. yea he further observes that if one Vow the like is to be understood of an Oath not to do such or such a thing under the Penalty that if they do it they cannot be absolved or dispensed with by any but the Pope yet for all this they may be Absolved by the Bishop for he saith by this the Authority of the Bishop is not taken away Yea I find in Lessius (a) Unde etiam possunt dispensare in voto non petendi dispensationem hoc enim non est reservatum Lessius lib. 2. cap. 40. Dub. 18. n. 134. fol. 568. that the Confessors of the Mendicant Order can dispense with the Vow or Oath to take no dispensation and that by a Privilege Granted them by the Pope if they be partakers of the Faculties Granted to the Benedictines by Pope Martin the Fifth because this is not reserved SECT III. Some other Objections considered either relating to the Visitation in General or urged in Defence of some particular Members of the Society §. 1. A Second Objection I have met with is that the Bishop of Winchester being the Local Visitor appointed by the Statutes of Bishop Waynflet it seemed more agreeable to a formal proceeding that he should have exercised his power of Visitation before the King had ordered Dr. Hough c. to have been proceeded against by the Lords Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes To which I answer First in the Resolution of a very Eminent Lawyer that the Local Visitor is appointed and trusted by the Founder and thereby hath a private Trust But the King as King hath a public Trust by operation and construction of Law and by his Sovereign Authority and Jurisdiction is Supreme Visitor and may exercise that Royal Trust as those of the long Robe use to express his Prerogative sometimes when and as often as he pleaseth without any Commanding or expecting the Visitation of the Local Visitor and having the general care of and Inspection into the Manners and Duties of his Subjects may not only Visit Enquire into and Reform the Members of the College as to their Actions but also Visit the Local Visitor himself as to his doing and performances in or about his Trust Secondly It is certain the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Lincoln as I have by many Presidents cleared before have Visited notwithstanding the Local Visitors being appointed Therefore much more may the King who is Supreme Visitor Thirdly By the speedy Application of Dr. Hough to the Bishop of Winchester before I presume his Lordship could have notice of the Kings Inhibition he had Admitted him so that he was so far become a party concerned that it was no ways convenient for him to have proceeded in it Fourthly The Local Visitor is appointed only for the ease of the Crown in ordinary Cases But it cannot be supposed that if a Local Visitor should neglect to do his Office or should be partial there should not be a power in the Sovereign to order the Visitor seeing it would be a great deficiency in the Oeconomy of Government that a power should not be lodged some where to compel a Local Visitor to do his duty if he failed in it which can ultimately remain in none but the King. §. 2. The third Objection In the third place in the particular concerns of Dr. Hough it is urged See here p. 67. that the Sentence against him could not be good in Law since he was not Cited before the Lords Commissioners at Whitehall nor appeared in person or by Proxy before them nor had his cause brought before them when Sentence of Expulsion was given against him which those that are his favorers Censure as very hard usage that one should be condemned unheard In Answer to which it must be considered that the King by his Mandate having set aside and suspended the College Statutes for Electing a person Qualified within those Statutes and impowering the College by his Royal Command without breach of their Founders Rule and their Oath upon it to Elect a person not capable of being Elected by their College Statutes as hath been abundantly cleared in the last Section Dr. Hough was not to be considered as duely Elected and so revera was no President therefore could not be taken cognizance of as such But as Fellow he was Cited and did make appearance and was heard as the rest of the Fellows were and under other Circumstances he was not Legally to be taken notice of His cause likewise
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
to Form of proceedings in Courts Ecclesiastical to determin differences in the Universities among the Society §. 10. In the Year 1582. In the Paper Office Bundel Eccl. Academica ab Anno 1580. to Anno 1589. 25 Eliz. I find a Letter Writ from Dr. William Fulk Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge to the Lord Treasurer Cecyl Endorsed Dr. Fulks Opinion that not only Gonvil and Cajus College but the other Colleges of Cambridge should by further Authority from the Queen be Visited and Reformed it is Dated the 10th of October Anno 1582. I shall Insert some of the expressions that the dis-quisitive Reader may know what was the Judgment of the Queens power then and the necessity of the Crowns having an absolute power over the Universities for Reforming matters agreeable to the good likeing of the Prince His words are According to your Lordships Letter I have consulted the Heads of several Colleges we are of Opinion that your Honor should do a Charitable Deed to procure a Commission from her Majesty to Reform the whole State and Statutes of that House viz. Gonvil and Cajus College of which some are meer Papistical newly made by Dr. Cajus appointing Mass and Dirige to be said for him some be Ambiguous and Imperfect as the Visitors also have Certified your Honor c. Furthermore for-as-much as the Reformation of one College is not sufficient where the whole Body of the University is out of Frame it is not mine Opinion only but also of others of Wisdom and great Experience of whom I may name Dr. Harvey for one The necessity by Visitation to alter Statutes altho' the University hath Authority to make Statutes that it were most expedient the same were Reformed in the whole and in divers Colleges specially by a General Commission or Visitation in which your Honor might have an Absolute and Principal Authority to supply the Imperfections of all Statutes both of the University and of sundry Colleges wherein the same is needful For so great is the multitude of Licenciousness and disordered persons which cannot be Bridled by our present Statutes that altho' the University hath Authority to make Statutes for the maintenance of good Order and quietness yet nothing can be Decreed by the greater part which will not consent to any thing which may restrain their disordered Licenciousness as was notably tryed within these two Years when your Honor gave in charge to the Heads of Colleges to see the Reformation for excess in Apparel who devised as well as they could but nothing to this day can be Decreed albeit the excess doth not diminish but dayly encrease c. The Clause about Apparel puts me in mind of the Regulation made in Oxford as to that particular some Years before which I shall here Insert that the Curious may note how unreasonable it would be to bind the Members of the Universities to the observing of all Statutes promiscuously if there were not a dispensing power both in the Sovereign and Senates of the University §. 11. Anno 1564. 6 Eliz. Wood Antiq. Oxon lib. 1. fol. 286. K. K. fol. 5. a. b. a. I find Statutes made like the Roman Sumptuary Laws whereby the Presidents Graduated Fellows and Scholars of the Societies and every one that had any Office or enjoyed Yearly Stipend or Ecclesiastic Benefice in any College or Hall should wear no Shirt larger than to be plaited at the Collar and Wrists the plates not exceeding half a Thumb breadth and should have no Embroidery of Gold or Silver That their Bands should not be turned back above a Thumb breadth broad none should wear Stockings but of plain Cloth close to the Leg neither Adorned with Buttons or Lace especially not with Silk none to wear Blew White or Yellow Doublets To which he adds out of the same Statutes that the University considered of the restoring mending and explaining the Statutes I hope all that Swore to the observing these Statutes would not have thought themselves Perjured if either the King or the Chancellor had dispensed with them or if any of them be unrepealed think not themselves in Conscience bound to observe them but that they may wear Silk Stockings and larger Bands if not Cravats and I doubt not but there are several obsolete Statutes that many who Swear Implicitly to observe the Statutes in general never heard of It seems either the former Disputes about Gonvil and Cajus College were continued or some new ones were arisen as will appear by the Extract of the following Letter If there be no mistake in the Copyer of the Date that it should have been 1582. Anno 1592. Paper Office Ecclesiastica Academ Anno 1590. to 1599. 34 Eliz. Dr. Perne Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge Writes thus to my Lord Treasurer Burlegh about the grief of the University for his Lordships Offence at the dealing touching Gonvil and Cajus College and hath these expressions I send your Lordship a Copy of the Privileges of the University c. The weakest part therein in mine Opinion is the want of the Confirmation of the Spiritual Jurisdiction to the Chancellor of the University for that we do now exercise was first granted by the Bishop of Rome and Confirmed by prescription In this I observe only that the Vice-Chancellor hath recourse to the Queens Power to have the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Granted to the University owning they had the like from the Pope §. 12. I could add many things more relating to the University or private Colleges wherein the Kings power of Visiting by Commission is cleared but I shall hasten to a Conclusion of this Head and in the next place shew in one Instance how King Charles the First without the formality of a Visitation ordered such matters as he thought fit in the University of Oxford by a Letter directed to the Vice-Chancellor of the said University Dated at Woodstock the 26th of August 1631. as followeth TRusty and Well beloved We Greet you Well Paper Office Bundel Ecclesiastica Universitatis having at full Length and with good Delibration heard the Cause concerning the late Disorders and Disobediences to Government in that University of Oxford The ends for which the Universities are subject to the King. and being moved by the greatness of the Offence to punish some persons according to their several Demerits and to Order somethings for the more settled and constant Government in that Our University hereafter Our Will and Pleasure is The Kings pleasure ratified in a Convocation as in a Parliament of France That you forthwith upon Receipt hereof call a Convocation for performing and Registring those our Sentences and Decrees as followeth First That Three be Banished out of the University The Proctors to Resign their Offices in Convocation and Two others be chosen in their Rooms Secondly For the things which we think fit to settle presently in that Government they are that as to Sermons the Vice-Chancellor to have Copies upon Oath That