I May not in respect of the place where I am, LONDON, wherein it is perillous, if not capitall, to write Law: nor I cannot in re­spect of my occasions, which will not per­mit me too, I have not leisure to write much, make any large refutation of that Book: But shall only content my self with an [...], the work of one day, A briefe Censure of the Book: First, in generall; next, in particular.

In this, and other of his Writings, I find the Author to pro­fesse 1 much diligence, as if he were an industrious and a volu­minous Compiler of the Acts and Speeches of other men, many of them are very truly quoted, some mis-reported, most mis-understood. The man may be thought (perhaps) to be one of a large and vast memory, but certainly of a narrow and slender judgement, which by an infelicity in the braine (in the opinions of Aristotle in his Problemes, and the Author of The Tryall of Wits) doe often meet together: Whence it com­monly [Page 2] comes to passe, that at the end and close of his labours, he leaves his adversaries with more truth, or at least more evi­dence on his side, then he first found about him; as in this Book against his once Mother the Vniversity of Oxford shall more appeare.

2. And therefore I come in the second place to a more par­ticular discussing of this his last piece, The University Plea, (which in his Book he vaunts to have fully refuted) he makes to be this:

Pag. 2. That the right of Visiting the University of Oxon, is onely in the Kings Majestie: and that it is exempt from all other Jurisdi­ction, both by Foundation, Prescription, and severall Grants of Exemption.

Whether this be the Vniversities Plea by their Delegates, in totidem verbis, which he againe repeats, pag. 7, 8. calling it A false Plea, I am not able to say, having now forgotten it: But because he often mentions it in his Script, in the very same words, I will beleeve he hath not committed that fault of mis-recitall here: But I am confident he hath mis-under­stood it quite throughout. And therefore in my duty and love to my deare Mother the Vniversity of Oxford, I will be bold to render her sense and meaning of her Plea in these words a little more enlarged.

meaning [...]e Plea. That the Supreame and Primitive Right of Visiting the Uni­versity of Oxford, as it is an University, (not of a particular Colledge in it, which hath a speciall kind of endowment of ano­ther consideration) is onely in the Kings Majesty, as an ancient inseparable jurisdiction annexed to his Crowne. And that it is exempt from all other jurisdiction (but what is immediately de­rived from him) both by Foundation, Prescription, and severall Grants of Exemption, are legally to be understood, especially at this day, since the dissolution of Papall Supremacy by the Statutes of 24 H. 8. c. 12. 25 H. 8. c. 19. 20. & 21. & 26 H. 8. c. 1. & 1 Eliz. c. 1. &c.

[Page 3]Against this Plea thus explained, he hath alledged not one materiall thing in all his Book, which I shall make appeare by assayling his five men of straw, which he hath drawne forth against this Plea, which he calls his five Positions, which I shall thus endeavour to shake, if not bring down to that No­thing on which they seeme founded.

1. His first Position is this, That the University of Oxford was anciently of right for many Ages under the Jurisdiction, if not Visitation of the Bishop of Lincolne, as he was their Dio­cesan.

Wherein he saith just nothing:Anſw for before Oxford was made a Bishoprick, 'twas never denyed but the Bishop of Lincolne was Diocesan over the Parochiall Churches, nor the Clergie there be within his jurisdiction, quatenus Ordinarius loci; but what is that to the Visitation of the Vniversity, being quite another thing, and belonging of right to the King, or to such as are immediately sent by him, as W. P. truly alledgeth their saying, pag. 54. and maketh it a doubt himselfe, whether the Vniversity was anciently of right under the Visitation of the Bishop of Lincolne, because he saith (if not Visitation) whereby he maketh his Position not positive, contrary to all Logick: And the proofes he brings for his first Position, makes the truth of it more suspitious; for he hath them all out of Histo­ry, as Matthew Paris, B. Goodwin, Arch-Bishop Barker, p. 4, 5, 6, 7. and not out of any authority of Law: And a most learned Lawyer adviseth Students to take heed of Chronicle-Law as false and erroneous.Sir Edw: [...][?] Pref. to th [...] Rep. And all his Historicall proofes doe not affirme that the Bishops of Lincolne did visit out of right, but onely they did it de facto, Et à facto ad jus non valet argumentum.

His second Position being the Body-horse of his Teame,Position. 2 and that which beareth the stresse of his whole Book, is ver­batim thus:

[Page 4] pag. 3. Secondly, that it was aunciently of Right, and so continued till this Parliament, under the visitation and jurisdiction of the Arch-bishops of Canterbury, as Metropolitans (who have frequently visited this University, and Cambridge too) as being within their Province, and have been acknowledged and adjudged by K. Richard 2. K. Henry 4. and an whole Parliament in his Raigne; and by K. Charles himselfe, upon solemne Debate to be lawfull Visitors of it, de Jure. And that these three Kings and the Parliament of 13 Hen. 4. have by their Charters and Votes, absolutely disclamed the Kings sole Right of visiting the Univer­sities; and alwayes resolved the contrary, when the Universities for their own ends, have set it on foot, and laid Claime unto it: No King of England, before Hen. 8. ever visiting either of the Universities, for ought appears by any Authentique Records.

Anſ. This Position is not doubtfull and uncertain as the former; but yet it wants not that fault (which is usual with him) of con­tradiction to his former position; for if it was Aunciently of Right, and so continued till this Parliament, for the Arch-bishop of Canterbury to visit the Universities, de Jure, (as he speaks) and so adjudged by three Kings, and one Parliament; then it could not Anciently and of right be visited by the Bi­shops of Lincolne, which he avers in his first position: But this second, nor the proofes and records he brings in it, doth give any jot of satisfaction to the Vniversity Plea, but that the Right of Visitation is still in the Crowne, and ever was an un­doubted Right of the Crowne: And that these Visitations of the Arch-Bishops, unlesse they had Commission so to doe, under the Kings owne proper Broad Seale, were meere usur­pations upon the Crowne, which I shall make thus shortly and plainly to appeare.

It is very well knowne to men studied in our Lawes, That none but the Kings of England could be truly and properly the Founders of the Vniversities, (par Caesari opus) for it is not [Page 5] the erecting of Buildings that makes an Vniversity, but the dedicating and consecrating of a place, (whether already built, or to be built) to the Muses as a Seminary and Nursery of Learning to perpetuity, the Incorporation of it with Gover­nours, Statutes, and Lawes, the Endowment of it with Fran­chises, Priviledges, Immunities, &c. (which none can doe but the King) is chiefly and properly the Foundation of an Vniversity. It is an old Rule in Law, Patronum faciunt Dos, aedificatio, fundus, either of these three make a man a Founder, but chiefly the first; which is Endowment, being to an Vni­versity all in all; and therefore as Founder of the Vniversities, the Right of Visitation did as truly and properly belong to the King, as did the right of Investure into Episcopacies, of which the King was likewise Founder, till the Popes Canon Law was first admitted into this Kingdome, which fell out in the dayes of K. Hen. 1. and King Stephen. And afterwards the Extravagants of Pope Boniface the 8. (called by that name, because they were extra Canonem) the admission of these Laws into this Kingdome, together with the Popes Bulls, swelled the Archi-episcopall Authority into a Papall Jurisdiction (for so was Anselme called in the dayes of Hen. 1. (Alterius orbis Papa) which continued swelling much worse afterwards, till it received a Purgation in the dayes of Hen. 8. And by this usurped power it was, that the Bishops of themselves, with­out the Kings Authority did visit Universities, and doe other Acts belonging to the Crown, untill the dayes of Hen. 8. &c. I could say much more on this jubject, but Mr. Pryn saves me a labour, for it doth not appear by those two Charters (which he so much boasts of throughout his Book) of Rich. 2. and Hen. 4. and confirmed afterwards by Act of Parliament, 13 Hen. 4. that the Archi-episcopall visitation of the Uni­versities, was any other then a usurpation, de facto, permitted by Rich. 2. and Hen. 4. not a Jurisdiction of Right. This ap­pears [Page 6] plainly by the Charter of 12. Caroli which he menti­ons in this Position, and cites at large pag. 35, 36, 37, 38. (which Charter mentions the two forwer Charters, where it is thus said, Primo & ante omnia per probationes legitimas & per con­cessionem utrius (que) partis nobis constabat, Nos jure Coronae nostrae Angliae habuisse & habere potestatem visitandi Universitates prae­dictas, quoties & quandocun (que) nobis & successoribus nostris vi­sum fuerit: And afterwards, pag. 38. where the King gives the Arch-Bishop leave to visit, (and giving of leave declares a right) not once in his life, but as oft as he shall see reasona­ble cause, which hath this restriction, Ex causâ rationabili, &c. per nos & successores nostros primitus approbanda: By which it appeares that the granting of this Visitation of the Vniversi­ties belongs to the Crowne, and the cause of Visiting after the Graunt must be first approved by the King: and therefore his saying, pag. 10. and pag. 21. that Rich. 2. and H. 4. in their Charters disclaimed the sole Right of visiting the Vniversi­ties: and pag. 39. that King Charles in his Charter to the late Arch-Bishop disavowed it; is most notoriously untrue, and no such thing is to be found in them.

The Author W. P. in the prosecution of the proofe of his second Position, hath consumed almost 40. pages of paper, and I beleeve as many dayes of time, and the Logick of all amounts but to this, that the Arch-bishops of Cant. have an­ciently been Visitors of the Vniversity of Oxford, and have so been confirmed by the Letters Patents of three Kings of Eng­land. The Arch-Bishops of Cant. are now extinct, and gone (which this Author well knowes, having a cheif hand in cut­ting off the last) Ergo, the King and such as are immediately sent by him, (for so is the Vniversities Plea to be understood, and is so confessed by W. P. pag. 54.) are not the sole Visitors of the Vniversity: How this Argument holds together, leave it for young Sophisters to judge; Only I pitty the great paines [Page 7] he hath taken to joyne together a rope of sand.

The Vniversity did expect that so learned a man, as he by voluminous quotations desires to appeare, would have given satisfaction in declaring who had the sole Right of her Visitation, if the King and those immedi­ately appointed by him had it not, whether the two Hou­ses of Parliament, or one of them, if so, then by what way and meanes they had that Right, whether by im­mediate Commission from the King, if so, then whether by the Great Seale, which was made by the two Houses, or by what other? For that the King in his last Message to the Houses questions the validity of it, as that which he saith was made without his Warrant▪ Or if it had his warrant for those persons that were to visit, whether they first acquainted the King with the cause of Visitation, (the words of the Kings Charter being Ex legitimâ causa per nos & successores nostros primitus approbanda; with divers more in that kind, which would have given much satisfaction to the double charged Consciences of that poore Vniversity, in their Oathes to God, and their Al­legeance to their Prince. But not a word of any of these in his Booke, wherein he might have much righted the Houses and himselfe▪ onely he makes much adoe in ex­cusing the persons of the Visitors, and freeing them from the exceptions taken against them, pag. 59, 60, 61, 62. Onely one visible exception is forgot, which I beleeve was thought of by the Vniversity, though not exprest; viz. the exception taken by an ancient Law against a Visitor or Judge, that he was to be integri corporis, as well as Animi, and therefore by the ancient Canons if a Visitor or Judge had Corpus mutilatum, or mem­bram abscissum, it was an exception; And therefore if [Page 8] there were cause of such an exception against any of these Visitors, it had been his part to have cleered it, that so he might not have appeared male audere in that Vniver­sity which he was to Visit.

The other three Positions, as the Refutes doth not much insist upon them, so it will not hurt the Vniversity in her Plea to grant them all.

Position. 3 For as to the third, before the Statutes of 25. and 26. H. 8. 1 E. 6. & 1 Eliz. Cardinall Poole the Popes Le­gate, as Legatus factus, the Arch-bishop of Canterbury as Legati nati, might and did Visit without the Kings Commission; And so might Chancellours of the Vni­versity which heretofore were Clergie-men; but then this Visitation was more de facto, then de jure; But since those Statutes all the Visitations of the Vniversities have been by the Kings immediate Commission. And so did Sir William Cecill, 1. Eliz. visit Cambridge, as Chancel­lour of that Vniversity.

Position. 4 His fourth Position is, That most particular Colledges and Halls in both Universities, have their particular Vi­sitors appointed by the Founders, to whose Visitation they are subject, and not to the Kings.

A most true position, and the Vniversity strives not with him in it if he can rest there, she onely dislikes his irrationall inference thereupon, Ergo the Right of Visit­ing the Vniversity of Oxford, is not onely in the Kings Majesty: Much like to this Argument, the Lord Maior of London is the proper Governour of that City, Ergo, the King hath not the sole right of governing the King­dome, contrary to the Statute of the 1. Eliz. and the Oath of Supremacy, calling him the onely Supreame Gover­nour: According to the lines of proportion and simili­tude, [Page 9] as a City is to a Kingdome, so is a particular Col­ledg to an Vniversity; The King sole Governour of the Kingdome, the Lord Major with the Aldermen, &c. sole Governours of the City; the King (or those whom he immediately appoints, which must ever be under­stood) sole Visitors of the Vniversity of Oxford; the Bishop of Lincolne sole Visitor of Brazen-nose Colledge: when the King comes into the City, the Lord Major yeilds up his Sword, and his Government is for that time suspended: So when the King visits the Vniversity of Oxford, the Visitation of the Bishop of Lincolne is then suspended, like as in the Metropoliticall Visitati­on, the Episcopall Visitation is suspended. And these subordinations are full of Harmony, and doe not con­tradict each other, as he thinketh when he thus speaketh, How then the King can truly and really be stiled the sole Founder and Visitor of the University of Oxford when there are but three Colledges there of his Foundation, and but one of his Visitation, I desire the Vniversity at leisure to resolve.

Truly, his once Mother, the Vniversity of Oxford hath resolved it already, and will take no further time; But wisheth him hereafter to be a good Child, and leave an old fault of his of mistaking the question: For the Vni­versity never made it a Question, Whether the King was sole Founder or Visitor of a particular Colledge, but of an Vniversity, they being two distinct things, distinct Corporations, having distinct Governours, distinct Of­ficers, distinct Statutes, &c.

But the Conclusion of this fourth Position may not be passed by without reproof, where he calls this Right of the Kings sole visiting the Vniversity; The Kings [Page 10] pretended Royall Monopoly; which being spoken of him a sacred person, especially in this his day of affliction by his owne naturall born Subject, and by a man profes­sing Religion, favours more of a son of Shimei, then a ser­vant of Christ.

Position. 5 That the pretended Grants of exemption from Visitati­on, &c. now pleaded by the University, were not procured from the Kings of England, but from Popes by their Bulls, and that our Kings themselves and one Parliament, have damned them as derogatory to the Kings Prerogative, &c.

This Position he braggingly saith, pag. 43. that he hath already substantially proved in every syllable, amongst the proofs of his second Position, and surceaseth any farther proof, But concludes thus bitterly against the Vniversity in this manner: The Author of the Universi­ties Priviledges was very ill advised to plead the Popes ex­ploded illegall Antichristian Bulls in Bar against the Ju­risdiction of both Houses, and the Visitors deputed by them, in these anti-papall times of Reformation; which might just­ly induce them to suspect, that the Heads and Members of the University have a higher and more reverend esteem of the Popes usurped abandoned authority and illegall Bulls, then of both Houses rightfull power and Ordinances. A ve­ry reproachfull, and that though I could say more, a most envious and causlesse Censure, for the Popes Bulls were leges temporum, though not leges scripturarum (as they say in schools) and custom and time had set them up for Lawes; and as they were pleadable then, so in the way that the Vniversity hath pleaded those Bulls, they may be pleaded at this day, without making such a noise [Page 11] and roaring against all the Heads and Members of the Vniversity (not a man excepted) I will give one instance instead of many; divers Parliament-men have Impro­priations of Church-livings, and some of them (perhaps) discharg'd from payment of Tythes by reason of the Cisterstian order (an Order of Fryars exempted by the Popes Bulls from the payment of Tythes of Lands in their owne possession) shall not a Parliament-man there­fore in a suite against him for Tythes plead the Popes Bull by way of discharge without being counted a Pa­pist, and inclining to Popery? there is no doubt but he may. Besides, the pleading of the Popes Bulls of Ex­emption by the Vniversity was so far from Popery, that nothing could more advance their Princes supremacy and their own Loyalty, having this inference in it, That if the Pope by an usurped power upon the Crown could visit and exempt from Visitation at his pleasure: how much more might the King which hath in himself that auncient, true, and proper Right of the Crowne?

And therefore for Conclusion, the Vniversity of Ox­ford out of her Motherly affection to one that pre­tends to be her son, adviseth W. P. to read often that place, Deut. 27. v. 16. Cursed be he that setteth light by his Father or his Mother, and all the people shall say, A­men. The same application of it to his Prince the Fa­ther of the Country; And the Lord give him repen­tance for the Evill he hath done.

And thus have I shortly examined all his five Positi­ons, and his proofs of them, being the substance of his whole Book.

I will now for Conclusion passe my particular Cen­sure upon it in the words of the Emperour Julian upon [Page 12] a Book brought to him containing a Confession of Faith of the best Church in the world; And what he cor­ruptly censured of that Confession, I will truly and sin­cerely censure the same of the script of W. P. in refutati­on of the Plea of the best Vniversity, [...], I have read it, I have considered it, and I doe utterly condemne it.