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
§. 6. An account of the whole matter as in the Parliament Roll. I shall now give an account of the matter as it appears in the Parliament (d) Rot. Parl. 13 H. 4. N. 15. Roll. First there is the Arch-Bishops Petition to the King that with the Assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons Assembled in the said Parliament the Schedule Annexed might be confirmed Which Schedule contains the Declaration of King Richard the Second as it is to be found in Mr. Pryn wherein it appears that the ground of the Contest and differences was about a Bull of Exemption pretending to exclude the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and his Successors and all other Ordinaries and Founders of the said University and Colleges from Visiting and all other Ordinary Jurisdiction which Bull by a venire facias was brought into the Chancery at Westminster and the Chancellor and Proctors shewed a sufficient Warrant under the Universities Seal to produce the Bull in Chancery and to answer there and to do and receive what should be ordered and determined by the late King Richard the Second and his Council as appears by the Records of the Chancery and after the Chancellor and Proctors for themselves and the University submitted themselves in the foresaid matters (a) Ordinationi definis ioni dicti nuper Regis to the Ordinance and Determination of the said King. ☞ The King after mature and fuller deliberation with his Council clearly considering that the Bull was procured in prejudice of his Crown and to the revoking or enervating of the Laws and Customs of his Realm and in favor and emboldning of Heretics and Lollards Murtherers and other Malefactors Ordained and by his Breve or (b) In fide Logeancia dilectione quibus sibi tencbantur Ac sub poena amissionis privilegiorum Universitatis praedictae sub forfeitura omnium aliorum quae sibi foris facere potuerunt ne dictam Bullam in aliqua sui parte exequi seu excercere seu Beneficium quoddam Exemptionis per Bullam illam aliqualiter reportare seu recipere presumerent Mandate Commanded and forbid the Chancellor Masters Doctors and Scholars of the said University on their Faith Allegiance and the love that they ought him and under the penalty of losing the privileges of the said University the forfeiture of all other things which they could forfeit that they presumed not to execute or exercise the said Bull in any part of it or any ways to presume to enjoy or receive any benefit of Exemption by the said Bull But to renounce all the Exemptions and Privileges contained in it before Richard Kendall the Kings Clerk and Notary and should transmit an Instrument for that purpose under the Seal of the said University by the said Clerk under the Penalties aforesaid After which follows the Kings Sentence as before In this part it may be observed how the King discovers his Authority and Prerogative over the University in injoyning them to renounce the Popes Bull and not to Execute c. The King may deprive the University of all privileges for disobedience it under the penalty there mentioned which demonstrates that for contempt and dis-obedience the King may not only Suspend and Deprive any Member of the University but take away all their Privileges c. which would be well considered by those who obstinately refuse to obey the Mandate of a King of England §. 7. The account of the latter Visitation Then follows the account of the later Visitation of the Arch-Bishop in the 12th 12. H. 4. of Henry the Fourth as before related where Richard Courtney the Chancellor and Benedict Brent and John Birch the Proctors opposed him and he and the University submited themselves to the Arbitrament Judgment Ordination and Decree of the King and the King Summoned them to appear before him at Lambeth upon the 17th of September where hearing all things and having consideration of the Submission made to King Richard and the Ordination Judgment and Determination of the same the King Confirmed and Ratified the same And further ordered if they obeyed not the Arch-Bishop c. all their Franchises Liberties and all the Privileges of the same University should be seized into the hands of the King and his Heirs till they performed it and the Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor and Proctors of the University for the time being and their Successors and the University shall pay to the King and his Heirs 1000 l. Then follows that this Schedule being seen and examined and understood with mature and diligent deliberation Note here the Kings peculiar power in passing an Act of Parliament The King in full Parliament affirmed and declared that all and every thing contained in the same Schedule were done Arbitrated Ordered Considered Decreed and Adjudged by him And the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons in the said Parliament who had full deliberation likewise of the same approved ratified and confirmed it Upon the whole matter of this great contest about the Arch-Bishops Visitation I think the King and the Parliament were at that time the more Inclined to confirm the Arch-Bishops power because that kept the Visitatorial power within the Kings Dominions and Excluded Exemptions which the State of England was rarely inclined to favor as being mostly as prejudicial to the Crown as the Bishops And Wickliffs Doctrin spreading the King was more willing the Arch-Bishop should Visit the University because it was his proper Office to see to the preservation of the Establish'd Religion and if the University had been left to the Visitation of the Chancellor the opinion of Mr. Wickliff might have the more encreased since the temper of the Members might have been changed from the Doctrin professed since so many in the University were then said to have embraced it §. 8. The reasons why the Author hath given so large an account of this I have insisted the longer upon this particular for two Reasons first to shew that the Government ordering and reforming of Universities were then Judged to be of Ecclesiastical Cognizance especially in those matters which appertain to the Doctrins taught in them which even in their Philosophical Disputes in some measure effected Religion even the taking of Degrees except in the faculty of Physic was in Ordine ad Spiritualia as appears in those Constitutions which prohibit any from having Benefices but such as had taken Degrees in Universities a further Illustration of the former of these Inferences I shall clear when I speak of Bishop Rippingdons Visitation Secondly The misapplication of Mr. Pryn. To shew the mis-application of Mr. Pryn who finding by the Transactions of King Richard the Second and King Henry the Fourth and those of King Charles the First concerning Arch-Bishop Lauds Visitation that those Kings determined the matter in favor of the Arch-Bishops thereby would Infer that the Visitation of the University of Oxford appertained to the Black
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
uniting yet they might abuse the Power to the detriment of the Common-weal therefore in the Digests we find the Law thus (d) Lege neque Societas i. f. quod cujuscum que Vniversitatis neque Societas neque Collegium neque hujusmodi Corpus passim omnibus habere conceditur nam legibus Senatus-consultis principalibus constitutionibus eares coercetur Agreeable to which I find in the Letter from King Edward to the Pope in behalf of the University that it enjoys (e) In Regia Benevolentia recumbit speciali Rot. Rom. 11. E. 2. M. 14. Intus it's Privileges by special Royal Benevolence By the Constitution of our Laws this Right as all Jurisdiction and Franchises are is Lodged in the Crown and thence only derived So (a) Rex habet omnia Jura in manu suâe quae ad Coronam ad Laitatem pertinent potestatem Regni Gubernaculum Habet etiam Justitiam Judicium quae sunt Jurisdictiones habet etiam ea quae ad pacem pertinent Ea quae dicuntur privilegia licet pertinent ad Coronam possunt ad privatas personas transferri sed de gratia ipsius Regis speciali Bracton upon the Question quis concedere potest libertates quibus qualiter referuntur thus resolves it The King saith he hath all the Rights in his own Hands which appertain to the Crown and his Lay-Power and the Government of the Kingdom He hath also Justice and Judgment which are Jurisdictions and those things which appeartain to Peace He further observes that those things which are called Privileges tho' they appertain to the Crown may be transferred to private persons but of the special Grace only of the King. ☞ All the Law Books Unanimously agree that none can make Corporations but the (b) 49 E. 3.4.49 Ass 8. King and such Power cannot be prescribed for it inherent in the Crown Therefore Sir Edward (c) Co. 10. Rep. f. 33. b. Coke calls them Creatures of the Crown The Nature of some (d) Atturny Generals Argument for the Quo Warranto Ms. p. 9. Corporations is to be Constituted by the King alone as the Dean and Chapters Majors and Commonality some have been by the Popes alone and some mixt by the King for the Temporal Possession by the Pope for their Spirituality However the King is still the Donor Fountain and Spring from whence these and all other Liberties flow §. 3. Things requisite to a Corporation My (c) Suttons Hosp fol. 29. Lord Coke saith there are Four things that are of the Essence of a Corporation First a Legal Authority which he saith is Four ways First By Common Law as by the King alone which therefore is said to be by Common Law as the most known and regular way Secondly By Authority of Parliament Thirdly by the Kings Charter Fourthly By prescription which in effect are all by the King for what is by Act of Parliament is certainly so and what is by prescription is presumed to have obtained a Grant from the Crown which in process of time hath been lost and so by the Tacit allowance and consent of Successive Kings acquires a Right His other Essential parts are in the Operative words of which there is no need to discourse here ☞ By the Statute of Merton (a) Id. p. 26. b. no Grant of Lands to Pious or Charitable uses are good without the Kings Licence For this purpose the Kings Grant is absolutly necessary for that it was solely in his Power to Grant and the Donor of the Lands without the King can do nothing to establish a perpetuity Without capacitating the Incorporating cannot be effected for the Inhabitants of a Village or City are single persons which are not in a Capacity to take any Lands in Succession the like is to be said of Liberties Privileges and Immunities but only to their Singular Heirs but such Inhabitants are in a Capacity to be Incorporated by the King and after such an Incorporation to have a Succession of Lands Tenements and Hereditaments §. 4. The end of Corporations ☞ The general intent and end of all Civil Incorporations allowed by the Policy of the Law (b) Atturny Generals Argument ut supra is in order to better Government subservient to the Oeconomy of the whole by such prescribed Rules as the Kings of England have been Graciously pleased to limit them by which as Emergences happened might be altered by the same Power that bestowed them ☞ Bishop Saunderson (a) Quum ex concessione principum idque ex gratia speciali corporentur istiâ—s modi Societates nec aliis gaudeant juribus privilegiis vel potestate extra ea quae vel ex diuturna temporis praescriptione vel ex chartis diplomatibusque Regiis constare potest fuisse sibi concessa De obligatione Conscientiae praelect 7. sect 28. according to his Judicious way of expressing matters saith the Sodalities Bodies Corporate or Colleges are as Members of the great Body the Kingdom or Common-wealth and are contained in it as the Inferior Orbs of the Heavens are in the Superior That these are Incorporated by the Grants of Princes of their special Grace and enjoy not any Rights Privileges or Powers besides those which by prescription of long time or from Royal Charters it appears they have had Granted to them Therefore whatever Power they have of making any Laws for their Government it is derivative and no way Primitive and is ultimately resolved into the Supreme Regal Power as it 's true Original Therefore such like Societies or their Magistrates cannot at their own Arbitrament constitue or exercise any Power in making Laws but according to the manner and measure of the faculty Indulged to them by the Prince ☞ Hence it is that whoever is the Founder of a College the King calls it upon all occasions Our College and the Members likewise in all Applications to the King say Your College for tho' the particular Founder give the Land yet as it is a College or Corporation the King is the Founder ☞ So it is (b) Patrick Case Trinit 18. Car. 2. Keble Rep. 2d St. fol. 65. vouched for Law that the King without the Ordinary may Erect Universities and this is not a Prerogative our Kings only enjoy but we find it frequently in the Grants of the Modern Roman Emperors and Kings §. 5. The Power of conferring Degrees in Universities conferred on Subjects Examples of the Emperors giving Power to Count Palatines to make Doctors in Divinity Law Physic and Philosophy which are the peculiar Degrees conferred by Universities quâ Vniversities by the Grants of Privilege from their respective Sovereigns may be found in Tho. (a) Thesi 22. c. Sagittarius cited by Mr. Selden ☞ So Rudolphus the second Emperor of Germany (b) Sacri Lateranensis Palatii Aulaeque nostrae Caesariae Imperialis Consistorii Comitu Doctores Licentiatos Baccalaureos in utreque Jure
the Regal only and that the Regal privileges should be sent to the King but the Episcopal and Papal should be kept but my Author thinks the last were also sent After this when any office in the University was void the King appointed the Successors so that it is found that even one of the Bedles was so placed This Instance doth sufficiently manifest the Kings absolute power over the Universities in taking into his hands at his pleasure all or any part of their privileges and restoring them when he thinks fit as he did these Anno 1541. 33 H. 8. The King (a) F. F. fol. 107.6 appointed Rules about the Election of the Proctors and ordered several other things relating to the better Governing of the University Anno 1543.35 H. 8. The King restores their privileges conditionally The King restored the Liberties to the University which he had retained from the Year 1522. yet so as the Vice-Chancellor Tresham entred into a Recognizance of 500 l. that the University should exercise none of the privileges granted Anno 1523. by the means of Cardinal Wolsey Thus I have given an Abridgment of what the Laborious Mr. Wood hath related concerning the Kings or Popes Grants of privileges to the University or what I have met with other where relating to this business and shall now proceed in my designed Method referring the Reader for later Charters to the Arcives of the University and the Act of Parliament for Incorporating both Oxford and Cambridge CHAP. IV. Concerning the Visitations of the Universities and particularly of that of Oxford SECT I. Concerning the Kings Supremacy and Power in Ecclesiastical Causes and Visitations §. 1. First what Authority the Kings of England used before the Reformation IT cannot be expected that I should discuss the Controversie here how far the Popes power was exercised in England in matters Ecclesiastical or in things to be done in Ordine ad Spiritualia The Curious may have recourse to the Learned Marca de Regno Sacerdotio the Concordata the Regalia of France and Sir Roger Twisdens Historical Vindication if he would be satisfied in the bundaries of the Ecclesiastical and Secular power ☞ It will be sufficient for my purpose to shew first that long before the Reformation several Kings of England permitted no Canons or Constitutions of the Church or Breves and Bulls of the Apostolic See to be executed here without their Allowance and that in several particulars wherein the Pope in other places by the Canons or the Plenitudo potestatis exercised a special Jurisdiction either some of our Ancientest Kings did the same or if they apprehended any diminution of their Crown or Dignity to attend their exercise by any power not derived from their selves they prohibited them ☞ And Secondly Secondly What power they have exercised since the Reformation That since the Supremacy hath been Established by Acts of Parliament in the Crown The Kings of England may according to the Laws in force not only exercise all the powers they could as Sovereign Princes but likewise whatever the Pope de Jure if not de facto could or did do in the outward Regiment of Ecclesiastical matters and consequently whatever was done in Visitations by the Authority of the Popes Metrpolitans or Dioecesan Bishops may now be done by the Kings of England as Supreme Ordinary §. 2. Before I enter upon this Subject I desire it may be noted These Instances are produced to Induce the Subjects obedience to the King whose Authority ought to be well considered that I bring not the Instances to induce a belief that the Popes according to the Canons of the Church did not oppose some of the practices of the Kings I mention But to shew how Incongruously the Fellows of St. Mary Magdalen College acted who knowing these things and that later Laws had devolved upon the King even the power of the Pope exercised here inforo externo should dispute the Kings Authority in a matter so manifestly appertaining to his Royal Dignity ☞ For Brevities sake I pass the Saxon times King William the 1st for the sure Establishing his Conquest is noted by Eadmerus (a) Histor novorum lib. 1. fol. 6. to which he adds de hujusmodi personis Episcopes Abbates alies principes per totam tenam Justituit de quibus Indignum Judicaretur si per omnia suis legibus non obedirent Idem to have Introduced the Norman usages of his Ancestors tho' he calls them new here Among which he reckons that none in his Dominions should own the Pope but by his Command nor receive his Letters unless shewed first to him and if the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury called and praesided in a General Council of the Bishops he allowed nothing to be appointed or forbid unless they were accommodated to his Will and were first ordained by him nor suffered any of his Barons or Officers to undergo any Ecclesiastical Censure but by his precepts So that I think it not so strange What King William Rufus did Upon the Shism none more fit then the King to resolve whom to adhere to that during the Schism his Son William Rufus claimed as other Princes did a Right to declare to which Pope he would adhere some consenting to Pope Vrban others to Clement Therefore the King demanded of Anselm from which of those Popes he would receive his Pall and the Arch-Bishop Answered him he would receive it from Pope Vrban But the King (a) Rex dixit illum prō Apostelico nondum accepisse nec suae vel paternae Consuetudinis eatenus extitisse ut praeter suam licentiam aut Electionem Aliquis in Regno Angliae Papam nominaret quicunque sibi hujus dignitatis Potestatem vellît praeripere Unum foret ac si coronam suam sibi conaretur Auferre Eadm fol. 25.47 told him that he had not yet received him for Pope nor had it been his or his Fathers Custom hitherto that any should be received as Pope in England without his Licence and Election and whoever would take from him this Power of his Dignity should be esteemed by him as one that endeavored to take from him his Crown And when Anselm Answered that he would not in any thing depart from obedience and subjection to Pope Vrban The King in great wrath protested (b) Nequaquam fidem quam sibi debebat simul Apostolicae sedis obedientiam contra suam voluntatem posse servari fol. 26. N. 1. None to go to Rome but with the Kings leave that the Arch-Bishop could not keep alike or together the Faith which he ought to the King and the obedience to the Apostolic See contrary to the Kings Will. When in the same Kings Reign the Arch-Bishop was sollicitous to have leave to go to Rome and Visit the Successor of St. Peter for the being better instructed in the Government of the Church He received Answer (c) Sed si Iverit pro certo noverit
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
prerogative in punishing Offenders in such manner as it was done by his Commissioners §. 3. The Bishop of Lincoln the Ordinary Visitor before Oxford was made a Bishops I now proceed to shew See by King Hen. 8. that the Bishop of Lincoln was the Ordinary Visitor In the Visitation by the Bishop of Tusculum it appears that the Legate Impowered the Bishop of Lincoln or his Arch-Deacon or the Chancellor or others the Bishops Deputies to see to the performance of what he had Decreed By which some show of Jurisdiction was left to him who was the Dioecesan and by the Canons of the Church had the Visitation in Ordinary of all under his Jurisdiction which by succeeding Councils I shall shew * Cap. 4. Sect. 4. §. 10. hereafter was his Right and declared such even without Appeals from him or any Exemption and that they executed it appears by many examples in the Bishop of Lincolns Register yet by the Instances following we find it was often disputed especially if they attempted to do any Exorbitant Act. Robert Grosthead Bishop of Lincoln (a) Wood Antiq. lib. 1. fol. 106. a singular Patron of the University being Dead Henry Lexinton Succeeded who not being content with the usual power exercised by his Predecessors designed to enlarge his Jurisdiction so that the University was forced to defend it self by shewing the Bull of Pope Innocent the Fourth granted to them a little before his Death Dated at Avignion (b) Wood Antiq. A. fol. 48. b. and in Harus de Privilegiis fol. 4. a. the 5th Kalend of October the 12th of his Pontificate wherein he Confirms and Defends their Liberties and Immunities granted top them by Bishops Kings Noble-men and others A 2d was (c) A. D. 24. a. granted by the said Pope directed to the Bishops of London and Salisbury for the Conservation of the persons Liberties and Immunities of the University A 3d. Dated 11th November the same (d) Farus de privil 4. A. D. 23. b. Year Confirming their Immunities Liberties and Customs And a 4th Dated (e) F. F. 75. the same day and place in Confirmation of their Statutes and this was Confirmed after by the Bull of Sixtus the Fourth §. 4. The Bishop of Lincolns complaint to the Pope against the disobedience of the University But it seems that the Bishop of Lincoln Complained to Alexander the Fourth Successor to Innocent that the Clerks in the Castle of Oxford refused to obey the Authority his Predecessors had Enjoyed upon which the Pope by his Bull Dated * Lib. Taxation per Dominum Norwych c. Bulla 14. The Pope confirmes the Bishops claim at Naples the 5th of the Kalends of February 1 o. Pontificatus Decreed that the Bishop might Exercise his Authority notwithstanding any Letters to the contrary heretofore obtained from the Apostolic See or to be obtained unless full mention of the present Bull was Inserted And it (a) Chron. Osnil sub An. 1258. The Bishop Visits appears Anno 1258. 42 H. 3. That this Bishop Lexinton made an Inquisition into the Rights of the University and by his Delegates examined in the Chappel of the Infirmaries the Instruments and Charters of their Possessions and Rights appertaining to the Church of Osney concerning the Church of St. Greg. Situated in the Castle of Oxford This Bishop Lexinton persisted in this Claim of Jurisdiction Bishop of Lincoln changeth the Lectures and Statutes and complaint of it is made to the King. so that on the 17th of the Ides of March about Nine Masters of Arts came to St. Albans where they made their complaint before the King in the Chappel of St. Oswin against the Bishop of Lincoln (b) Venerunt ad St. Alban quidum Magistri Oxoniae Circiter 9 Artistae qui querula voce coram Rege Reposuerunt querimoniam de Episcopo Lincolniensi qui contra Statuta Universitatis Antiqua Approbata nitebatur Libertates Scholarium enervare Statutus est dies responsionis ad instans Magnum Parliamentum Mat. Paris ad An. 1257. that he endeavored to enervate the Liberties of the Scholars against the Ancient and approved Statutes of the University and a Day for Answering was appointed at the Great parliament that the Reasons of both Parties being heard they might be appeased It appears not how the matter was determined yet it is manifest that they had resort to the Kings Authority in the matter and his referring it to the Parliament is no more then as in Arduous Causes the Kings refering a matter to his Supreme Court of Judicature the House of Lords which give the Kings Judgment and not as Mr. Pryn mistakingly or willfully applys all such things to the Sovereign power of the two Houses Tho' the King Anno 1257.41 H. 3. composed the business yet the Bishop kept his Official there that * Annales Me. Bustonenses Ms when any Statutes were made by the Chancellor and University he might see that the Bishops Authority was not Infringed as we find that David Arch-Deacon of Derby Canon of Lincoln did that Year the 4th of the Nones of June enter his Protest that they should do nothing in prejudice of the Bishop or his Successor ☞ Here we cannot but observe that the Statutes are changed by a Visitor and how the Members of the University finding themselves aggrieved by their Ordinary Visitor have recourse to the King as their Supreme Judge and Visitor Yet the Bishop of Lincoln as Diocesan Insists on his Privilege to see that no Statutes were made without his Approbation all which power our Kings now have §. 5. The Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Visits The first Visitation I find of the University by the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury was (a) Wood Antiq. Oxon. lib. 1. fol. 205. In hac Visitatione Academias ipsas Metropolitica Authoritate ingressus est M. Parker Antiq. Eccleae Brit. Fol. 198. Anno 1278. 6 E. ◠At which time Stephen Bishop of Paris Visited that University But this seems designed principally to Refute and Condemn some Errors crept into the Schools which in Theology philosophy and Logic he disputed against and with the consent of the Masters Regents and non Regents he Exploded and Condemned with this Censure viz. That if he were a Master of Art that Defended them he he should be Degraded and if a Bachelor of Art should be uncapable of any other Degree The Arch-Bishop appoints Statutes to Degrade and Incapacitate Students from taking Degrees and should be Expelled From hence we may find some Footsteps of a Visitors Incapacitating some besides Degrading and Expelling §. 6. Anno 1281. 9 E. 1. The Chancellor of the University having assumed some Ecclesiastical * Harus de privil Oxon. fol. 13. b. Oliver Sutton Bishop of Lincoln Questions the Chancellors Authority Rights and used to take Cognizance of the faults of Clerks that belonged to the Court Christian Oliver Sutton being made Bishop of Lincoln exacted an
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
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
renounce the said Bull before the Kings Messenger and testifie such their Renunciation by public Instruments I know not wherein the King could discover his power more plainly than in Abrogating the very Bulls of Popes surely he that can do this may Suspend a Statute I know it will be here replyed that the King upon the Controversies betwixt the Arch-Bishop and the University about the Right of Visitation declared for the Arch-Bishop To which at present I shall only reply that the King here was not as a party but as a Judge in a Controversie depending declaring his own pleasure which surely manifests his Supreme Jurisdiction and that appears from the very words of the Parliament (a) Cum quaedam dessentiones lites debatae nuper motae fuerunt inter c. super usu excercitio Jurisdictionis Visitationis dictae Universitatis c. nos volentes hujusmodi dissentiones c. prout Regiae convenit Majestati attentis damnis periculis quae inde versimiliter evenire possent sedare pacificare ac pacem quietem tranquillitatem inter partes praedictas pro viribus confovere c. Pat. 20 R. 2. part 3. M. 9. that whereas some dissentions strifes and debates of late were moved and risen betwixt the Arch-Bishop c. on the one part and the Chancellor of the University of Oxford and several others of the said University on the other part about the use and exercise of Jurisdiction and Visitation the Arch-Bishop claiming it c. as appertaining to his Church of Canterbury c. The King willing to quiet and pacifie the said Dissentions Suites and Debates and to preserve peace quiet and tranquility amongst the parties as it agrees with his Kingly Majesty attending the damage and danger which in probability might happen thereupon considering that Jure Communi the Visitation belonged to the Arch-Bishop c. therefore determins it for him Surely Jus Commune must here be taken as that by Canon Law Common Right or by our Common Law of England this appertained to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and then it can be understood no otherways then that virtute officii he might Visit correct and reform all within his Diocess and that Exemptions were breaches of that Common Right and whatever he did quatenus Arch-Bishop or as Legâ—us natus he did by Authority from the King or the Pope and from either of which soever he had them or by the Canons yet none of these can deprive a more Soveraign power from visiting by it's self or it's delegates and the last clause (a) Salvis nobis Haeredibus nostris onmibus aliis quibus in Universitate praeaicta nos progenitores nostri-uti consue vimus temporibus retroactis Id. Pat. of the Patent is therefore to be observed heedfully which is saving to our selves and our Heirs all other Rights or Prerogatives which we and our Progenitors in by past times have been wont to use in the said Universities This further appears if we credit Mr. Woods note upon it that this did not touch the Popes Exemption for if not that it much less effected the Kings Prerogative in general for tho' one King by his Charter may yield it yet he cannot in prejudice to his Successor make it binding to him to which we may add what he further saith that whatever was done it is certain that that Visitation did not then succeed Before I leave this head I must desire the Reader to consider that the Arguments of those who opposed the Exemption were that this Immunity granted by the Pope was not only to the prejudice and grievance of the Metropolitan and Ordinary but likewise to the whole University and was rather a servitude then liberty to them for without that if they had been oppressed by their Chancellor or Vice-Chancellor they might have been redressed by Appeals to the Arch-Bishop but now being reduced under the power of one they were subject to perpetual servitude §. 5. The Arch-Bishops Visitation resisted ☞ Anno 1411. Thomas Arundel the Arch-Bishop intending to Visit the University sent his Letters of Citation (a) Harus in memorabilibus fol. 106. b. to the Chancellor Doctors Masters and Scholars to be ready against his coming and was received by the Chancellor and Proctors and a great conflux of the University and the Chancellor Richard (b) Dum nititur visitare Universitatem Oxoniarum Repulsam passus est Walsing Ypodegma neust ad Ann. 1411. The Kings Authority Courtney told him that if he came as a Guest he was most Welcome but if he came as a Visitor the University was long since by the Popes Bull freed from Archiepiscopal and Episcopal Visitation at which the Arch-Bishop was much displeased and after a Day or two stay he went away and sent the King an account by Letter so the King Commanded (c) Fragmenta veteris Registri Universitatis Oxon Bib. Cotton sub faustina c. 7. the Heads of the University to appear the Day after our Ladies Day to give an account of the Popes Bull which they pretended What followed upon it appears by the Chancellor and Proctors laying down their Offices at Lambeth The Chancellors and Proctors quit their places The King appoints the Senior Theologue to Officiate in the Chancellors stead whether voluntarily or compelled appears not And the King writes to the University that the Cancellarius Natus or Senior of the Theologues should exercise the Office till there should be an Election of another in his place and Commanded that the Papal Exemption should be brought to him Upon this there was such a sadness surprized the Students that the Lectures ceased and they were dispersed The Students leave the University and desist from Lectures and an end seemed to be put to the University according to a Statute made to that purpose that they should use that Remedy if any invaded their Liberties and Privileges Which being imparted to the King he Writ first (d) C. fol. 31. a. displeasedly at the Fact of the Heads and in a second Letter (a) C. fol. 55. b. exhorts them in softer Language to revoke their Lectures and after a while lest the University should receive damage The King gives leave to choose Chancellors c. about October the King Commanded that such should be chosen as might Execute the Offices of those removed for the remainder of the (b) Frag. vet Regist supra Year and the University chose the last Chancellor and Proctors which being certified to the King he took it very ill The King displeased with the Election After which Law Suites being Commenced betwixt the Arch-Bishop and University The King hears the cause and determins for the Arch-Bishop it was agreed that all parties should stand to the Kings Judgment and about the middle of December the King heard it and he appointed that the Sentence (c) Ibid. which King Richard the Second had given should stand
Parliament and neither to the King even when there was no Arch-Bishop in being nor to any other but the Committee and Delegates of that Parliament whereas he ought to have considered that the true reason why the first two Kings determined for the Arch-Bishops Visitation was because the Universities were at that time favorable to the Doctrin of Wickliff which it was the Interest of the Church to oppose and might very well induce the Kings to Commit the care of suppressing it rather to the Arch-Bishop than the Chancellor and if we consider that the suppressing the Non-Conformists was the care of King Charles the First that Arch-Bishop Laud was so bent to effect it we are not to wonder that His Majesty determined in favor of the Arch-Bishop as Arch-Bishop rather then as Chancellor especially when it was known that the Earl of Holland then Chancellor of Cambridge was a favorer and Partron of Non-Conformists And Mr. Pryn ought further to have noted that in the two-Roman Catholic Kings times the Original of the Controversie was whether by the Exemptions of the Pope the University should be Visited by the Chancellor only or by the Arch-Bishop as Metropolitan who by the Canons had the Visitation of his whole Province as also the Dioecesan had in matters at least of Religion as in Bishop Rippingdons Visitation I shall shew so that the Cardo Controversiae was upon the validity of the Popes Exemption and in all the Cases there is a Salvo of the Kings Right and such application was made to him as shews that the last resort was to the Sovereign even to Judge of the Popes Bulls as before I have hinted §. 9. The King gives Sentence for the Arch-Bishop of York against the Aruch-Bishop of Canterbury about Queens College ☞ I shall now proceed in the Series of my History About Anno 1412. 14 H. 4. Great contests (a) Rot. Parl. Westm Crastino Anima 13. H. 5. N. 15. arose betwixt the Arch-Bishops of Canterbury and York about Visiting Queens College the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury affirming it to be his Right as Metropolitan and by the Grant of King Richard the Second And the Arch-Bishop of York claimed it as his peculiar Right as Local Visitor The Decision of this was referred to the King who having heard the Arguments on both sides gave Sentence for York By which instance it is apparent that this King determined the point against the Judgement of his Predecessors and abridged the Metropolitan Anno 1414. 2 H. 5. The King gives leave to the Bishop of the Lincoln to Visit According to the example of the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Philip Rippingdon Bishop of Lincoln the King giving him leave Published his Programma of Citation much after the Arch-Bishop's Form Dated Feb. 12. To which the University Answered Who is admited to enquire by Visitation about Heresie but not in other matters that they intended to make personal appearance to his Summons at the time and place appointed to receive only those things which are known to appertain to the Office of Inquisition of Haeretical pravity but notwithstanding under that Protestation that by that personal appearance they intend not to consent to the Visitation of what Articles soever this is Dated the 4th of March following §. 10. How both the Visitations by the Metropolitan and Dioecesan were excercised by Ecclesiastical Canons By this it seems clear that the Univensity was Subject to divers Visitors for several purposes and tho' the Metropolitical Visitation was owned yet their Dioecesan was submited to in point of Haeresie which further appears in that I find this very Year 1413. Arch-Bishop Arundél (a) Parkers Antiq. Eccl. Brit. p. 309. made certain Statutes for the Government of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge ☞ That this power of Visiting by the Bishops was a settlement by Ecclesiastical Canons is very manifest so that the general occasion of Contests about it was by reason of some privileges granted by Popes or restrictions laid upon the Universities by their Sovereigns or some Exorbitances in the Visitors in Rescinding useful Statutes or altering old ones or Customs Therefore in the first Council of Aquileia I (b) Nec in his ubi de Visitatione ac morum Correctione agitur exemptio aut ulla Inhibitio Appellatio seu Querela etiam ad sedem Apostolicam Interposita Executionem eorum quae decret a aut Judicata fuerint quoquo modo Impediunt aut suspendunt Binnius To. 9. fol. 709. c. 2. A. find it thus Decreed Let Bishops have the Right and Power even as Delegates of the Apostolic See of Ordering Moderating and Executing according to the Sanction of the Canons those things which in their prudence to them shall seem necessary for the amendment of their Subjects and the profit of their Dioecess Neither let Exemptions or any Inhibition Appeal or Complaint even to the Apostolic See in any manner hinder or Suspend the Execution of those things Commanded Decreed or Adjudged in those things which appertain to their Visitation and the correction of manners The Council of Trent likewise (c) Idem fol. 424. c. 2. B. Decreed that all those to whom the Visitation and Reformation of Universities and General Studies did appertain should diligently take care that the Universities should receive their Canons and if any thing in the Universities was worthy of Correction and Reformation they should be amended and appointed by those to whom it appertained for the increase of Religion and Ecclesiastical Discipline These things I only note to clear the point that in former Ages the Inspection into the Government of the Universities was Judged to be of Ecclesiastical Cognizance and by consequence fall under the Kings Visitatorial power by his Commissioners CHAP. V. Concerning the Visitations of the University of Oxford since the Renouncing the Popes Supremacy in England SECT I. Concerning the Visitations in the Reigns of King Henry the 8th and King Edward the 6th § 1 AFter the Bull of Pope Sixtus the 4th was granted to the University Anno 1479. the 19th of Edward the 4th whereby it was Exempted from Archiepiscopal or Dioecesan Visitations all power of Regulation of it seemed to be Lodged in the Chancellor and Senate and other Visitations to lie asleep till King Henry the 8th had cast off the Popes Supremacy some while before which as I have before related their Statutes were delivered to Cardinal Wolsey to be corrected and altered Cap. 3. Sect. 2. §. 8. and afterwards all their Charters and Bulls surrendred to the King so that I find nothing material in this matter during his Reign besides what I have there related but in these two particulars following Anno 1535. 26 H. 8. 30. Jan. The King appointed Dr. William Tresham (a) Lib. conc Civit. Oxon. fol. 59. Commissioners Survey all the Temporal and Spiritual Lands belonging to the University Vice-Chancellor William Freer Major of Oxford William Barentyne Simon Hare-court Walter
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
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
adjudged by the King and his Council So that there was not the least Argument could be grounded from hence that the power was devolved upon the long Parliament to Visit the University of Oxford by their Commissioners Pryns Oxford Plea Refuted as Mr. Pryn confidently but most unconclusively asserts Fourthly The whole matter was determined by the King and his Council and so that it is in the power of any of his Royal Successors to alter the same if to them it should seem meet As to other Visitations there was one 1647. by Ordinances of the long Parliament which being no ways conduceing to my purpose unless it were to shew that what power soever claimed any sort of Sovereignty as that Parliament did only a co-ordinate power yet they would assume the power of Visiting the Universities as a Prerogative annexed and inseparable from the Sovereignty and it being so largely Treated of by Mr. Wood I shall not Insist upon it nor of that which followed Antiq. Oxon. lib. 1. a. fol. 369. ad fol. 414. Anno 1660. upon the Restauration of King Charles the 2d which was most necessary for the Restoring of those who had been Ejected by the long Parliament and the purging out of the University the persons who had been Active in the time of Usurpation and were not like to comply with the Monarchy and the Church of England then restored §. 14. The Form of a Commission to the Bishop of London to Visit the Chappel of All-Saints c. in Minories London I shall annex to these an extract of the material parts of a Commission granted to Humfrey Bishop of London to Visit the Chappel of All-Saints and the Individed Trinity in the Minories in the City of London The words are In omnibus singulis Criminibus delictis Ibidem infra praecinctum sive Jurisdictionem dictae Capellae per Visitationem Corrigibilibus ad punitionem Correctionem eorundem personarum delinquentium quae qualiacunque fuerint juxta eorum demerita Sive per amotionem Deprivationem Suspensionem Excommunicationem vel aliam Correctionem debitam prout vobis videtur congruum juri aequitati consentaneum juxta sanam Discretionem vestram procedendo nec non ad quaecunque Juramenta licita in Visitationibus praestari consueta Ministranda in omnibus singulis summarie de plano sine strepitu Figurâ Judicii solâ rei veritate inspectâ procedendo generaliter omnia singula alia facienda exercenda expedienda quae ad Officium Visitatoris in praemissis Here the Kings full and absolute power is declared aut circa ea necessaria fuerint seu quomodolibet opportuna Vobis praefato Do. Episcopo plenam absolutam damus concedimus per praesentes protestatem vicesque nostras Committimus cum cujuslibet corecionis Legitima potestate Dated Junii 2d Anno 1671. ☞ From this we may observe Inferences from the Record that the King Impowers a Bishop to Visit even in his own Diocess a place Exempt from ordinary Jurisdiction as this Chappel claims to be by former Grants from the Pope so that this is a pregnant instance that the Supreme Sovereign power is to be restrained by no Exemption prescription or other claims To draw this matter to a Conclusion The Conclusion of this Section I shall Insert the Opinion of an Eminent Lawyer concerning the Kings power over Corporations in general and so over the Universities and private Colleges The person is of the long Robe and eminent in his Character who tho' he desires not to have his Name made use of yet hath been pleased to give me his Judgment in Writing as followeth The Body Natural is Created by God. Bodies Politic are Created by the King and as they are Created and receive their Being Life and Strength from the King so they are Governed by him and by him are corrected and punished for their Irregularities or mis-behaviors either by seizure of their Liberties for a time Or upon less occasions than commonly are imagined for their Omissions or Commissions they may be Annihilated and disolved at his Majesties Suit in a Quo Warranto as lately was done in the Case of the City of London which was not only the greatest and perhaps the Ancientest Corporation in the Kingdom but was fortified also by many Acts of Parliament and Ancient prescription and custom and yet not all sufficient to defend them against the King tho' the Offences for which they were dissolved were not of the greatest Magnitude There is no Corporation whatsoever Lay or Spiritual saith the same Judiciòus person but is lyable to a Quo Warranto Therefore the King was merciful to Magdalen College that he did not proceed against them by that Method There are no Corporations which are the Kings Creatures but have sinned against him to their own destruction if they should narrowly be looked into as there are no Men but have sinned against God and if the King had not power upon just provocation to dissolve them every Corporation would be in the nature of an Independent Common-wealth The King is Supreme Ordinary Visitor Almoner and Regulator of all Charities Therefore every day in Chancery he doth by his Chancellor in the Name of his Atturny General Regulate Correct and settle Charities and when any person of Charitable Intention is mistaken in the end or object of his Charity the mistake in Chancery is frequently corrected and that which the Donor intended one way is there applyed or disposed another way and to another person of which there are frequent Instances Not doubting but all this is according to Law how can it be thought that the King hath not the same power over Universities and Colleges only in other Corporations the Tryal is before the Judges of the Kings Bench who are his Ministerial Officers and in Universities and Colleges it is done by the Kings Mandate or his Commissioners which are but various methods of exerting the Kings power and I think the Judgment of another great Lawyer will be granted that where Statutes are made upon branches of the Kings Prerogative they are remedial and take not away the Kings concurrent power as may be seen in Colt and Glovers Case in my Lord Hoberts Reports fol. 146. §. 15. The opinions of several Judges in this matter Having met with some particulars in Judge Keebles Reports in Dr. Patricks Case after my Intention to close this Section I could not omit the giving a short account of such material parts as may satisfie the Curious Reader that what I have delivered on this head is according to Law. ☞ First There (a) Keebles Reports 2d part King and Bryan against Patrick Trin. 18 Car. 2. fol. 65. and 66. it is asserted that the King without the Ordinary may properly Erect an University and give them power to send Burgesses to Parliament Secondly That the King by Patent may
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
itaque non tollit nec excludit solitas conditiones gives the reason why in such like Oaths Tacit Conditions are to be understood Because an Oath follows the nature of the Act upon which it falls for the Accessory follows the nature of the principal as it is a known Rule in Law Therefore if the Act have a Tacit Condition the Oath is likewise to be Judged to have the same and this is Confirmed because the Oath is not therefore added that the promise purpose or contract shall be otherways observed than as it is wont in it self to be understood But in that manner to be Interpreted as those things are which cannot be revoked if the obligation be to keep them or e contra Therefore such an Oath neither takes away nor excludes the Customary conditions that is such as are before mentioned and are always supposed to be implyed Thus far that Judicious Author §. 7. If it be objected that the General Oath Objection See p. 16. here p. 25. which the Fellows take at their Admission to observe the Statutes which had the Kings Tacit consent did oblige the Fellows to take that Oath before the Election and so to go to Election ☞ For Answer we may consider Answer that tho' an Oath in it self be lawful especially so long as the Prince or Superior forbids not the performance of what was Sworn to yet in the case of the Magdalenians the King had expresly commanded them to choose one he appointed and that Included a Prohibition for he that Commands me to Elect this Man forbids me to Elect another and this is agreeable to the Explication the Church of England gives of the Fifth Commandment He that Commands me to Honor Father and Mother forbids me to dis-honor them And Bishop Sanderson (a) Si Superior quamprimum rem rescierit Statim dissensum suum palam peremptorie subdito significaverit prohibueritque Id in quod Juratum est fieri cessare continuò obligationem Illam Juramenti Transitorii subditum vi obligationis Officii quae permanens est perpetua rencri contra quam Juraverat facere Sanderson de Jurament oblig praelect 7. sect 6. pag. 243. well observes that if a Superior as soon as he knows the matter doth presently openly and peremptorily signifie to the subject his dissent and forbids that to be done which is Sworn to Instantly that Transitory obligation of the Oath ceaseth and the subject by force of the obligation to his Office or Supremacy which is permanent and perpetual is obliged to do contrary to what he hath Sworn to And the same most Judicious Bishop is so far from allowing such subjects at least Fellows of Colleges to resist the Mandate of their Sovereign under pretence that they have Sworn to the contrary that he saith expresly that the subject ought not in those things in which he is subject to another Swear to do any thing without at least presuming his Superiors consent his words are Non debet Subditus in iis rebus in quibus alteri subest Jurare se facturum quicquam absque praesumpto saltem Superioris sui Consensu Hence in the Instance Bishop Sanderson brings of the Sons obligation to obey his Fathers Command tho' it hinder him from performing his own Oath he observes that the Son Swore to act with the Tacit consent of his Father which he had reason to suppose the thing being lawful in it self and yet the Oath is rescinded which directly Answers the Objection ☞ It is further urged Second Objection that the Fellows bind themselves by Oath neither to seek to obtain any Dispensation with any of their Statutes nor yet Admit of any directly or indirectly obtained which is the highest of Tyes that an Oath can bind to without a direful Imprecation which is annexed in some Statutes To this I Answer that such Oaths are ill imposed by Founders not so much because the obligation is in it self not to be dissolved but because it may perplex some scrupulous Consciences and may afford Umbrages to such as are unwilling to yield to their Superiors dispensation to insist more earnestly and tenaciously upon the obligation I rather believe such Clauses have been Inserted by Founders to prevent as much as in them lay the Members of the Societies to Innovate matters than that they could foresee that it was more obligatory by the addition of that Clause We may easily Judge that all Munificent Founders would contrive all the ways whereby their Gifts and the uses and applications of them might be perpetuated as we see in several persons settlements of their Estates whereby they endeavor to Entayl them to their Heirs past all possibility of Alienations yet by the Laws of the Land which are not favorable to such perpetuities we find dayly examples of docking the most Artificially contrived Entayls ☞ Now that any Founder in the time when the Roman Catholic Religion was Established here could think that such Clauses could be perpetually obliging I can see no reason when they could not but know that none of their Statutes or Constitutions had any force but as they were confirmed by their Sovereigns whether Civil or Ecclesiastical and in all such Cases tho' the present Sovereigns whether the King of England or the Pope did ratifie them yet this could bind neither of their Successors ☞ For as to the King it is a Rule in Common-Law that general words of an Act of Parliament where the King is not named cannot bind him as may be seen in the Authorities Cited in the (a) Cro. 3d. part Ascoughs case fol. 225 Magna Charta c. 11. Margent ☞ If therefore the Common-Law which seems in many particulars less to favor the Prerogative be so just to the King that he is Exempted from the force of an Act of Parliament in which he is not named surely he must be exempted from a College Statute in which he is not named Secondly If the King had been excepted by Name the exception had been Null for the Founder neither if Living would have Exempted the Society from the Kings Paramount Jurisdiction neither could being a subject if he would have done it as (b) Cujus i. e. Regis Jurisdictioni sodalitium Illud neque voluisse fundatorem neque subditus cum fuerit si vellet potuisse omnino constare Wood Antiq. Oxon lib. 1. fol. 403. Dr. Bayly urged to Mr. Prynn upon the Parliaments Visitation Anno 1647. ☞ Thirdly If it be further urged that the Founders Founded the Colleges and Endowed them on condition the King would allow the Society to be Governed by their Statutes which is but an unproved presumption as not appearing in any Charter I have met with yet if such conditions were to be found the Succeeding Kings at least are not obliged in point of strict Justice to observe such Orders or Decrees of their Predecessors because Par in Parem non habet potestatem aut
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-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
Mass Upon the Ejected Fellows grand plea of observing the Literal and Grammatical Sense of the Statute and admitting no dispensation by any Authority soever I see not how the Fellows can avoid being obliged to say the Mass of the Holy Ghost before they go to Election as the Statute expresly enjoyns as likewise to say dayly Masses Solemn Obits and particular Prayers for the Souls of the Founders and Benefactors c. For if they allege that they are prohibited to use such by Act of Parliament they confess that their Statutes are dispensed with by some Authority and that they yield to and allow such dispensation which is against the Literal sence of the Oath which I have recited before Vide pag. 33. here And I hope I have made it clear that the King hath as much Authority to Suspend and so Temporarily abolish any of their Statutes as an Act of Parliament hath to perpetuate it ☞ I need not touch upon the Qualifications required in the persons to be Elected Concerning purchasing of Fellowships as that they should be poor when it is notoriously known that not only in the times long since Fellowships have been bought but Mony payed for Resignations and if I be not misinformed even some of the late Ejected Fellows had not re-inbursed themselves of the Mony they had payed to purchase their Fellowships so that it was grown to a by-word that an Election at St. Mary Magdalen was a Magdalen Fair. Having thus touched upon some of the Statutes which we find the Society have taken upon them to dispense with or abolish Pag. 311. here I proceed to give a true Narrative of Dr. Haddons Case of which I gave an Account before such as I was then able to do but now by the direction of Bishop Giffard and the great care of my Honored friend the Learned Mr. Thomas Fairfax who hath extracted the Materials out of their public Register I am enabled to clear the Case most fully I shall not repeat what I have observed before out of Mr. Woods Antiquities of Oxford but only note how faithful he hath been in his Collections and that this Dr. Haddon was every way as uncapable of being Elected President by the Literal and Grammatical sence of the Statute as Mr. Farmer was But I shall pass to the account I have received from the Register §. 10. Concerning Dr. Haddon Out of the Petition of the College to Edward the 6th Dated the 3d. of July 1552. WHere it has pleased your Highness upon consideration that Dr. Oglethorp President of your College was fully resolved and determin'd to leave and resign at Michaelmass next ensuing his Office aforesaid to direct unto us your most Honorable Letters in favor of Dr. Haddon therein requiring us to Nominate and Elect him to the said Room when it shall be void Like as we have hitherto and shall gladly forbear to condescend upon any other Man in consideration of your most Gracious Letter and much more to proceed to the Election of any other so do we upon our Knees most humbly beseech your Majesty to consider that we your Orators have not only an Ordinance and Statute in your said College whereby we stand specially bounden to Nominate unto the said Office such as have been of our Foundation being Ministers but also are thereunto by our Oaths every one of us strictly enforced and albeit Dr. Haddon is a Man of approved Learning honesty and worthy of much better preferment and such a one as most willingly at your Graces Hands before all other we would thankfully accept Here we must note the different way of this Societies proceeding in King Edw. the 6ths time from the late Fellows proceeding to Election contrary to the Kings express Mandate Nominate and Elect if he were eligible being sorry even with all our hearts that there is an impediment in our Statutes that may restrain our willing minds and good hearts Yet considering he is not of our Foundation that it toucheth us all in Conscience to violate our Statute whereunto we have Sworn and that he is not a Minister which is required by our Foundation and on the other side that we have of our own Foundation sundry persons of much honesty and Learning which are Ministers whereby they may in their own persons further the word of God. Finally that it were not only a great disgracing and discomfort to our College that no one Man of our Foundation could be thought meet to succeed our former President but also it might appear a blemish to the whole Vniversity of Oxford to sustain of all their Students an utter repeal we have thought good to become humble Petitioners to your Majesty most humbly on our Knees beseeching your Highness to be so Gracious Lord and Sovereign to us not to co-act us by your Power Royal and Supreme Authority which we most humbly prostrate do acknowledge and on our Knees Reverence but rather to grant us your Gracious favor that we may have a free Election and follow our Oaths and Consciences c. Subscribed The Vice-President and more part of the Fellows The King persisting Dr. Haddon was Elected and Presented to the Bishop of Winchester thus by the College Reverendo in Christo Patri ac Domino D ro Joanni permissione Divina Winton Episcopo Collegii B. Ma. Magdl in Universitate Oxon. patrono intigerrimo aut cuivis alii admittendi potestatem habenti Gulielmus Reding V. Praesidens Collegii praedicti nec non ejusdem Collegii Scholares salutem in Domino Ad Officium Praesidentis in Collegio tuo praefato per liberam resignationem ornatissimi viri Owini Oglethorpe nuper Praesidentis 27 Septemb. Anno Regni Serenissimi Principis Edw. 6. factam jam vacuam non solum ad contemplationem binarum litterarum praedicti Domini nostri Regis in favorem egregii viri Gaulteri Haddon Scriptarum quam ad Speciale Mandatum ejusdem Principis ex Autoritate Regia Suprema Note here the grounds of the Societies obedience was the Kings special Mandate by his Supreme Authority and his dispenceing with the Impediments of their Statutes and their Oath Autoritate suâ non solum cum Statutorum impedimentis nostroque juramento dispensantis sed etiam interdicentis ne ad alterius cujusque Electionem procederemus quam praefati Gualteri Haddon sufficiendi in praefatum Officium Nos itaque praefati Vice-Praesidens Scholares omissis quibuscunque praescriptiunculis alioquin in hac Electione requisitis sed quas in praesenti observare non potuimus eximium virum Gualterum Haddonum in tui praefati Collegii Praesidentem unanimiter elegimus c. Datum 1 o. Octobris 1552. I need not enlarge upon this matter Inference from this but refer to the Reader to what I have Writ before concerning it only observing Pag. 311. here that notwithstanding Dr. Haddon was no ways Statutably qualified and that the Vice-President and Fellows did urge the obligation of their Oaths yet
as to any whom the Vice-Chancellor Commands to Prison the Message be sent by the Beadle and he that refuseth shall be judged a breaker of the Peace and not to have any Appeal Thirdly A Command that the Delegates who at this present are in hand with the Statutes make hast and lay all other Statutes aside till they have drawn up two perfect and sufficient Statutes for Causes of Appeal the one in matters of Instances and those things which belong to the Chancellors Court the other for all kind of Appeals in other Causes whatsoever Anno 1632. E Collectionibus Dni Josephi Williamson olim Secretarii Regis primarii 8 Car. 1. The King Granted a Commission to the Earl of Holland then Chancellor of Cambridge the Arch-Bishop of York and Sir John Crook to Visit Pembrook Hall in Cambridge Anno 1634. 10 King Charles the First the King Impowered under the Great Seal the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury the Bishop of Rochester Sir Nathaniel Brent and others to Visit all Colleges Churches Hospitals c. and to make Laws and Statutes and this is expressed to be ex Suprema nostra Authoritate Regia by the Kings Supreme Authority I have not found any perfect Copies of these Visitations Wood Antiq. Oxon lib. 1. ad Annum 1633. but find in Mr. Wood that the Regulating of the University Statutes of Oxford which had been begun to be digested 1629. by Delegates appointed for that purpose were brought to a good forwardness Anno 1633. Arch-Bishop Laud then Chancellor being very Intent upon it When the same Arch-Bishop Visited the Universities by his Metropolitical Right he was opposed in it and the matter came to be heard before the King and Council of which I shall presently give an account and whoever desires a more full Relation may see the whole proceedings in the Annals of Mr. Francklane I shall only Insert here an extract of what I found in the Paper Office Relating to Merton College in Oxford which endeavored to decline the Arch-Bishops Authority in that Visitation the principal Reasons produced for it being these First Paper Office. Academica Miscellania Reasons why the King is Visitor of Merton College That King Henry the Third at the Foundation of the College Styles himself Patronus and consequently was Visitor in these Words Assignavit Maneria praedicta in suis manibus nomine nostro velut nomine Patroni Secondly The Ancientest Copy of Statutes is that which is Confirmed by the Bishop of Lincoln with a Reservation of such Privileges as belonged to the Dioecesan and is Confirmed by the Arch-Bishop as Provincial without any Reservation at all which in reason he would not have done if he had been Visitor Thirdly The Bishop of Lincoln sent Monition to the College Intimating a purpose to Visit From whom the Fellows Appealed to Rome Fourthly The Statutes of Walter Merton have the word Patronus often which cannot in reason be applyed to the Arch Bishop to whom he had no Relation but rather to the King whose Chaplain and Chancellor he was By this it appears what the Opinion of the Society was then that the King was Supreme Visitor and that the Bishop of Lincoln reserved his Dioecesan Right yet when he designed an extraordinary Visitation the Fellows Appealed to the Apostolic See as Supreme and I have cleared that what power that See had is now in the King according to the Laws §. 13. I now proceed to give an Account of King Charles the Firsts Order of Council the 12 Regni which hath been so much urged as if the King had Decreed in Council that none but the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury should Visit the Universities being Scituate in his Province but by the whole scope of the Record it appears that the Controversie was betwixt the Arch Bishop of Canterbury and the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge concerning the Right and Title of the Metropolitical Visitation of the same and that the Universities did pretend they were Exempt from the same and the matter in Dispute was referred to the King and his Royal Judgment and Sentence Litâ—que Controversia praedictis ad nos Judicium Sententiam nostram dâ—latis who calling the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Chancellor of the University of Oxford and the Earl of Holland Chancellor of Cambridge and others to come before him and his Council at Hampton-Court and having heard the Arguments of both the Parties Primo ante omnia per probationes Legitimas per concessionem utriusque partis nobis constabat nos jure Coronae nostrae Regni Augliae habuisse habere potestatem Visitandi Universitates praedictas quoties quandecunque nobis Successoribus nostris Visum fuerit c. First and before all things by Legal proof and the Confession of both Parties It appeared that the King in Right of his Crown of England hath had and hath the power of Visiting the said Universities as often and whensoever it should seem fit to the King and his Successors And that the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury by the Right of his Metropolitical Church hath had and hath power of Visiting all his Province of Canterbury in which the said Universities are Scituate Then follows that on the part of the Universities it was proposed that by certain Charters of the King and his Prdecessors and Papal Bulls they were Exempt and freed from all Visitation and Jurisdiction of the said Arch-Bishop and that Immunity by use of time they now enjoyed by prescription and on the Arch-Bishops part it was shewn that King Richard the Second and King Henry the Fourth had Judged the cause in favor of the Arch-Bishop as before related therefore the King Judgeth and determineth the Right of Visitation to belong to the Arch-Bishop and his Successors and his said Metropolitical Church Quibus unnibus per nos consideratis habitaque deliberatione cum praefatis Conciliariis nostris Judicavimus determinavimus c. and that not only once in his Life as in other Parts of his Province of Canterbury but that it might be Lawful to the Arch Bishop and his Successors after the first Metropolitical Visitation ended to Visit the said University by himself or his Commissaries The Arch-Bishops Visitation not allowed but by the Kings consent as often as it should appear necessary to the said Arch-Bishops on a reasonable and Lawful Cause first by the King and his Successors to be approved Dated the 30th of January 12 Car. 1. By this Record under the Broad Seal it is apparent first that there was a Controversie only betwixt the Arch-Bishop and the Universities whether the Arch-Bishop as their Metropolitan might Visit or they were Exempted from it Secondly That it was yeilded on all sides that the Kings Visitation was in no manner hereby disputed but it is positively asserted that the King and his Successors might Visit as often as they thought fit Thirdly That this Controversie was wholly determined and