§. 1. A Copy of the Kings Mandate for Mr. Farmer.

TRusty and Well-beloved, We Greet you well, Whereas We are well satisfied of the Piety, Loyalty, and Learning of Our Trusty and Well-beloved Anthony Farmer, Master of Arts of that our College of St. Mary Magda­len. We have thought fit hereby effectually to recom­mend him to you for the place of President of Our said College, now void by the Death of Dr. Clark late President thereof; Willing, and Requiring you forthwith, upon Recept hereof, to Elect, and Admit him the said Anthony Farmer into the said place of President, with all and singular the Rights, Privi­leges, Emoluments and Advantages thereunto be­longing; any Statute, Custom, or Constitution to the Contrary in any wise notwithstanding, where­with We are Graciously pleased to dispense in his be­half; And so not doubting of your ready Compliance herein, We bid you Farewel.

§. 2. The Authors account of his method of proceeding in this discourse.

I Have Inserted this Mandate at length as I shall the rest of the Letters and Dispatches, because there being nothing that I know of Printed of a Visi­tation, whereby the curious may be satisfied in the very Forms of Address and Proceedings; I thought [Page 3]it might be grateful to such, and might be Instructive to after times and those who have not access to the Secretaries or Paper Office: and I have kept my self as much as I could, to the Originals and Registers, that as to matters of Fact none might have occasion to find fault with me for giving a partial account, neither have I omitted the stress of the Pleadings by Dr. Hough, or the Vice-President or Fellows; and tho' I have not Interrupted the Series of the Discourse by answering the Arguments as they were Insisted upon; yet I have in the close of the Discourse sum­med up all that they could or did say by way of Ob­jection, and given such Answers to them as the mat­ter required, and shall take notice of the late Treatise, called A Relation of the Proceedings, &c. Containing only matters of Fact, published on purpose to make the generality of the people favor the Ejected. Whereas I hope to make it appear, that the King might have proceeded in a summary way, and if he had pleased inflicted severer punishments upon them than the Commissioners have done, and tho' at some times there seems to be a dutiful behavior in the Fellows, and expressions that were agreeable to the condition of humble Subjects, and a plea of tenderness of Con­science in not daring to break their Oaths, yet in effect whenever they were put upon a pinch, whe­ther they would yield to the King's Authority, and acknowledge themselves to have acted contrary to their Duties, they never would own they had been in the wrong, which was the true cause why those that refused to subscribe the submission that was at last proposed to them were so Expelled, and however some might at first Interpose for them, as the Bishop of Winchester did in the following Letter; yet in the [Page 4]progress of this Discourse I shall make it clear, that in former times greater punishments than that of Expulsion, even to Imprisonments, have been In­flicted upon such as have shewed less obstinacy and contempt of the Authority of their Sovereign.

I now proceed to the Bishop of Winchesters Let­ter to my Lord President upon the first noise of the Mandate.

§. 3. The Bishop of Winchesters Letter to my Lord Presi­dent.

I now shall proceed to give an account what the Vice-President and Fellows did, and begin with their Petition to the King upon their notice of the Kings Mandate.

§. 4. To the King's Most Excellent Majesty. The Petition of the Vice-President and Fellows of St. Mary Magdalen's College in Oxford.

VVE have been Credibly Informed, that Mr. Anthony Farmer, who was never of our Foundation, has obtained your Majesties Re­commendation to be President of this your Majesties College, in the Room of Dr. Henry Clark lately Deceased.

We do therefore with all Submission, as becomes your most Dutiful and Loyal Subjects, most humbly represent to your Sacred Majesty, that the said Mr. [Page 6] Anthony Farmer is a person in several respects un­capable of that Character, according to our Foun­ders Statutes, and do most earnestly beseech your Majesty, as your Majesty shall judge fittest in your most Princely Wisdom, either to leave us to the discharge of our Duty, and Consciences, according to your Majesties late Most GraciousNot Toler­ation as the Oxford relati­on hath it. Declaration and our Founders Statutes, or to Recommend such a person who may be more serviceable to your Ma­jesty and this your Majesties College.

§. 5.

THe foresaid Petition is Endorsed as Dated the 10th. of April, 1687. And delivered to my Lord President by Dr. Thomas Smith and Captain Bagshaw.

I find among the other papers delivered me from the Register, one from Dr. Thomas Smith, read and published at a Meeting of the Fellows at his Return from presenting the foresaid Petition: In these words,

§. 6.

I Insert this, for the honor of this Gentleman who is known by his Learned Writings, which give account of his Travels to the Port and through part of Greece, and in defence of the Doctrin of the Church of England: As also to let all know how happy it had been if the Fellows had hearkned to his honest, sober and faithful advice, which was assented to by Dr. Aldworth, Dr. Fairfax and Dr. Pudsey at their private Conference before proceeding to Election, tho' they after changed their minds.

☞ It hath been the practice in former times, and ac­cording to the Canon Laws, that when any Superior enjoyned any matter upon Inferiors which they judg­ed to be prejudicial to their Rights: It was their Duty rescribere, to Write to the Prince, or other Superior to shew him wherein, by such Mandate their Rights were invaded, or what other incon­veniences might ensue, and not to proceed forth­with to do that which was forbid; especially not to pro­ceed to Election as here they did when the King had after their Petition presented to him, expressed him­self, that he would be obeyed. In Duty and Obedi­ence therefore they should have stayed their Election, and represented their Case more particularly, and it is most certain, that the neglect of this and the contempt of the Kings Authority were the Original causes of all that hath befallen them, but I shall leave this and proceed in the matters of Fact.

§. 7. My Lord Pre­sident to the Bishop of Winchester.

This being sent to the Bishop, he returned this fol­lowing Answer the next Day.

§. 8. By the Sta­tutes there are five days allowed for the Bishop of Winchester's confirmation.

☞ By this it appears how sedulous the new Elected President and the Fellows were, to have the Election confirmed; presuming, that this being done, the President would have a Legal Right, and could not be removed but by course of Common Law: But I hope to shew hereafter, that the practice of the Kings of England, and of the Visitors appointed either by the Kings or the Popes (the latter of whose power our present Laws give his Majesty) hath been to dispense with Statutes, and to place, and displace for disobedience, Heads of Colleges and Fellows by the significaton of their Royal pleasure, or to Impower Visitors by Commission to do the same; and of this it cannot be conceived, that the Members of the Col­lege could be Ignorant; but that they rather were animated to lay hold of this opportunity, to see if they could dispute the Kings Authority, or which is of equal concern to many, render the King's Acti­ons disobliging, whereby they might gain the point of raising iealousie, and male-contentedness in peoples minds, with which designs I will not charge all the Members of the Society; But it is too apparent, that those who underhand encourged them to per­sist in their opposition, designed some such matter.

I now pass to their Application to his Grace the Duke of Ormond their Chancellor, and the Repre­senting their Case in the best dress they could; and [Page 11]shall only note at present, that these were like to have little effect, since they were the justifyings of their actions upon such slender grounds, as in the sequel will be made appear, and carried no tokens of relenting or repentance for their by-past disobedience, so that the King could not look upon them, as any Acts of theirs that might induce him to a Clemency or Pardon, where they would not own their failor of duty, but were a denial of his Sovereign and Supreme Authority of dispensing and being obeyed; contrary to the known Laws and practice of his Royal Predecssors, as I shall make clear when I come to Answer their Objections, and shew the obligation to their Oaths of owning the Kings Supremacy and the Sove­reign Jurisdiction the King hath to alter and make null their Statutes that any ways Impugn his Prerogative over such Societies, and Corporations; which owe their Foundation, and subsistence to the Royal pleasure, and may be proceeded against, when the King pleaseth, by a more sever method of Quo Warrante; whereby they may be totally, suppressed: Whereas the King in great Clemency proceeded only by way of Visi­tation, which is a most undoubted Prerogative of the King, that must ever be owned by those who question the extent of the Ecclesiastical Commis­sion.

I now proceed to the Address the Society made to his Grace the Duke of Ormond as followeth,

§. 9. The President and Fellows of St. Mary Magdalens Col­lege Oxon to the Duke of Ormond, then Chancellor.

While the College was making this application, the King thought fit to require an account of their actions; therefore ordered my Lord President to write as followeth.

§. 10. My Lord Sun­derlands Let­ter to the Vice Presi­dent and Fel­lows of St. Mary Magda­lens College in the Univer­sity of Oxford.

The Answer returned to this Letter was as fol­loweth.

§. 11. The Answer.

YOur Lordships of the 21st. we received, signi­fying to us His Majesties pleasure, that we should give your Lordship an Account of what pas­sed at our late Election of a President, and of the Receipt of His Majesties Letters Mandatory, in be­half of Mr. Anthony Farmer. In all Dutiful obedi­ence to His Majesty we have accordingly sent to your Lordship, a plain State of the Case wherein nothing in this World could so much affect us as [Page 15]that we could not Elect the said Mr. Farmer Presi­dent, in compliance with His Most Sacred Majesties Letters, being a person in our Judgments utterly uncapable of that Office. We beg leave to represent to your Lordship, that our Princes displeasure would be the greatest misfortune that could befall us; and our only support under this apprehension is, that a Loyal Society can never suffer, in the hands of so Generous and Gracious a Prince, for what they have done out of a Consciencious discharge of the Trust reposed in them by their Founder.

That God Almighty would Crown all your Lord­ships endeavors with suuccess: and preserve your Lordship in the Grace and Favor of the best of Prin­ces, shall be the Daily Prayer of,

§. 12. The Case of the Vice-President and Fellows of St. Mary Magdalen College, in Oxford, in their late Election of a President.

UPon the first Notice of the Death of Dr. Clark, Late President of St. Mary Magdalen College in Oxford; the Vice-President called a Meeting of the Fellows, in order to appoint a day for Election of a new President. And the 13th. day of April was the time prefix'd; with power to prorogue the Election [Page 16]as they should see cause till the 15th. beyond which time it was not in their Power to defer the same. This being agreed, a Citation or Praemonition was fixt upon the Chappel-door of the College, signify­ing the same, and summoning all the absent Fellows to repair home to the ensuing Election, as the Sta­tute in that case directs. After this, upon the 8th. of April they received His Majesties Letter in behalf of Mr. Farmer, requiring them to Elect and Admit him President: But he having never been Fellow of that College, or of New-College in Oxford, (which are the only Persons capable of being chosen by the Statutes) and wanting likewise such personal Quali­fications as are requried in the Character of a Presi­dent, they did not imagin it was, or could be His Majesties pleasure, that they should act so directly against the express words of their Statutes, to which they are strictly and positively Sworn. But did humbly conceive they were bound in Duty to be­lieve, His Majesty had been mis-informed in the Character, and Capacity of Mr. Farmer, and there­fore upon the 15th. of April (the last of those days within which they are confined to finish the Electi­on) they proceeded to a choice, and having first Received the Blessed Eucharist, and taken an Oath, as the Founder enjoyns, to choose a person so qua­lified as is there specified, they did Elect the Rever­end Mr. Jo. Hough, Batchellor in Divinity, who is a Person every way qualified by the Statutes of the said College: And if it shall be objected that His Majesty did in His Letter for Mr. Farmer, Graciously dispense with all those Statutes that rendered him uncapable of being Elected, and that therefore they might have obeyed without breach of their Oath.

They humbly beg leave to Represent, that there is an express Clause in that Oath, which every Man takes when he is admitted Fellow of the College, wherein he Swears, neither to procure, accept, or make use of any Dispensation from his Oath, or any part thereof by whomsoever procured or by what Authority soever granted.

As to their former practice, when they have E­lected in obedience to the Kings Letters heretofore, it has been always in such Cases where the persons recommended have been every way qualified for this Office by their Statutes, in which cases they always have been and ever will be ready to comply with His Majesties pleasure, it not being without unspeakable regret that they disobey the least of His Commands. They know how entirely their welfare depends up­on the countenance, and favor of their Prince, nei­ther can any thing more deeply affect and grieve their Souls, than when they find themselves reduced to this unfortunate necessity of either disobeying his Will, or violating their Consciences by a notorious perjury.

§. 13. Some Clauses of particular Statutes to which the fore­going Case Relates.

IN the Statute concerning the Election of a Presi­dent, his Character is thus described, That he must be a Man of good Reputation, and good Life, of approved understanding, good manners, and tem­per, and discreet, provident, and circumspect both in Spiritual, and Temporal Affairs.

In the same Statute, the Oath which every Fellow [Page 18]is obliged to take before he can give his voice in the Nomination of a President is this.

That he will name one or two of the Fellows of St. Mary Magdalen College, or of those who have formerly been Fellows there, and have left the place upon a Legal, and creditable account: Or that he will name one or two of the Fellows of St. Mary Winchester College, commonly called New-College in Oxford, or of those who have formerly been Fel­lows there, and have left the place upon a creditable account: After this the Thirteen Senior Fellows Swear, that of the two that are nominated, they will with all speed Elect one to exercise the Office of Pre­sident whom in their Consciences they think most proper, and sufficient, most discreet, most useful, and best qualified for it, without any regard to love, hatred, savor, or fear, &c. As in the forementioned Statute is more largly exprest.

§. 14. The Address of the Fellows of St. Mary Magdalens College to his Majesty, sent to my Lord President to be delivered to the King.

VVE your Majesties most humble and most du­tiful Subjects the Fellows of St. Mary Mag­dalen College in Oxford, being deeply afflicted with the late sence of your Majesties heavy displeasure, grounded, as we in all reason humbly presume, up­on the most unkind mis-representation of our actions in relation to the Election of a President into your Majesties said College; do humbly beg leave to prostrate our selves at your Royal feet, offering all real Testimonies of Duty and Loyalty. And as we have never failed to evince both our principles and practices to be truly Loyal, in obedience to the Commands of your Royal Brother and your Sacred Self, in matters of the like Nature; So whatsoever way your Majesty shall be pleased to try our readi­ness to obey your Royal pleasure (in any instances that does not interfere with, and violate our Con­sciences, which your Majesty is Studious to pre­serve) we shall most gladly and effectually com­ply therewith. A stubborn and groundless resistance [Page 20]of your Royal Will and Pleasure in the present, and all other Cases, being that which our Souls eternally abhorr, as becomes

§. 1.

HAving thus far related what was Transacted betwixt His Majesty and the forementioned Lords, and the Vice-President and Fellows of St. Mary Magdalen College, His Majesty thinking it ex­pedient, that they should be called to an account for their disobedience, ordered the Lords Commis­sioners for Ecclesiastical Causes to proceed against them.

Poceedings of St. Mary Magdalen College in Oxford.

§. 2. The Answer of the Vice-President and Deputed Fel­lows, &c.

Ex Registro.Upon June the 6th. the Vice-President and Depu­ties of the Fellows appear, and do desire time which is allowed till this day Sennight.

June the 13th. they attend with their Answer, which being Read, the Lords took time till the 22d. Instant, for the further consideration of the matter.

§. 3.

To this were subjoyned the following Statutes for regulating the Election of a President.

§. 4. Out of the Register.

§. 5. The Sentence of Suspension against Dr. Charles Ald­worth, and Dr. Henry Fairfax.

At the same Court these two following Orders were made.

The Fellows studying all the ways they could to evade and refuse Obedience to the Kings Mandates, or the Lords Commissioners Orders did it colourably in this particular, as will appear in this following Letter.

§. 6. Mr. Atterbury's Letter con­cerning his reception at St. Mary Mag­dalen College.

MR. Thomas Atterbury Messenger, was sent with this Order to the College, and he returns Answer June the 24th. that he came thither that day, and enquired for Dr. Pudsey who he understood was Senior Fellow upon the place, and told him that he was directed by the Lords Commissioners to ap­ply himself to him as Senior Fellow and desired him to Assemble the rest of the Fellows, that he might deliver to them the Orders from the said Lords; Dr. Pudsey reply'd, That he did not Act as Senior Fellow, for that he was made Burser, but would endeavor to get him an Answer at Five a Clock, as soon as Prayers were done, at which time he told him, that he had no power to Assemble the Fellows, neither could he any ways do it, so long as there was a President on the place the Fellows had no Authority to Act; There being two or three Fellows with this Doctor, one of them asked Mr. Atterbury to see the Orders, to which he Answered: If he with Dr. Pudsey and the rest would receive them he would deliver them to them, but would not Read them; So he shewed them the Indorsment, that they were directed to them, and offered to de­liver them to them: But they refused, saying, they had no Authority to call an Assembly, neither could they do it, therefore it was not fit they should re­ceive them, and being desired to tell him, if that was their final Answer, they said yes, so he told [Page 38]Dr. Pudsey he must give a speedy Answer to the Regi­ster Mr. Bridgman, to whom he sends this ac­count, and adds, that the Doctor treated him with very good words, and Invited him to Dine with them while he stayed in Town.

Thus far Mr. Atterbury's Letter, I now proceed to what was done next.

§. 7. The Orders of the Lords concerning Mr. Farmer, upon the Reading his defence.

The Form whereof was as followeth.

July the 1st. Their Lordships having been informed,Out of the Register. that their foresaid Order of June the 22d. had not been obeyed, Ordered the following Citation.

§. 8.

During this interim, before the Fellows appear­ed before the Lords Commissioners, the King, ac­cording to former Presidents, sends this following Inhibitory Mandate to the Fellows of St. Mary Mag­dalen College.

§. 9. Order to Mr. Atterbury, &c. to affix the Decree con­cerning Mr. Hough Dr. Aldworth, and Dr. Fairfax, upon the Col­lege Gates.

The next Court was held the 29th. day of July. At which time I do not find, that the Fellows of St. Mary Magdalen College did exhibit their Answer why they obeyed not the Order of the Lords Com­missioners of the 22d. of June, nor that their Lord­ships required it, but I find in the Register this fol­lowing Order to affix the Sentence on the College Gates.

§. 10. The Answer of the Fellows why they o­beyed not the order of the 22d. of June.

Aug. 5th. the Deputies of the Fellows attend,Out of the Register. and give in their Answer in Writing (as before recited) which being Read were dismissed.

§. 1. The Kings Man late to the Fellows, &c. to Admit the Bishop of Oxford Presi­dent.

THe King being willing to place such a President over the College, as by the Character he bore in the Church, being Bishop of the Diocess, might be an Honor to the Society, was Graciously pleased to grant the following Mandate.

Note that this Mandate was sent after the hearing of Mr. Farmers cause before the Lords Commission­ers, [Page 45]whose Accusation is Printed in a late Book, without his Reply, on purpose to vindicate the pro­ceedings of the Electors of Dr. Hough, but since there was no Juridical Sentence upon it, and the stress of the Case lies not upon his qualifications, I shall pass it by, and next insert my Lord Presidents Letter pursuant to the Mandate.

§. 2. My Lord Pre­sidents Letter to the Senior Fellow of the College, &c.

To this Dr. Pudsey returned the following An­swer.

§. 3. The Answer of Dr. Pudsey the Senior F [...]llow to the foresaid Let­ter.

By this Letter is appears, that the Fellows per­sisted in their obstinacy, in not paying obedience to [Page 47]the Kings Second Mandate for admitting the Bishop of Oxford their President.

§. 4. The Coppy of the Bishop of Oxfords Let­ter to the Se­nior Fellow of St. Mary Mag­dalen College in Oxon, or in his absencé to the Senior Fellow resid­ing there.

Upon the Receipt of the Kings Mandate the Bishop Writ the following Letter to the Senior Fellow of St. Mary Magdalen College.

Dr. Pudsey being the Senior Fellow returned this following Answer.

I shall now pass to what I find succeed.

§. 5. My Lord Pre­sidents Letter to the Bishop of Oxford.

This was agreed on and done by the Fellows after His Majesty had spo­ken to them.

These following Papers are the Copies mentioned in the foresaid Letter.

§. 6. The Copy of one of the Papers men­tioned in the preceding Letter.

At a Meeting of the Fellows of St. Mary Magdalen College in the University of Oxon in the Chappel of the said College the 4th. day of September in the Year of our Lord God, 1687. Between the hours of Four and Five in the Afternoon of the same day in obedience to His Majesties Command.

I have omitted what passed betwixt His Majesty and the Fellows of St. Mary Magdalen College while the King was at Oxford; since there was nothing done by the Fellows which tended to a submission to the Kings Authority, but rather to a Justifying of their undutifulness in their Personal Address to him, which as it was so contrary to expectation at a time when the King Honored their University with his Presence, and was the only disobligation he had met withall in his whole Royal Progress: It cannot be wondred, that he resented it as he did, that a num­ber of Fellows of a single College should persist so in their disobedience, in not Admitting the Bishop of their Diocess to be their President, an Honor they never had since their Foundation, if we may be allowed to call it an Honor to have a person of that Character their Supreme Governor.

Since therefore they were not required to Elect him, but only Admit him by vertue of the Kings Mandate, the King having by that superseded the [Page 52]former for Mr. Farmer, no Man can think it strange, that the King resolved to Chastise them for their contempt in a method Justifiable by Canon, Civil and Statute Law, both to vindicate his own Royal Authority, as likewise to deter others from following such pernicious Examples.

§. 1. Citation of St. Mary Mag­dalen College, October 17th. 1687.

HIs Majesty being so greatly provoked by the disobedience to the second Mandate, and now finding it necessary to Assert his own Power, resol­ved upon sending down certain Local Visitors ac­cording to which I find it thus Registred.

Memorandum, Out of the Register. There being a new Commission with the Addition of Thomas Bishop of Chester, Sir Robert Wright Lord Chief Justice of the Kings Bench, and Sir Thomas Jenner one of the Barons of the Court of Exchequer with particular Power to them, or any two of them to visit St. Mary Magdalen Col­lege in the University of Oxford, the Commissi­oners [Page 53]thought fit to meet at the Council Chamber this day, being the 17th. of Ooctober 1687.

The Commission was Read, and the same Officers confirmed as before.

The Lords Commissioners for Visiting Magdalen College, agreed upon the following Citation in Or­der to their Visitation.

On Wednesday October the 19th. the Citation was fixed on the College and Chappel Doors, and on Thursday the Commissioners entred, attended by the three Troops of Horse that Quartred in the Town.

§. 2. The Proceed­ings of the Lords Com­missioners at Oxford, on Friday morn­ing Octo. 21. 1687.

I shall from the Register, Original Papers, the Bishop of Chesters notes, or the Printed Relation, give a Faithful account of the First and Second Visitation.

§. 3. SATƲRDAY Morning, October 22d. 1687.

DR. Hough was called in, and it appearing to their Lordships, that his Election to the Pre­sidents place was made null and void by a Sentence given by the Lords Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes, and that he the said Dr. Hough had legal notice of the same, but notwithstanding the said Sen­tence he had and did still refuse to submit thereunto. The Court ordered him forthwith peaceably to de­part the College, and deliver up the Keys of the Lodg­ings, and struck his Name out of the Buttry-Book; and having so done, declared to the Fellows, that he was Actually Expelled, and admonished them not to own him as their President.

Then the Court askt the Fellows whether they would amdit the Bishop of Oxon their President, according to the Kings Mandate, but all of them [Page 63]refused, except Mr. Charnock, but said they would not oppose it.

Then adjourned till the Afternoon.

§. 4. The Lords Commissioners sent the Following Letter to my Lord President, Dated 22d. October 1687.

§. 4. The account sent by the Lords Com­missioners of their proceed­ings till Satur­day night Octob. 22.

HIs Majesties Commissioners for Visiting the College of St. Mary Magdalen in Oxford, Note that what is con­teined be­twixt these [] is what is in the Bi­shop of Che­sters and Dr. Th [...]mas Smi [...]hs Diary and not in the Account sent by the Lords Com­missioners. Friday After­noon. be­ing Yesterday [viz. Thursday the 20th. of October] come at the time appointed [viz. Friday Octob. 21.] for the President Fellows and Schollars thereof to ap­pear, their Lordships took upon them the Execution thereof: My Lord Bishop of Chester made a Speech to them upon the occasion of the Visitation, and after an adjournment of the same, to the Afternoon, there then appeared Dr. Hough and several of the Fellows, and most of the Schollars and Officers of the College: Dr. Hough objected to the shortness of the time from the notice of the Visitation, and prayed a Copy of the Commission and time to consider of it (which was over ruled by the Court) saying, that if he and they could take any advantage from the Commission, he hoped the King and their Lordships did not intend to bar them of it: And [in his own Name and the greatest part of the Fellows,] said, that he submitted to the Visitation so far as was con­sistent with the Laws of the Land, and the Statutes of the College and no further, and that he could suf­fer no alteration of the Statutes, neither by the King nor any other Person [for which he had taken an Oath, from which he could not swerve, and there­upon Quoted the Statutes confirmed by King Henry the Sixth and their Oath, that they should submit to no Alteration made by any Authority] [The Oxford Relation saith, that my Lord Chief Justice answer­ed, you cannot Imagin, that we Act contrary to the Laws of the Land, and as to the Statutes the [Page 66]King has dispensed with them. Do you think we come here to Act against Law?]

Then the Sentence given the 22d. Day of June, 1687. Against Dr. Hough's Election, and for the removing him from the Office of President of the Col­lege was Read, and he was asked whether he knew of it being given against him: He replyed, he had notice of it, but said he was no party to it, and so was advised it did not any wise concern him.

The Sentence likewise against Dr. Aldworth and Dr. Fairfax for suspending them, was Read, and the Petition of Dr. Aldworth, Dr. Fairfax and others delivered to my Lord President on the Tenth of April last (being about Five Days before their Election of Dr. Hough,) was also Read to them to which was reply­ed, that they had noIt was An­swer sufficient to have oblig­ed them not to have pro­ceeded to E­lection till they had par­ticularly made out their Informa­tion against Mr. Farmer. Answer from my Lord President, but that the King expected to be obeyed, and they receiving no other Mandate than that for Admitting Mr. Farmer, they proceeded to Elect Mr. Hough.

Then after their Lordships orders to them to bring in some Books [viz. The Register] and other Pa­pers relating to the Revenues and Government of their College [which the Doctor promised they should have next Morning,] they adjourned to Eight of the Clock this Morning.

§. 5. Ʋpon Complaint made by the Lords Commissioners of the Hubub before mentioned, the Vice-Chancellor pub­lished this following Programma.

QUum nihil minus deceat Viros Ingenuos, ne­dum Academicos ad optima enutritos, quam morum Inelegantia, & Rusticitas; Quam absonum videri debeat Adventantes strepitu, & sibilis excipere, & pro Coetu Philofophorum, turbam Morionum Pe­regrinis ostentare!

Quocirca dolemus hac in parte peccatum esse in Viros Illustres, & admodum Reverendos; & quod omnium Gravissimum est, Regia insuper Authoritate munitos; speramusque hoc Indecentiae, vel potius contumeliae, aut saltem maximam partem, ab In­frunitis [Page 72]hominibus & de plebis Faecula natis, omnino provenisse; monemusque omnes, quotquot sunt Scholares, ut ab omnibus Illiberalibus Dicteriis, san­nis, Pedum supplosione, male feriatorum & Turbin­um Cachinno, Screatu, clamore, & murmure [...] penitus abstineant.

Si quis vero in posterum, in aliquibus istius modi deliquerit, sciat se non mediocres Temeritatis & In­solentiae suae paenas luiturum.

§. 6. My Lord Pre­sidents Letter to the Lords Visitors, in Answer to theirs of the 22d. of October.

To the Lords Commissioners Letter and the ac­count sent of their proceedings, I find this Answer given by my Lord President.

The Lords Commissioners Answer to this, I shall Insert in it's place, and now proceed to what was transacted at the Court held, October the 25th. In the Morning.

§. 7.

Dr. Stafford Read the following Paper in Answer to what was objected on Friday, October 25th. Morning.that a Mandate Im­plyed an Inhibition, which I think fit to Insert out of the Printed Relation.

This,Oxford Rela­tion, which all along I so style to distinguish it from other Relations or Papers. saith the Oxford Relation, their Lordships having perused would not allow to be Read publicly, but they asked the Fellows whether they would Sign it, Challenging them to do it at their Perils, then the Fellows withdrew into the Hall where be­ing not satisfied, it was necessary to Sign a Plea, which their Lordships refused to admit, returned the Paper into the Court only subscribed by Dr. Fair­fax, and Dr. Stafford, the latter after some debate desiring to withdraw but Dr. Fairfax stood to it.

§. 8. The Bishop of Oxfords Proxy.

After the Plea of Dr. Stafford, Tuesday Morning the 25th. of October. 1687. Was thus let fall, Mr. Wickins Procuratar and Chaplain to the Bishop of Oxon, was called, who delivered the Proxy, the Tenor whereof followeth.

Then was Read the following Mandate.

§. 9. The Kings Mandate to the Visitors for admitting the Bishop of Oxford Presi­dent, &c. 23d. Octob. 1687.

RIght Reverend Father in God, Right Trusty and Well-beloved, and Trusty and Well-beloved, We Greet you well: Whereas We did by Our Letters bearing Date the 14th. Day of August last, Authorize and Require the Fellows of St. Mary Magdalen College in Our University of Oxon, to Admit the Right Reverend Father in God Samuel Lord Bishop of Oxon, into the place of President of the said College, with all the Rights, Privileges, Emoluments, and Advantag­es thereunto belonging, any Statute, or Statutes, Custom or Constitution to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding, wherewith We did dis­pense in his behalf. And whereas the Fellows of the said College not obeying our said Letters Man­datory, We thought it requisite to Impower you to Visit the said College, and all the Members [Page 78]thereof. Our Will and Pleasure is, and We do hereby Authorize and Require you, that in case the said Fellows do still persist in refusing to Ad­mit the said Bishop of Oxon as their President, you do forthwith Admit him, if present, or in case of his absence by his Proxy, into the place of President of the said College, any Statute or Sta­tutes, Customs, or Constitutions to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding, with which we do by these presents dispense, And for so doing, This shall be a sufficient Warrant and Authority to you, and all other Persons whom it may concern,

§. 10.

THe foregoing Proxy together with the Kings Mandate being Read for the Bishop of Oxon: Tuesday Morn­ing Octo. 25. The Fellows being present were askt, if they would Admit and Instal the Bishop of Oxford made President by the King, and declared such by their Lordships. Dr. Pudsey being first asked the Question refused to Act, but seemed to yield to be present.

Dr. Thomas Smith being askt the same Question by the Bishop of Chester, Read the following Answer.

To this the Lord Chief Justice replyed, to this purpose, that as they were His Majesties Commissi­oners for this Visitation, they had the Kings Power of Chancery and Common Law.

Then the Lords adjourned to the ChappelThe words of the Register are, and forthwith ad­mitted the Bishop of Oxon Presi ent by his said Pro­curator, from thence they adjourned to the Presidents Lodgings and finding the Door lockt demanded the Keys, but they being not to be sound, they ordered the Door to be broken o­pen, which was accordingly done, and the Lords went in and viewed the said Lodg­ings; having so done adjourned to the Common Room, and Entred the Bishops Name as President in the Buttry-Book. where the Bishop of Chester put Mr. Wiggins into the Pre­sidents Seat where he took the Oaths which the Sta­tutes enjoyn to the President at his Admission, and the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy, the latter of which the Bishop of Chester Ordered him to take up­on his Knees, which he did accordingly; then their Lordships Conducted him to the Door of the Presi­dents Lodgings, where knocking Thrice and the Doors not being opened, they returned to the Com­mon Room, and Commanded Mr. Atterbury to fetch a Smith to knock open the Door, which was done accordingly, their Lordships being present all the while and none of the Fellows but Mr. Charnock assist­ing, or being as much as present at either of the per­formances.

§. 11.

Then their Lordships being returned to the Com­mon Room,Oxford Rela­tion pa. 30. they Entred the Bishops Name into the Buttry-Book. Dr. Fairfax, saith the Oxford Relati­on, desired leave at leisure to speak, and being per­mitted he told their Lordships, that they had been doing that which he by no means could consent to. The Bishop of Chester told him he was big to be de­livered of his own Destruction, and asked him if he would submit to the Bishop of Oxon Installed Presi­dent by Vertue of the Kings Mandate, to which the Doctor Answered, he would not nor could not, be­cause they had a Statutable and Legal President al­ready.Register. And the Lords having ask'd the Fellows if they would now submit to the Bishop of Oxon as their [Page 81]President, they desired time, and their Lordships gave them till the Afternoon to consider of it, and the Court ordered them to give in an Account of what Gifts, or Provisions were made by the Statutes for poor Travellors, &c. to Morrow Morning. Then the Lords demanded of them, if they had Elected or Admitted any Members since the Kings Inhibition, to which they reply'd, that they had Admitted none but Mr. Holden who was Fellow Elect before, and his Year of Probationship Expired, and if he had not then been Admitted he must have stood Expelled by their Statutes. Then adjourned till two in the Afternoon.

§. 12. TƲESDAY Afternoon.

THe Fellows being called in,Register. the Question was a­gain put to them, whether they would submit to the Bishop of Oxon as their President, to which they gave in an Answer in Writing as followeth.

VVHereas His Majesty has been pleased by His Royal Authority,The submis­sion of the Fellows. to cause the Right Re­verend Father in God Samuel Lord Bishop of Oxon to be Installed President of this College, we whose Names are hereunto Subscribed do submit as far as is Lawful and agreeable to the Statutes of the said College.This Clause was Equivo­cal.

• Alex. Pudsey.
• Tho. Bayley.
• Tho. Stafford.
• Charles Hawley.
• Rob. Almont.
• Mainwaring Hammond.
• John Rogers.
• Hen. Dobson.
• Ja. Bayley.
• Jo. Davys.
• [Page 82]Fran. Bagshaw.
• Joseph Harwar.
• Geo. Hunt.
• Tho. Bateman.
• Willi. Craddock.
• Jo. Gilman.
• Geo. Fulham.
• Hen. Holden.
• Steph. Weelks.
• Charles Penyston.

Dr. John Smith gave in a Paper Writ and Signed by himself in the same words.

Dr. Thomas Smith gave in his Paper of submission as followeth in §. 14.

The Demys subscribed a Paper in the same Form whose Names are.

• Tho. Holt Senior.
• Samuel Cripps.
• Sam. Jenifar.
• Rich. Adams.
• Rob. Standard.
• Rich. Vessey.
• Charles Goreing.
• John Brabourn.
• Geo. Stonehouse.
• Lawrence Hyde.
• Geo. Woodward.
• Charles Alleyn.
• Willi. Fulham.
• Rich. Watkins.
• Dan. Stacy.
• Willi. Sherwin.
• Jo. Renton.
• Maximilian Bush.
• Ben. Gardiner.
• Tho. Welles.
• Willi. Bayley.
• Tho. Higgains.
• Jo. Cross.
• Tho. Hanson.
• Hen. Levet.
• Harington Bagshaw.
• Benjamin Mander.

The Chaplains subscribed the like, whose Names were.

• Tho. Mander.
• Hen. Holyoake.
• Tho. Brown.
• Fran. Haslewood.

The Choristers subscribed the like, whose Names were.

• Sam. Broadhurst.
• Charles Wotton.
• Tho. Price.
• John Bowyer.
• Tho. Turner.
• John Shutleworth.
• Edward Slack.
• Willi. Inns.
• Miles Stanton.
• Richard Wood.
• Rob. Wordsworth.
• Joseph Stubbs.

The Clerks subscribed the like submission, whose Names are.

• Stephen Nicols.
• Charles Morgan.
• John Smith.
• Willi. Ledford.
• Willi. Harris.
• Tho. Ryley.
• Jo. Russel.
• Tho. Williams.

The under Porter of the College would give in no Paper of submission.

The Oxford Relation saith, that to the submission,Oxford Rela­tion. the Clause was added, and no ways prejudicial to the Right of Dr. Hough.Page 31. In the Original Paper I found it scored out, and as the Relation saith, it was yield­ed to by the subscribers, because the Lord Chief Ju­stice and Barron Jenner as Judges declared that it was insignificant, since nothing they should do could In­validate Dr. Hough's Title, but lest them still at li­berty to be Witnesses for him or any other way ser­viceable to him in the Recovery of his Right, upon which assurance the SocietyIf this be as related, it shews the great conde­scention of the Lords Com­missioners to have won them to obe­dience. was prevailed with to leave it out.

§. 13.

The Lords askt Dr. Fairfax if he owned their Jurisdiction,Out of the Register Octo. 25th. 1687. to which he reply'd,His words were, under Correction I do not. that he did not; then he was askt if he would submit to the Bishop of Oxon as President, to which he refused to do:His words were, I will not, nor can­not, because he is not my Legal Presi­dent. And the Sentence was pronounced against him, That whereas he had denyed the Authority of the Court, and in Contempt of the Sentence of Sus­pension given against him by the Lords Commission­ers at Whitehall, taken his Commons and Battled in the College as a Fellow of the College notwithstand­ing his said Suspension, the Court proceeded to de­prive him of his Fellowship, and Ordered his Name to be struck out of the Buttry-Book.

The Sentence pronounced against him, I find in the Register, tho' not in this place, in the words fol­lowing.

Then the Lords issued the following Order.

He then gave in his Protestation against their Pro­ceedings, which the Court over-ruled and ordered him to depart and quit his Lodgings in the College in Fourteen Days.

Then the Doctor prevailed with much a do, saith the Oxford Relation, to Read the following Protesta­tion and left it in Court which was as followeth.

§. 14.

The under Porter de­prived.Then the Lords askt Robert Gardiner the Under Porter if he would submit to the Bishop of Oxon as President of the College, which he refusing to do the Lords deprived him of his Office, and adjourned the Court till the next Morning.

Mr. John Gilman's Paper I find thus—That the Statutes of the College,This Paper is mis-placed and should have been October 22d. Afternoon. to which I am positively Sworn, are the only Rule of my Actions and Obe­dience, in this and all other Cases of the like Nature, and I conceive the Bishop of Oxon has not those Sta­tutable Qualifications which are required, therefore I cannot Assist at the Admission of the Bishop of Oxon.

The submission of Dr. Thomas Smith was as fol­loweth,Dr. Tho. Smiths submission, which he gave in when the Fellows gave in theirs, I have put here by it self because I would not mix it with the other. given in in Writing also.

The Paper given in by Mr. Craddock was as follow­eth.

I shall now insert the Lords Commissioners An­swer to my Lord Presidents last Letter, and then proceed in the Narrative.

§. 15. The Answer to the Lord Presidents Letter of the 23d. of October.

With this Letter was sent the following account, which in several particulars I have only given the abridgment of, as being less necessary to the main business.

§. 16. The Account the Fellows gave in, con­cerning their Hospitality, &c.

THe Fellows of the College brought in an Account of their Gifts towards Hospitality,Here may be noted that the Lands of this Hospital were alienat­ed. and then the Court adjourned till Thursday Morning, the abridg­ment of the Account is this.

In the time of King Henry the Sixth, the Hospital of St. John was dissolved and the Lands thereunto belonging were purchased by William Wainfleet, then Bishop of Winton, and in the place or scite of that Hospital he Built Magdalen College. He him­self left no Composition, Injunction, Statute, Order, or Proviso for the Maintenance of any Poor People, or Strangers, that ever we could find in any writ­ing or Record whatsoever.

Then they relate some small Gift of John Claimond the third President who left 3 l. per Annum where­of 2 l. 10 s. is to be distributed amongst the Fellows and Scholars, on the first Munday in Lent Yearly, and 10 s. thereof for the repairing of four Beds and Bedsteads which he placed in a Room over the Vault of the old Chappel, but he made no provision they find of Victuals, or Maintenance of those who were allowed to Lodge there, which, at the most, were to be but four at a time. But in the time of the Rebel­lion the said Chappel, with the Vault, was made no other use of but to lay Fuel in, whereupon at the Restauration the Visitor directed, that it should be Converted into Chambers for the use of the Fellows and Demys.

Two other of their Benefactors, Ingledue and Pre­ston, ordered 20 d. at a time, to be disposed of on fourteen Feasts to the poor, the whole amounting [Page 91]to 1 l. 3 s. which is accordingly distributed yearly by the Bursers. Preston gave 6 s. per Annum for the use of two or three poor Lancashire Scholars, which is yearly distributed by the President, so that all the Mony which we are obliged to bestow on Charitable uses amounts to but 2 l. 3 s. 4 d. per Annum besides Perrots Composition which is faithfully performed.

Notwithstanding which, 4 s. is given yearly to the Castle for Straw for the Prisoners, and we allow 8 s. yearly to the Alms-Men of Bartholomews, we al­low 6 l. 6 s. 8 d. yearly to the poor of Bridewell, and 20 l. per Annum to the President, for the enter­tainment of Strangers, and Forreigners, and there is allowed every Meal at the Bursers Table a Commons for the Entertainment of Strangers, and the Bursers have Power to add thereunto as they see occasion, and besides what is constantly allowed, as abovesaid, there is a considerable Sum disposed of yearly, by the President and Thirteen Senior Fellows, at the conclusion of the Accounts and other times, to Indi­gent Persons, Strangers, and Travelors, and chiefly to such as are in great want, but ashamed to make their necessities so public, as to desire Alms of their respective Parishes amounting to above 50 l. per Annum.

And if we might not be thought to boast of our Charity, we could instance in considerable Sums given to the Fire of London, Northampton, and South­wark, and other places, and to the French Protestants, to one of which we allow at present 6 l. yearly, whence it appears, that we Expend out of the College Stock near 100 l. per Annum in Charitable uses.

§. 17. Dr. Thomas Smiths Paper about the Col­lege Charity, &c.

Dr. Thomas Smith gave in the following Paper at the same time.

AS to your Lordships Question proposed, whe­ther we have applyed the Revenue of any Land, or other Estate, given for Hospitality, to private uses, we cannot for want of time give your Lordships that satisfaction, and full Accompt which we desire, and shall do hereafter when we shall look over the Evidences and the Estate of the College, of which we are but the Usu-fructuaries, and other Mun­uments locked up in the Tower.

As to our Hospitality in General, the Bursers Table is the place where not only our Tenants, but Stran­gers, according to their Quality are Entertained, there being a dayly Allowance made by the College for that purpose, which when scanty, and not suf­ficient for a suitable Entertainment, it is left in ma­ny Cases to the discretion of the Bursers to add what they shall Judge fit and becoming. But besides this it is our constant Practice and Custom at the end of [Page 93]the Year to give Sums of Mony away to the poor, which are greater, or less, according to the Sur­plusage of our Corn Rents that year.

Thirdly, The Bursers are Impowered to give Mony away to the poor, upon the greater and more solemn Festivals of the year. Fourthly, Oftentimes upon great Emergencies, such as were the Brief for the Re-edifying the Town of Northampton, for the Re­building the Cathedral of St. Pauls London, for the relief of the French Protestants, besides other Briefs for Fires and for Redemption of Captives, and the like, we give considerable Sums of Mony, as well out of the public Stock, as out of our private Pur­ses.

As for turning the remaining part of the Hospital of St. John, about twenty Years since, into Lodg­ing Chambers, which were very much wanting for the Fellows, that alteration was not made without consulting the Bishop of Winton our Local Visitor, and without having obtained his Lordships consent. There having been no use as we could ever learn from our Predecessors of those Rooms, and as we may seem, not without good grounds, to believe, since the Time that Pilgrimages were left off, and dis-used here in England.

But my Lords, if upon re-search (which we will endeavor to make with all honest diligence) we shall find any obligation lying upon us, to use larger measures of Hospitality, we assure your Lordships we will be just to that obligation, and for the future will fully satisfie it as we will any other point of Du­ty which is Incumbent upon us as Fellows of the College.

This we hope will satisfie your Lordships at pre­sent, and we humbly desire of your Lordships to make, as we are assured your Lordships will do, a fair and Candid Interpretation of this Answer to his Sa­cred Majesty, whom God bless with long Life and an happy and glorious Reign.

§. 18. The Stewards account Re­gister.

THe Steward Mr. James Almont, according to the Lords Order, brought in an account in Writing of the Leases Lett, and Fines taken for the two last years.

Then the Fellows desired, that Dr. Aldworth their Vice-President his Suspension might be taken off, his presence being so necessary at their Audit which was night at hand.

To which the Court reply'd, that they must ap­ply to the Lords Commissioners above, who had Suspended him. Then adjourned till Five in the Afternoon, at which time they met and adjourned till the next day at Seven in the Morning, before which Meeting the following Letter was delivered to the Lords.

§. 19. The Lord Presidents Letter to the Lords Com­missioners, in Answer to theirs of the 25th. of Octob.

I Have received your Lordships of the 25th. and laid it before the King, who Commands me to tell you, that he thinks the Fellows, who have sub­mitted to the Bishop of Oxford as their President, [Page 95]ought to make an Address to His Majesty, asking Pardon for their late Offences and obstinacy, and ac­knowledging the Jurisdiction of the Court, and the Justice and Legality of it's proceedings in the whole matter: His Majesty leaves the Wording of it to you, and the manner of doing it, but would have it done before you come away; And if any Person shall refuse to joyn herein, His Majesty would have you Expel them, since he cannot look upon this which is called a Submission to be such indeed, un­less it be attended with these Circumstances.

The King is very well satisfied with the proceed­ings against Dr. Hough and Dr. Fairfax, but thinks they deserve some further punishment, and there­fore when you return will have the whole Ecclesi­astical Commission pass a Sentence of Incapacity upon them.

The King would have you before you come away,By this it ap­pears that the Fellows sub­mission was expected. place Mr. Willi. Joyner in the Fellowship lately en­joy'd by Dr. Fairfax, and likewise appoint Judge Allibons' Brother, and Mr. Charles Goring to be Fel­lows of that College if there are two Vacances more. If there is but one, then Judge Allibons Brother to have that Fellowship, and Mr. Goring to come in upon the first Vacancy. In case Mr. Goring be a Fellow, His Majesty would have Mr. Middleton, who is his Nephew succeed him in his Demy­ship.

§. 20. FRIDAY Morning the 28th. of Octob. 1687.

THe Lords, in order to fill up the void places, de­manded of the Fellows how many places were Vacant, and it appeared to their Lordships that there was none but Dr. Fairfax's and Mr. Ludfords who was lately Dead, then enquiry was made for the Persons recommended, and no body appear­ing the Lords could proceed no further in that matter.

Then the Lords told the Fellows, &c. That they could not heartily recommend them to His Majesties favour, unless they did Address to His Majesty in Writing, asking pardon for their offences, and ac­knowledge the Jurisdiction of this Court.

[The Fellows making a little pause the Bishop of Chester told them they might word it themselves, or if they thought fit Mr. Tucker should Assist them in a Form.] Upon which the Fellows withdrew into the Hall to consider of it, and after some time brought in a Paper with all their hands subscribed of the Te­nor following.

§. 21.

This being Read and the Court, saith the Register, looking upon the same to contradict the submission they had given in before, the Lords again asked them, whether they would submit to the Bishop of Oxon as their President or not.

Dr. Pudsey, Dr. Stafford, Mr. Hollis and Mr.Register. Penniston, referred to their Paper of submission given in on Tuesday, and the greatest part of the rest de­sired to be excused from answering the Question, de­claring that their obedience or dis obedience would best appear by their actions, when the Bishop came [Page 98]amongst them, and if they were dis-obedient to the President, they were lyable to be punished by their Statutes, and said further, that they having given in their submission on Tuseday, they thought their Lordships Honor was engaged to require nothing further from them. But the Court insisting to have a positive Answer to the Question, and the Bishop of Chester saying, it was Protestatio contra factum; Dr. Bayley, Mr. Hammond, Mr. Dobson, Mr. Bayley, Mr. Bagshaw, Mr. Harwar, Mr. Bateman, Mr. Crad­dock, Mr. Gilman, Mr. Holden, Mr. Weelks, and Mr. George Fulham positively refused.

§. 23. The Oxford Relation gives this account of the Dis­courses following.

UPon their Lordships perusing the Paper, they expressed their dislike of it, and said it did not come up to what they delivered on Tuesday.

Dr. Bayley answered, they had acted conformable to themselves, and truly he could not confess any Crime. To which the Bishop of Chester reply'd, that they did not expect of them to Confess a Capital Crime; only to make some acknowledgment. To which Mr. Fulhum said,This is accor­ding to the original, the Oxford Rela­tion varying in words tho' not in Sense. My Lords, we were order­ed to Address our selves as having acted in Contempt of His Majesties Authority, which he looked upon as so great a Crime, that upon no account he would be guilty of; My Lords continued he, I did obey His Majesty as far as I could to the utmost of my Power, and your Lordships having been pleased to accept the submission on Tuesday, I humbly conceive your Lordships are engaged that nothing further be re­quired of me of what I have done, being Conscious [Page 99]of no Contempt to His Majesties Authority. To which the Bishop of Chester Answered, you are a very forward speaker and abound in your own Sense Mr. Fulham reply'd, he hoped their Lordships would give them leave to speak, when their Fortunes were so considerably at Stake, as their own Relatoin saith.

Then Dr. Bayley desired their Lordships to give him leave to explain what he meant by the word sub­mit,By this it ap­pears how ne­cessary it was to have a more clear and full submission subscribed. in his Answer on Tuesday, viz. The word Submit, was to be understood with reference to the King, and that he did not intend it as a submission to the Bishop as Lawful President.

§. 23.

Upon this a fresh Question was put to the Fellows, whether they would obey the Bishop of Oxon as their President in licitis & honestis, to which all, except one or two, Answered they would not. Upon this Questi­on put to Mr. Fulham he Answered, that he could not confess any Crime or Offence done against the King; that Dr. Hough having been Duly Elected and Admitted President he thereby obtained a Right, which he was not satisfied that he had any ways for­feited, therefore he could obey no other Person as President. The Bishop of Chester asked him if he would obey the Bishop of Oxon as in Possession, to which according to the Relation of those who Writ down what he spoke in Court, he thus Answered,The Oxford Relation pal­liates this An­swer. that he could not submit otherwise then as it was a­greeable to the Law of the Land and Statutes of the College, without prejudice to the Right of the E­lection of the Fellows, and that he humbly con­ceived the Bishop was violently and unjustly put into Possession, and that it should have been by the Posse Comitatus.

Then my Lord Chief Justice said,Not as the Oxford Rela­tion hath it, that their Ox­ford Law was no better then their Oxford Divinity. that their Oxford Divinity was better than their Oxford Law: If they had a mind to a Posse Comitatus they might have it soon enough: to which Mr. Fulham said, he intended nothing but respect to their Lord­ships, and had endeavored to speak and behave him­self with due Reverence, and desired their Lord­ships would put a favourable construction of what he said, as the Oxford Relation saith.

The Sentence of Suspension against Mr. George Fulham.

Then all were Commanded to withdraw, and the Buttry-Book called for, after which Mr. Fulham was called in with the rest, and the Bishop of Chester said to him, Mr. George Fulham, whereas you have openly, and in Opprobrious Language, Contemned the Au­thority of the Court, we Suspend you from the pro­fits of the Fellowship, during the Kings pleasure, and you are accordingly Suspended; of which all the Fellows and other Members of this College are Commanded to take notice: and to the rest his Lord­ship further said; whereas there are several Fellows absent who are in Contempt of His Majesty, that they may not suffer for want of greater notice then they have yet had, we do direct and order you, who are Fellows now present to give them notice by the usual Methods, and to take notice your selves, that we have adjourned this Court till Wednesday the 16th. of November ensuing, to be held at this place at Nine in the Morning.

§. 1. The Kings Mandate for Mr. Willi. Joyner and Mr. Job Alli­bon.

THe Lords Commissioners, having in this Inter­val of time Communicated their Proceedings to His Majesty, and by his appointment to the rest of the Lords Commissioners at Whitehall; The three Lords Commissioners Visitors took their Journy to Oxford, where upon the 15th. of No­vember they arrived,

WEDENSDAY the 16th. of November 1687. At Nine of the Clock in the Morning.

Proclamation being made, the Statute-Book and Buttry-Book were Ordered to be brought in, Then Mr. William Joyner and Mr. Job Allibon were called, and the Mandate for their Election was Ordered to be Read, which followeth.

This being done,Register. the said Mr. Joyner and Mr. Alli­bon were Admitted Fellows of the said College, tak­ing only the Oath required by their Statute-Book to be taken at the Admission of a Fellow, and their Names were Entred into the Buttry-Book.

Then the Fellows were called in, except those hereafter to be mentioned, and Dr. Younger, who was excused, being in waiting upon her Royal Highness the Princess of Denmark, several Certi­ficates were produced to excuse Mr. Charles Hawles, Mr. Edward Maynard, Mr. John Hicks, Mr. Thomas Goodwin, Mr. Francis Smith, Mr. Robert Holt, and Mr. Robert Thornton.

§. 2. The Lord Bishop of Chesters Speech.

The Fellows being thus Convened the Lord Bishop of Chester made this following Speech.

§. 3.

After the Bishops Speech all were ordered to with­draw,Register. except the Fellows, and the Form of a Sub­mission was ordered to be Read to them, in the words following.

He then told them, that their Subscribing the same was the only means that could recommend them to His Majesties favour. But all the Fellows to whom the said submission was proposedDr. Thomas Smith had not the Question proposed to him, having been absent from the Col­lege during the heat of the contest, and wholly unconcerned in it, by which it appears how false the Oxford Relati­on, p. 37. 38. is. (being severally ask't the Question) peremptorily refused to subscribe. Mr. Thompson desired to be excused from subscribing, for that he had given his Vote for Mr. Farmer, and had not concurred with the Society in any thing they had done since in this business, and declared that he never had been disobedient nor ever would be, whereupon their Lordships excused him.

§. 4.

Dr. Aldworth desired,The Oxford Relation is thus p. 37. 38. in the Name of himself and the Fellows, time to consider of the submission, and give their Answer in Writing, to whom the Bishop of Chester said, they must every one Sign or Refuse as they were called; And Baron Jenner said, there was no Answer to be given, but Yea or No: They all moved again for time, but it was denyed; then Dr. Aldworth said, My Lords, this is my first appear­ance before your Lordships since your sitting here, therefore I pray to be heard.

My Lords, I am as ready to comply with the Kings Pleasure as any Man living, neither do I know that we have ever in this place been disobedient to the King, when ever 'twas in our Power to obey his Commands. Our Founder, in the first Clause of the Oath we take at the Election, hath provided, [Page 114]that no one shall be President of this College, but who was bred in this, or in the College wherein he himself was bred, now for us who have Elected Dr. Hough, a Person Qualified according to our Statutes, who hath been Installed, Sworn, Confirmed and Approved of in all the ways and manners prescribed in the Statutes: For us my Lord to accept and admit of a Stranger and a Forreigner in his place, is to the best of my understanding a giving up the Rights of the College to other uses than the Founder designed it—Here Dr. Aldworth was Interrupted by the Bishop of Chester, saying, the Statutes were over­ruled by the Kings Authority, or words to that ef­fect. To which the Dr. Answered, your Lordships sit here as Visitors, which Implies there are certain Laws, and Statutes which we are bound to observe, and by which we are to be Governed, and if it shall ap­pear to your Lordships, that we have Acted conform­able to those Statutes, I hope we shall neither incur the Kings displeasure nor your Lordships; The whole Tenor of our Statutes run, that we should Inviolably maintain our Right, and observe the Rules of our Founder. He has laid his Curse upon us if we vary from them, here he repeated the words; Ordinamus sub poena Anathematis & Indignationis Om­nipotentis Dei ne quis, &c. Item sub Interminatione Divini Judicis Interdicimus.

To which the Bishop of Chester reply'd, are you not to obey the King as well as your Founders Sta­tutes? To this the Vice-President Answered, I ever did obey the King, and ever will do: our Statutes which we are Sworn to are Confirmed by several Kings and Queens before and since the Reformation, and as we keep them are agreeable to the Kings Laws [Page 115]both Ecclesiastical and Civil,Whilst we live up to them, saith the Printed Relation. and whilst we keep up to 'em we obey the King. The Bishop of Chester reply'd, the Statutes were never Confirmed by his present Majesty, to which Dr. John Smith said, neither have they been Repealed by His Majesty,The Mandate being an In­hibition re­peals them for the pre­sent time by Dispensation. and what is not Repealed is Confirmed; After this their Lordships pressing either to Sign or Refuse, Dr. Aldworth said, My Lords I'll deal plainly in regard to my Oath and the Statutes, to the Right of all our Successors and of Dr. Hough, whom I believe to be as fairly ElectedThis was a bold Asserti­on and I hope to prove it as false. and as Legally Possessed as ever any since the Foundation of the College: I cannot submit to the Bishop of Oxon as President, so he was ordered to withdraw.

After this, the same Question was put to all the Fel­lows singly, who all refused to Sign the submission except Dr. Thomas Smith and Mr. Charnock, who were not pressed having as their Lordships said be­haved themselves Dutifully towards the King Mr. Thompson desired to be excused from subscribing, for that he had given his Vote for Mr. Farmer, and had not concurred with the Society in any thing they had done since in this business, and declared he never had been disobedient nor ever would be. Then their Lordships produced a Petition sent to the Earl of Sun­derland upon the report of the Kings Mandate for Mr. Farmer, which he had Signed, therefore pressed fur­ther his subscribing the submission. This he owned, but said, it was before the Kings Mandate was produ­ced, but after it was shewn at the Election he Voted for Mr. Farmer in obedience to the Kings Command, and promised to obey the Bishop of Oxford, where­upon their Lordships excused him.

§. 5.

Then the Lords called for the Buttry-Book and caused all the Names of those Fellows, who refused to subscribe, to be struck out, and the Fellows so struck out being called in, the Sentence of Expulsion was Read to them in this Form.

About Twelve a Clock, as soon as their Lordships rose, the Decree for the Expulsion of these Twenty Five Fellows was fixed on the College Gates in the Form aforesaid.

§. 6. The Expelled Fellows give in their Pro­testation a­gainst the Lords Com­missioners Decree.

The Fellows under-named then gave in Papers subscribed by themselves to the Lords Commissioners in this Form.

Then their Lordships Ordered them to withdraw,Register. and proceeded to Admit others into their places, and in order thereunto, called for those who were re­commended by His Majesties Mandates,viz. Dated 11. November. Mr. Charles Goring, Mr. Thomas Higgons, Dated 12. Nov. 1687. Nov. 13. 1687. Mr.Fair­fax, Mr. Robert Hill, Mr. John Warburton, Mr. Francis Haslewood and Mr. Lawrence Wood. But none [Page 118]of them appeared except Mr. Thomas Higgons, whereupon their Lordships sent for three of the Demys, viz. Mr. Samuel Jenefar, Mr. Mander and Mr. Hanson, and the two last desiring to continue Demys, their Lordships Admitted Mr. Higgons and Mr. Jenefar Fellows, they taking the usual Oath of a Fellow.

Then Mr. Bradley Whalley, Mr. Walter Walsh and Mr. Midleton were called, but Mr. Midleton not appearing, Mr. Whalley and Mr. Walsh were Admit­ted Demys and took the Oath of a Demy, and their Names were entred in the Buttry-Book.

Then their Lordships took into their consideration the Case of the absent Fellows; & the non-appearance of Mr. Maynard, Mr. Hicks and Mr. Goodwin seem­ing excusable, by the Certificates produced and Oaths made in their behalfs, and also it appearing that they and Mr. Francis Smith (who is Travelling abroad) had not been any ways concerned in the whole Affair, their Lordships thought fit to excuse them: And left the Expulsion of the rest, viz. Mr. Hawks, Mr. Holt and Mr. Thornton to the President, who they conceived had full Power to Expell them, if hereafter at their return to the College they should refuse to make their submission in the same man­ner as proposed to the rest of the Fellows, and so the Lords Commissioners concluded.

What followed after their Lordships return to Lon­don.

§. 7. What was done by the Lords Com­missioners at Whitehall.

Out of the Register.At a Court held in the Council Chamber at White­hall the 28th. of November 1687. Present the Lord Chancellor, Lord President, Lord Chamberlain, the Bishops of Duresm, Rochester and Chester, the Lord Chief Justice Wright, the Lord Chief Justice Herbers and Mr. Baron Jenner.

The further Account of the Proceedings of the Vi­sitation of St. Mary Magdalen College in Oxford was Read, upon which it was moved,The Lords Commission­ers resolution to Incapaci­tate the Ex­pelled Fel­lows, &c. that the Expelled Fellows should be further proceeded against by a Sen­tence of Incapacity. The Lords upon debate were of Opinion, that the said Fellows ought to be incapa­citated from receiving any Ecclesiastical Preferments for the future, and direct that Mr. Sollicitor General, Sir Robert Baldock, Sir Thomas Pinfold and Dr. Hedges shall Attend the next Morning at Nine of the Clock upon this matter.

At a Court, &c. the 29th. of November 1687. Mr. Sollicitor General, Sir Robert Baldock, Sir Tho­mas Pinfold and Dr. Hedges attend and have the following Paper delivered to them.

The Lords think it requisite, that the Fellows late­ly Expelled out of St. Mary Magdalen College should be Incapacitated from receiving any Ecclesiastical Preferment for the time to come, and desire you to consider of the Method and best manner of proceed­ing herein.

Their Lordships appointed them to give them their Opinion upon the matter upon Munday next at Ten in the Morning, but the Meeting was put of till Thursday the 8th. of December.

At a Court the 8th. of December 1687. Pre­sent the Lord Chancellor, Lord President, Earl of Huntingdon, the Bishops of Duresm, Rochester and Chester, the Lord Chief Justice Wright and Baron Jenner.

Mr. Sollicitor General, Sir Robert Baldock, Sir Thomas Pinfold and Dr. Hedges, gave their Answer [Page 120]upon the Paper given them the 28th. of the last Month concerning the Fellows lately Expelled out of St. Mary Magdalen College, the Lords enter upon debate of the matter, and put off the further consi­deration thereof till Saturday the 10th. Instant, at Four in the Afternoon.

At a Court the 10th. of December 1687. The last mentioned Lords being present.

The Lords re-assume the Debate concerning the Fellows lately Expelled out of St. Mary Magdalen College, and agree upon the following Order.

§. 8.

The Lords agreed to send a Duplicate of the fore­going Order under their Seals to every Arch-Bi­shop and Bishop, which accordingly was done.

Thus I have drawn to a Conclusion the whole Proceedings concerning this College, as to the De­claring Void the Election of Dr. Hough, and the Sus­pending of Dr. Aldworth and Dr. Fairfax by the Lords Commissioners at Whitehall, and the Expell­ing the forenamed Fellows by the Lords Visitors at Oxford, together with this Finall Decree of Incapa­citating them by the Lords Commissioners at White­hall in Conjunction with the Lords Visitors at Ox­ford.

I shall now proceed to give an Historical Account of the Nature of the Societies, or Incorporations, called Colleges and Universities.

Secondly, Some Visitations of the Universities of Oxford, or particular Colleges by Legatine, Metro­political, Episcopal, or Local Visitors, or by the Im­mediate Authority of the Kings of England from Age to Age.

Thirdly, Several Instances of the Kings of Englands Dispensations with the Statutes of Universities or particular Colleges.

Fourthly, I shall Answer the Objections.

§. 1. All sorts of Societies and Corporations are Founded by the King.

BEfore I Treat of the Royal Foundation, or the particular Charters, or Bulls granted to the University of Oxford, I think it convenient, as a Preliminary, to give the Ingenuous Reader a short abridgment of what our Common Lawyers have delivered how the Incorporations of this Kingdom are all Constituted by the Kings of England, Privi­ledged from the Crown, and are at the sole Will and Pleasure of the Sovereign who may at his pleasure for mis-user, non-user, or abuser dissolve them ac­cording to Common-Law. First of the Subject mat­ter of such Incorporations.

A Corporation is the same according toLib. 2. fol. 5. 6. Coke 10 Rep. 29. The Ancient and Modern use of the word Univer­sity. Bracton which the Civilians Style Collegium or University; Si Rex concesserit, says he, alicui Ʋniversitati, sicut Civibus & Burgensibus, so that in his time an Incor­poration by the Name of Citizens and Burgesses was called an University, in the same Sense that Com­munitas was Styled, signifying any Society that was [Page 124]under some special Denomination, so Bodinns saith, by the word Collegium no particular Society is de­termined, but under that Name Corporations of se­veral natures are contained, and whether Lay or Ecclesiastical is specified by the ends for which they are Constituted; but now the word is generally re­strained to the Academies of the Liberal Arts.

☞ All Natural persons,Coke 10. Rep. fol. 14. Of the Con­stituting parts of a Corpora­tion. as such, are capable of holding or taking this Right of a Politic Capacity, and as all the natural persons are an Essential part constituting the Body Politic21 E. 4. fol. 22. so all the operations and exercise of the Rights are only performed by the Natural persons.

Therefore when the Question is of non-user or abu­ser of Franchises by a Corporation, it must of neces­sity be intended for some ActAtturny Generals Ar­gument for Quo Warranto against Lon­don. fol. 2. or negligence of the Natural persons, or those Officers imployed by them: For whatever Franchises any persons enjoy they do it as Usu-fructuaries.

§. 2. How all Col­leges and Corporations are made such by the Sove­reign.

It is to be considered, that such Societies ought to be Constituted by none but the Sovereign, otherwise the Government would be in danger, if Liberty were granted for persons to enter into Combinations: For however specious they might at first make the end of their uniting, yet they might abuse the Power to the detriment of the Common-weal, therefore in the Digests we find the Law thusLege neque Societas i. f. quod cujuscum que Ʋniversi­tatis. 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 enjoysIn 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; SoRex 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 the49 E. 3.4.49. Ass. 8. King, and such Power cannot be prescribed, for it inherent in the Crown: Therefore Sir Edward Co. 10. Rep. f. 33. b. Coke calls them Creatures of the Crown.

The Nature of someAtturny 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.

MySuttons 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 [Page 126]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 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 LawAtturny 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 Quum ex concessione prin­cipum, idque ex gratia speci­ali corporentur isti [...]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 isPatrick 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 Ʋniversities by [Page 128]the Grants of Privilege from their respective So­vereigns, may be found in Tho. Thesi. 22. &c. Sagittarius, ci­ted by Mr. Selden.

☞ So Rudolphus the second Emperor of Germany Sacri Late­ranensis Palatii Aulaeque no­strae Caesariae & Imperialis, Consistorii Co­mitu— Doctores, Li­centiatos, & Baccalaureos in utreque Jure Magistros, item & Bacca­laureos Liber­alium Artium, & Philosophiae, nec non Poetas Laureatos Cre­are, Promo­vere Ordinare Constituere & facere Selden, Tit. Ho. ca. 1. sect. 2. fol. 398. granted by Patent to George Obrichtus, and his Son Thomas, both Professors of Law at Strasburgh, the Father being Primar Professor there, that they should be successively Counts of the Holy Lateran Palace, and of the Caesarian hall and Imperial Con­sistory, and that they have Authority to create, pro­mote, ordain, and constitute and make Doctors, Licentiates, and Bachelors in both the Laws, Masters and Bachelors of the Liberal Arts, and Philosophy, and likewise Poets Laureats, with all and singular Privileges, Prerogatives, Exemptions, Honors, Pre­eminences, Favors Indulgences, and Graces whatso­ever, the like Graduates in Vienna, Paris, &c. en­joy, &c. Dated at Prague the 19th. of November, 36 Regni 1610.

Maximilian the Second Emperor,Tho. Sagit­tarius ad Thes. 13. by his Let­ters Patents Dated at Prague the 9th. of May 1575. created Henry Julius the first Rector of the Univer­sity of Helmestadt and his Successors to be chosen into the said Office and Dignity, and into the Titles of Counts Palatines, and made him the first Rector.

So Rodulphus the Second GrantsIdem ad Thes. 22. to Nicholas Reusnerus, Power of making Doctors as well in Divinity as in Law, Physick, and Philosophy, and sometimes the Clause is addedAdhibit is in cujus libit Doctoris crea­tione Doctori­bus eximiis de professione cre­andi ad minus tribus, qui Doctorandum examini subii­ciant. that such Counts Palatines shall call to them at least three Eminent [Page 129]Doctors of the Faculty, that the Doctor to be Cre­ated Professeth, who shall examin him that is to be Created Doctor.

By all which it appears, that the Sovereign Im­powers persons to confer the University Degrees.

§. 1. The Kings of England sole Donors of the Privileges during the Saxons times.

HAving dispatched what I thought fit to clear the point, that the Kings of England have the sole prerogative in their Dominions to make all sorts of Corporations: I now proceed to produce such Testimonies as I have found, that the University of Oxford pimarily owe all their privileges quâ an Uni­versity to the King solely, as the Donor or allower of them.

King Alfred Reigned, according to our best Histo­rians, 800 Years fince, and is owned by all to be the great Restorer of the University of Oxford. In the the MSS life of St. Neotus commonly called St. Needes, as Cited byAntiq. Glaston. Malmsbury, Tom. 3. p. 11. Leland and others, Alfred is said to have Founded public Schools for Arts and Sciences, and Lodgings for the Students, and replenished them with the Young Nobility: And John Lib. de Re­gibus. Ross of Warwick tells us, that he Foun­ded one for Grammar, one for Arts, and a third for Divinity.

☞ It is likewise RecordedGul. Malmsb. de Antiq. Mo. Glaston. MSS Ranulph Hyg­den. lib. 2. of him, that he deli­vered to the University Laws and wholesome Statutes [Page 130]for their Government, and adorned them with pri­vileges, which he confirmed by his Royal Charter, and obtained from Pope Martin the Second about the Year 883. that they should be confirmed ac­cording asLib. vita Neoti. To. 4. Balaeus Cent. 2. N^o. 23. St. Neotus had before requested from the Pope.

He was so great a Benefactor, that it is RecordedWood Antiq. Oxon. fol. 13. of him, that he gave an Eighth part of his Re­venues to maintain Scholars and the Lectures in the Schools.

To pass by many Saxon Kings, whose favors to this University are recited byId. a fol. 2. ad 42. Mr. Wood in his Elaborate History of the University of Oxford; It is recordedScholas publicas per urbes oppidaque Regni constitutas e Fisco Regio Stipendiis pos­uerit. Hist. Aurea par. 2. lib. 22. c. 28. MSS. of Canutus, Successor to King Edmund, that he placed public Schools in the Cities and Bor­roughs of the Kingdom, appointing Stipends for them out of his Treasury.

Altho' Harold the First took away from theLeland To. 4. p. 199. Schools the Stipends, and the Lands from the University about 1036. yet Edward the Confessor about 1042. restored again the Goods of the Religi­ous, and of the Professors of Ingenuous Arts by EdictGul. Lam­bard in Archai­nomia Edit. 1568. fol. 126. b. in whose soever Possession they were. So that here is both an Example of a Kings seizing all the Revenues and consequently the liberties, and ano­thers restoring them to the University.

§. 2.

King Henry the First Anno 1130. Built his Palace at Bellamont, and kept his Easter there,Privilegia tam varia Ʋni­versitati simul urbique Indul­sisse creditur Heuricus quae deperdita quamvis olim funt, in Successirum tamen ejus Chartis aliquando memorantur, Wood Antiq. Oxon. fol. 49. My Au­thor saith, he is believed to have granted several pri­vileges to the University and City of Oxford, which tho' they be long since lost, yet they are remembred in his Successors Charters.

Anno 1134. Mr. Robert Pulleyn Leland To. 4. pa. 140. flourished in that University, he was made Cardinal of St. Eusebius by Pope Caelestine the Second, and by Lucius the Se­venth was Chancellor, and was, saith my Author, in so great esteem with the King and the Pope,The Pope con­firms the pri­vileges grant­ed by former Kings. that he obtained Bulls and Grants both for Defending the Universities privileges, and the Administring the Uni­versity it self.

☞ Anno 1229. 13 H. 3. There happening a great Sedition betwixt the University and Citizens of Paris, so that the Schollars shut up their Schools, and some withdrew themselves to Anjou, others to Rhemes and Orleance, Ʋnde Ve­strae duximus Ʋniversitati significandum quod si vobis placet ad Reg­num nostrum Angliae vos transferre, & in ea causa Studii moram facere. Civita­tes, Burgos, vel Villas quascunque velitis Elegere, vobis ad hoc assignabimus, & omni modâ, sicut decet, libertate & tranquilitate, qua deo placeri & vobis plene sufficere debeat, vos gau­dere faciamus. Rol. Pat. 13. H. 3. m. b. King Henry the third by his Letters Patents Dated at Reading the 14th. of July 1229. Invited them to come into England to Study and chuse what Cities, Burroughs, or Villages they pleas'd, which the King would assign to them, and cause them to enjoy all fitting Liberty and Tranquili­ty which to the pleasure of God might be sufficient for them, by which the Kings power of Founding new Universities is manifest.

Anno 1242. 26 H. 3. The King being to go to Gascoign, having a care of the University of Oxford, Potestatem, datis ad eosdem literis, fecit Querimonias clericorum ac­cipiendi & quod ex usu maxime Ʋniversitati esset, Statuendi Pat 26 H. 3. m. 5. gave Power by his Letters Patents to Gualter Arch-Bishop of York, William de Cantilupe and William de Eboraco to receive complaints of the Clerks in the University, and to appoint what might be most of use to the University. This Arch-Bishop of York was Walter Grey, who was such a Benefactor to the University, that a Yearly Mass, with Placebo and Dirige was appointed for him on St. Martins [Page 132]Day, at which all the Regents were to be pre­sent.

From this Record we may learn that, notwith­standing any Power the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, or the Bishop of Lincoln might by the Canons claim to Govern the University, yet the King by his Pre­rogative appoints special Guardians for them in his absence.

§. 3. King Henry the 3d. grants privileges during his pleasure.

Anno 1244. 28 H. 3. The King Grants for the quiet of the Students of the University of Oxford of his special Grace to the Chancellor and University, that during his pleasure, they should enjoy several privileges in the causes of the Clerks to hold Pleas in all moveable contracts, notwithstanding his pro­hibition, which was, that Secular Judges should have no Cognizance of Spiritual matters, or on the contrary. Dated at Reading the 10th. of May 28 Regni.

By this it appears,Nata bene. that if such privileges were granted of the Kings special Grace, and only during his pleasure, how much more must it be judged re­quisite that Statutes, which were to Govern Electi­ons, &c. should be at the Kings Liberty to continue them or suspend them at his pleasure, but of this I shall treat more fully afterwards.

This very Charter now mentioned, is Judged by some to be the Basis and Foundation of the Bull of Boniface the Eighth, obtained a few Years after from him.

☞ Here once for all the Learned Reader is to observe, that as the Kings of England Granted to the Univer­sity several Secular privileges, so the Popes granted them other Religious privileges by vertue of their place, Dignity, and Right Invested in them by the [Page 133]Canons according to what may be found in theHanc in super Ʋniversi­tatem Romana­rum Pontificum & Diaecesano­rum privilegiia multi modis adornatam sic celsitudo Regis sublimavit. A. fol. 8. a. B. fol. 1. b. C. fol. 1. b. History inserted into the old Book of Statutes ap­pertaining to the Chancellor and Proctors of Oxford, which runs thus. — The Kings Highness Exalted this University being adorned with many privileges of the Roman Bishops and of the Diaecesans.

However tho' the Popes and the Diaecesans granted the University several privileges, yet I shall shew here­after how the Kings of England have exercised a So­vereign power in all Affairs of the University, rescin­ding, dispensing with, or confirming Statutes at their pleasure.

☞ Anno 1249.Claus. 42. H. 3. M. 9. Wood Antiq. Ox. fol. 95. lib. 1. Upon the 29th. of May 32 H. 3. The King being at Woodstock granted to the Scholars of the University several privileges there recited, and by his Letters Commanded the Sheriff, Mayor and Bayliffs of Oxford, immediately to observe and cause to be observed the said liberties, which he caused to be Enrolled the 33d. of his Reign, and it is observ­able in this Grant, that Ralph Fitz-Nicholas, Steward to the King by the Kings Command, set his Seal as Witness to this Grant of the King, a practice long since laid aside; the Kings Teste me ipso being now sufficient.

§. 4.

Anno 1275. King Edward Pat. 3 R. 1. M. 6. the first granted to the University many rights and privileges, which it would be tedious to recite, they may be seen in the Patent and close Rolls, 3 E. 1. M. 18.

King Edward Ro. Pat. 8 E 2. part. 2 [...] M. 24. the Second Anno 1315. Granted to the University several privileges, confirming to them the Grants made, Anno 1244. 29 H. 3. and Anno 1255. 39 H. 3. and 1261. 46 H. 3.

☞ Anno 1317. 11 Ed. 2. The KingRot. Rom. 11 E 2. M. 10. writes to the Pope, that whereas Boniface the Eighth had granted to the Universities of France that Grace,Ʋtomnes qui Gradum Magistralis Honoris in qua­cunque facul­tate assecuti sunt— consimi­li velitis privi­legio Decorare. that all who had attained the Degree of Masters in whatever Faculty, might every where resume Lectures in the same, and continue them at their pleasure without any new examining, beginning a­gain, or craving Grace from any; so he desires he will Adorn the University of Oxford with the like privileges. By this it appears, that the Pope cou [...]d grant the privilege, that whoever had attained to Degrees of Masters in this University might enjoy the like Honor in all others: But none can infer from hence that the Degrees they took here were by the Popes Grant solely.

In the same Year we find the King writes to the Pope in behalf of the University of Cambridge desiring him,Dictam Ʋni­versitatem per­petuare & pri­vilegia quibus, &c. usi sunt hactenus & gavis [...] cum Aug­mentatione no­vorum conden­dorum, &c. Rot. Rom. 11 E. 2. that he would perpetuate it, and would aug­ment with new privileges those which the Chancel­lor, and Scholars of the same University, and their Predecessors had hitherto used and enjoyed. By which it seems some, or at least some general privi­leges, in Forreign parts, were desired, perhaps such as were craved for the Masters in Oxford.

Anno 1327. KingPat. 1 E. 3. M. 8. Edward the Third in the first of his Reign, by inspeximus, confirmed all the pri­vileges which had been granted to the University of Oxford by his Ancestors Kings of England, particular­ly those which King Edward the First had granted, confirming the Charter of King Henry the Third.

☞ Anno 1353. 27 E. 3. the KingPat. 27 E. 3. M. 5. Pat. 29 E. 3. No. 5. granted se­veral privileges to the University, but the Amplest Charter was granted by that King the 29th. of his Reign, wherein, besides several privileges of a Secular [Page 135]nature, theCancellari­us possit per cen­suras Ecclesi­asticas compel­sere— Jam ordinare non possumus variis & arduis nego­tiis praepediti, Ordinationem hujusmodi nobis specialiter reservamus. Chancellor hath power to compel the Inhabitants of Oxford, and the Suburbs to the ob­servance of some of these privileges by Ecclesiastical Censures, and appoints that the Sheriff of Oxford should take an Oath yearly, to protect and defend the Masters and Scholars of the University, and their Servants from violence, and concludes that what by reason of various and tedious affairs he could not then, he specially reserved for himself to order. By which it appears, that the power of ordering all things relating to the University was solely in the King.

☞ Anno 1375. 49 E. 3. The Chancellor, Masters, and Doctors of Divinity, and Masters of Arts (by power no doubt granted to them by some Kings of England) made several Statutes which seemed grie­vous to the Canon and Civil Law Bachellors and Professors, of which complaint being made to the King he declared them void. By which it appears, that the King hath the power of making the Statutes,Cusus est condere ejus est destruere. for whoever hath the power of destroying, and abro­gating, hath the power of constituting and appoint­ing.

Anno 1378.Rot. Chart. 2. Ric. 2. No. 14. By a Famous Charter of Inspexi­mus, King Richard the Second Corroborated the pri­vileges granted by his Ancestors to the University,Claus. R. 2. M. 23. and released them of a Subsidy of 4 d. a Year, imposed by King Edward the Third upon every Clerk not Benificed, remaining in the University, which hePat. 5 R. 2. par. 2. No. 28. confirmed by Patent the 5th. of his Reign, and Anno 1379. 30. Regni, he charged his Justices, Sher­iffs, &c. to permit the Chancellor to enjoy and use all their Liberties granted by the Charter of the Kings Progenitors.

§. 5. Inferences from the before re­cited Charters.

☞ By all which it appears most manifest, that the University owned the Original Donation of their privileges to the Crown, which extended even to the ordering the taking of Degrees, which is the more clear for that I find, that the Regent Master, there being but one it seems at that time, and the Bachel­lors and Scholars of the Domicans complained to the King, that they wereCl. 2. R. 2. nu. 4. prohibited from those Degrees with which they ought to be Adorned,Per Rescripta guae privato sigillo Regio per fraudem impetrato muniebantur prohibitos a Gradibus qui­bus ornari de buerunt. by some Rescript or Mandate sent to the Chancellor, and Scholars under the Kings Privy Seal, obtained by deceit, saith the Record, which shews, that if it had been otherwise obtained, they had been bound by them, for there is no mention as if any preced­ing Grants could have rendred them Illegal, but be­ing proved it seems got by deceit, the King abrogat­ed them upon their Petiton.

Anno 1401. King Henry the FourthRot. Chart. 2 H. 4. par. 1. No. 2. in the second of his Reign not only confirmed the Antient privileges of the University, but added others to them and enlarged the Limits of the Chancellors Jurisdicti­on, within which they might determin Causes, notwithstanding the Rights of the Justices or other Magistrates.

☞ Anno 1411. 12 H. 4. When the Chancellor,Fragment. vet. Regist. Wood lib. 1. Antiq. Oxon fol. 205. a. and Proctors, an Heads of the University had been summoned before the King to give an account of the Popes Bulls, which they pretended as the ground of their contumacy, and the Chancellor and Proctors were displaced, the King Commanded others to be Elected to Succeed in their offices for the remaining part of the Year, by which the Kings Jurisdiction over Magistrates of the University is very clear.

Another instance of the Kings absolute Jurisdicti­on over the University pro arbitrio isRossus lib. de Regibus p. 257. what I find Anno 1420. 9 H. 5. That the King a year before his Death had designed to amend the Statutes of the Uni­versity, which as they have their force only by the Kings pleasure may be Abrogated or Suspended by the same.

§. 6.

I shall add to these one instanceMs. in the Custody of Sir Thomas Powis Atturny Gene­ral composed by his Father. of the Foun­dation of Queens College in Cambridge as I find it set out in a Plea 19 Car. 2. in Dr. Patricks Case, viz. That King Henry the Sixth upon the 3d. of March 26 Regni, gave Licence to Margaret his Queen to Found a perpetual College of Fellows in the Univer­sity of Cambridge, to remain there to Study and Pray, ad Studendum & Orandum, and the King willed that the President and Fellows should be Chosen, Institut­ed, Regulated, Governed, and Deprived according to the Order and Statutes made by the Bishop of Co­ventry and Lichfield, and the College to be Govern­ed, by a President and Four Fellows, and that the President and those Four Fellows and their Successors, according to the Orders and Statutes, may Admit more Fellows, &c. An that the said Queen Mar­garet by vertue of the same Licence the 15th. of April the 26th. of King Henry the Sixth, did accor­dingly Found the College, &c. as before specified, and gave Licence to the Bishop of Coventry and Litch­field to make Ordinances, and Statutes, which he ac­cordingly did; among which one is, that the Col­lege should consist of a President and Fourteen Fel­lows, every one of which after they were Regents in Arts should enter into Holy Orders, unless the Presi­dent and the greater part of the Fellows did permit longer time.

Concerning this College I find further in the plea, that King James the First upon the 9th. of March, the second of his Reign confirmed all the Charters and Donations made to the Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge, and parti­cularly granted that the Chancellor of the said Uni­versity, and in his absence the Vice-Chancellor should be the Ordinary Visitor of all the Colleges within the said University, in which no special Visitor was appointed, and that no special Visitor was nomi­nated for this College.

☞ By these Patents it appears plainly how the Foun­dation it self, and the endowments thereupon were by the Kings special Licence, and tho' the King made not the Statutes for the Government of the same, yet it was by His special Appointment, that the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield was ordered to make them.

I shall not need to recite any Grants of this King to the University of Oxford, because they are much in the same Tenor as those of his Predecessors, I shall therefore pass to what I find done by Pope Sixtus the Fourth; wherein it will appear what Confirmation and Corroboration of the Charters of the Kings of England were made by the Pope.

§. 7. The confirma­tion of Pope Sixtus 4th.

☞ Anno 1478. 18 E. 4. the Grants of the Popes be­ing either Worm-eaten, or lost by some evil accident, especially the Famous Bull of Boniface the Eighth, which had been Annulled in the times of King Richard the Second and H. 4. and was not since Confirmed; The University EmployWood Antiq. Oxon lib. 1. 230. b. F. F. fol. 74. John Abbot of Abingdon, going to Rome about the Affairs of his Monastery, to get their privileges confirmed and restored to their former vigor, which he effected, and brought the Bull [Page 139]of Sixtus the Fourth to that purpose. Dated at Rome at St. Peters on the Ides of September, Anno 1479. and the 9th. Year of his Pontificat, which was the 19th. of Edward the Fourth.

In which Bull the Grant of Pope Boniface the Eighth is confirmed, and many particular privileges recited, after which follows that as he is informed, the present Chancellor, Masters, Doctors, and all the Scholars of the said University desire to all those privileges, for the firmerPermissis omnibus pre illorum subsi­stentia firmiori, nostri adiici muniminis firmitatem. Ibidem. subsistence of them, that he would add the firmness of his defence. The Pope who with special love respects the Chancellor, &c. For their fervor of pure Devotion, and of their Faith which they bear to him, and the Roman Church; by Apostolic Authority, of his proper mo­tion, not at their Instance, but of his own meer Li­berality, by the Tenor of these presents confirms, and approves all the privileges granted by the present King Edward, as well as by otherSingula tam in Regum, quam Praede­cessoris praedicte­rum literis con­tenta Autheri­tate Apostolic [...] tenore praesenti­um confirma­mus & Appro­bamus, &c. Ibidem. Kings of England to the University and the Students in it, holding the Tenors of the granted privileges to the presents for express, and Decreeing them to obtain the strength of a perpetual firmness, he Establisheth them by the Patronage of the present Writing, supplying all and singular defects of Law as well as Fact, if by chance any have Intervened in them. Concerning the power the Pope gave to the Chancellor to Absolve from the guilt of perjury in breaking the Statutes, and the punishments appointed by them, and in some cases dispensing with them, I shall treat when I come to consider the Kings dispensing with the Sta­tutes.

There is another Bull of the same Pope, dated the 6th. of the Kalends of August the same Year, [Page 140]wherein he confirms the Bull of Pope Innocent the 4th. Anno 1254. 38 H. 3.

I shall pass by the Confirmations of King Richard the Third and Henry the Seventh, who were both very favorable to the University.

§. 8. The Charters of King H. 8. and his power over the Uni­versity.

Anno 1510. 2 H. 8. It being Customary for the Kings, when they begun their Reigns, to Grant pri­vileges to the University, King H. 8. confirmedIn pixide longa 3. their privileges and encreased them, and among the rest he Ratified the most Ample Charter of King Edward the Fourth and all others, granting them a truly royal Charter exceeding all those of his Prede­cessors, as the Record saith.

☞ This Year the University was sollicitous to retrieve the Bulls of Popes, which had been by evil Arts stolen by some that wished evil to the University, upon which account theF.F. Ep. 30. Chancellor was desired to get them Transcribed out of the Chancery of the A­postolic See; But my Author complains that some Men upon the Banishing the Popes Authority here, not warmed with a temperate zeal,Wood. antiq. Oxon. lib. 1. fol. 241. a. as they ought, but being all a Fire Committed to the Flames not only all the Bulls they could find, but what ever they could meet with that made any mention of the Ro­man Religion, by which many matters of great mo­ment relating to History are lost.

In the Year 1518. the 10th. of King H. 8th. Cardinal Wolsey being then not only a Favorite of the King but of the Pope, and attending the King and Queen to Oxford, Regist. Colli. Marton fol. 241. a. in the Convocation House, having told the University of his Study and most propense affection to it, and that he intended to In­stitute certain Lectures there, he earnestly intreated they would give him power to correct certain Sta­tutes, [Page 141]which concerned learning, of which, some being repugnant among themselves, for the amend­ing of which the University had formerly appointed Richard Fitz-James Bishop of London, and John Young Bishop of Calypole. The University received the Benevolence of the Cardinal, with all due re­spect, and Writ to theF.F. Ep. 5861. &c. Chancellor about it, who Answered on the 2d. of May, that he did not approve that such Authority should be given to any besides the Chancellor, and the Congregation of Re­gents and Non-Regents: But he after changed his mind, and the 1st. of June, in the fullIbid. fol. 31. Convo­cation, it was Decreed that the Statutes should be delivered to the Cardinal to be Corrected and chang­ed at his pleasure, and it was likewise ordained that the Liberties, Rights, and Privileges of the Univer­sity, saving to every College their peculiar Rights, should be delivered to him, with full power to reduce the public Discipline into what Form he pleas­ed.

§. 10. The Kings re­taining the privileges in his hands and re­storing some particular ones at pleasure.

☞ In the Year 1520. The 12th. of H. 8. the Towns­men thinking by this surrender that the University was without their old privileges, took the occasion to abuse some Scholars; therefore the University thought fit that the matter of renewing and encreas­ing their rights and Privileges should be hastened, and the Cardinal being moved in it, appointed the two foresaidH. fol. 56. a. Bishops to Expedit it, and the King granted whatever was desired in this particular be­twixt the Towns-men and the University.

Anno 1521. The 13th. of H. 8. I find the Uni­versityWood Antiq. Oxon. lib. 1. fol. 247. b. apply to the Cardinal for the hasting of the Grant of the Kings Charter, and the Recogniti­on of the Statutes, and in the Year following I find [Page 142]that the Cardinal having still the University Statutes in his Hands, prorogued the Terms of the Proctors, and ordered other things in the University.

Anno 1523. the 14th. of King H. 8. The Cardi­nal obtainedPixide Long. N. 2. a Charter of most Ample Privileges, so that however the University had committed their Statutes and Privileges to the Cardinal for Correction and Amendment, which they had reason to do, be­cause his Dignity, and power was no less great than his intended Benefaction in Founding and Endowing Christ-Church and settling several Lectures; yet all this is to be supposed to be in subordination to the King, for he alone Grants the Charter whichH. fol. 200. was sent Anno 1528. the 20th. of H. 8. by Dr. Hygden Dean of the Cardinal College. It is also further to be observed, that this Charter was upon some Com­mand of the KingWood Antiq. lib. 1. fol. 253. a. re-delivered to the Cardinal, and after his precipitate ruin it was not restored to the University till the Year 1566. which was Forty two Years after.

§. 11. The King seiz­eth all their privileges.

☞ To clear the main point yet more. Anno 1532. 24 H. 8. The King Commanded, that both the Univer­sity and City should deliver into his Hands all their Rights, and in January it was Decreed inF. F. fol. 122. Vol. de Chartis Accadem. Oxon. Bib. Cotton. sub faustina c. 7. F. F. 122. Con­vocation, that there should be two Instruments of submission drawn up for the University, one contain­ing the surrender of all the Regal and Episcopal pri­vileges, and the other 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 KingF. 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.

§. 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 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 Ʋrban, others to Clement. Therefore the King demanded of Anselm from which of those Popes he would [Page 146]receive his Pall, and the Arch-Bishop Answered him, he would receive it from Pope Ʋrban. But the KingRex 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 Ʋrban. The King in great wrath protested,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 AnswerSed 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 hadPollicitus 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 [Page 147]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 KingJubet 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 eitherIdem 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 HistoriansIngulphus fol. 500. vid. literas Pascha [...] ­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 [Page 148]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 wouldNec 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 WritGervac. 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 especiallyMaxime 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 [Page 149]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 wasInauditum 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 Legato susceptus, nec in aliquo Legati officio functus.

☞ In the Letters of Paschalis the Second of the 30th. of March and the 1st. of April, Fourteen Years af­ter the returning of the Legat Guido, the Pope Ex­postulats with the King about several matters; one of which is, his admitting neither Messenger,Sedis Apo­stolicae Nuncii vel litterae praeter Jussum Regiae Majesto tis nullam in Potestate tuae susceptionem aut aditum pro­merentur, nullus inde clamor, nullum inde Judicium ad sedem Apostoli­cam destinan­tur. Idem. fol. 113. & 116. nor Letter to be received but by his leave, and the Year following Anselm (Nephew to the late Arch-Bishop, and after Abbot of St. Edmundsbury) shewed by Let­ters, that he had Committed to his Administration, Vices Apostolicas in Anglia. This made known here, the Queen, Clergy, and Nobility gather'd in Council at London concluded, that the Arch-Bishop should go to the King to Normandy, and make known to him the Ancient Custom of the Realm, and by his Advice to Rome, that these new things might be Annihilat­ed, haec Nova annihilaret. So the Arch-Bishop went to the King to Roan, and met Anselm there, design­ing his Journey for England, but King Henry not suf­fering that any prejudice, saith my Author, should [Page 150]be brought upon the Ancient Customs of England, de­teined Anselm from going to England.

§. 4. The Subjects repine at the Legats Praece­dence of the Arch-Bishop Canterbury.

☞ Soon after we find Legats sent, and particularly John Cremensis Anno 1125. 25 H. 1. Who being but a Priest Cardinal, yet using the Habit of a Bishop, and performing the Office on Easter Day in a more Eminent Chair as an Arch-Bishop, gave offence. But in a Council which he held and presided in at Lon­don the Kingdom took more offence, saith my Author, for then,Videres enim rem hacte­nus regno Ang­lorum inaudi­tam, Clericum scilicet, Presby­terii tantum Gradu per­functum, Ar­chiepiscopis, Episcopis, Ab­batibus, totius­que Regni No­bilibus qui con­fluxerant in sublimi solio praesidere illos autem deorsum sedentes ad nu­tum ejus, vultu & auribus ani­mum suspen­sum habentes Gerv. Dorob. Acta. Pontif. Col. 1663.42. saith he, we might see a thing hither­to unheard of in the Kingdom of England. A Clerk, only having the Degree of a Priest, preside in a lofty Throne above the Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Abbots and all the Nobles of the Kingdom that Assembled there, they sitting below with Countenances and Ears attending his pleasure.

☞ In this I take not so much notice, that he assumed such a place, that being due according to the Dignity of the Person he Represented, and is no more to be wondered at, then that the Lord Cromwell as Vicar General had place before the Arch-Bishop of Canter­bury; but I cannot but observe, that it was looked upon as such a Novelty, and a thing not used before, even as the Vicar Generals place was in the latter Ages: And it is supposed by some to be the first President of any Clergy Mans having Precedence here of the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, who was Styled, Alteri­us Orbis Papa, as having Vices Apostolicas here.

But in Anno 1127. To take off this Envy, the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury William Corbet was declar­ed Legat, and in May following held a Council at Windsor, whereinCui praesidet sicut Apostolicae sedis Legatus Florent. Wigorn An. 1126.1127. he presided as Legat of the Apostolic See, and it must be owned, that tho' these first three Kings after the Conquest Contested with [Page 151]Popes in these matters, yet afterwards Kings yielded more to the Canons of the Church.

§. 5. Further power exercised by Legats.

☞ Anno 1138. 3 Steph. Albert or Alberic Cardinal of Hostia was the Popes Legat, and Consecrated Theobald Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, and called the Clergy to aGerv. Dorob. Col. 1346.58. Colloquium by Apostolic Authority, by which it appears, that the Canons of the Church now obtained, and the King assented to the powers the Legat had, so that what was Decreed had the Kings Allowance. InEadmerus fol. 24.11. this Council he Commanded the Prior and Convent of Canterbury to choose such an Arch-Bishop, whom the Authori­ty of the Holy Canons in nothing might obstruct, and to whom the Bishops of his Province likewise ought to submit,Here is to be noted, that the Kings Assent was required. and to whom the King neither might, nor ought justly to deny his Assent, and that if anyGerv. Dorob. can. 9. Col. 1348. injured any Ecclesiastical person, and did not give satisfaction, after three Admonitions he might be Excommunicated, and that none besides the Pope, unless the danger of Death were Imminent, might enjoyn the manner of his final Penance, which my AuthorSir Roger Twisden ut su­pra. says was the first Canon that was made whereby any thing done in England was referred to Rome; but of this I doubt.

Anno 1139.39. H. 1. Pope Innocent the Third Conferred the Legatine power upon Henry Bishop of Winchester, King Stephens Brother; his FacultiesMalmsbury fol. 103. a. 31. were Read at a Council he called at Winchester bearing Date March the 1st.

There being some differences betwixt the Arch-Bishop and Monks of Canterbury, Disputes be­twixt the Arch-Bishop of Can­terbury and the Legat. they were referred from Rome to his Decisions so that he caused both Parties the second time to appear before him 1143. as Lagat, and CommandedWilli. Thor [...]s Col. 1853.32. Arch-Bishop Theobald [Page 152]to restore one Jeremy whom he had removed. By these and other Carriages, there grew great distasts betwixt these two great Prelates. The Arch-BiNop prohibitedJo. Hagulst. Col. 275. H. 4. Winchester all Ecclesiastical Functions tho' he were the Popes Legat, and both apply them­selves to the Pope: Whence, a LearnedSir Roger Twisden, Vindis. p. 27. Person saith, our Historians do setch the use of Appeals to Rome, tho' it may be Ancienter.

§. 6. The Arch-Bi­shop of Canter­bury Created Legatus Natus.

☞ These two great Prelates being before Lucius the Second, Anno 1144. the Bishop of Winchester Willi. Thorn Col. 1804.44. J. Hagulst Col. 273.61. Anno 1145. was dismissed his Legatine Commission, and the Pope finding with how great difficulty the Ecclesiastic Af­fairs of the Kingdom could be managed by any Legate, without the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, Created him and his Successors Legati Nati, by which such things as the Arch-BiNops did before, and which seemed to Interfere with the Popes plenitude of power, the exercise of which the Arch-Bishop was not so easily to be divested of, he might be said to make use of by a Legatine power.

After this our Histories are full of Appeals to Rome, Greater sub­jection to the Pope. and of the Authority Exercised by Legats, and we find some things allowed by the Decrees of Popes to be Transacted by the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury quâ Archibishop and others quâ Legate, as appears in the Decretals whereDe 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 Hoveden Anno 1189.177. a. 10. Anagninus Cardinalis Anno 1189, and altho' the power of these [Page 153]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 LetterVita 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 toR [...]t. parl [...] 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 [Page 154]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 thisRot. 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 [Page 155]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 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. 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.

☞ Ralph de Diceto An. 1175. Col. 597.21. observes, that our Kings did in such sort follow the Ecclesiastical Canons, as they had a care to [Page 156]Conserve their own Rights: hence it is, that in the Saxon Laws we find the Kings extending their Commands to the enjoyning of those things in Ecclesiastical matters, which by Canons of Councils were agreed to, as Sir Roger Cap. 5. N. 6. Twisden hath summed up in Ten particulars.☞ In one of which King Alfred L. L. Aluredi C. 8. pa. 25. Jourval. c. 9. Coll. 823. The Decrees of such Councils must be well obeyed when Kings were present. reserves to himself the liberty of dispensing event with the Marriage of Nuns. In another it appears, that the Kings caused the Clergy of their Kingdom to meet in Coun­cil, and sometimes presided themselves in them, tho' the, Popes Legat were present, as may be seen in Sir Henry Spel­mans Councils, Page. 292.293.189. & pasim Ibid. vita Lanfranci C. 6. Col. 1. pa. 7. Florent. Wigorn. 1070. p. 434.

☞ It is likewise certain, that beforeTwisden Vindica. c. 5. N. 7. p. 99. William the Conquer­ors time, the English Bishops had no Ordinary Courts distinguished from the Lay, but both Secular and Ecclesiastical Magistrates sat and Judged together: but he finding these proceedingsNon bene neque secun­dum Sanctorum Canonum prae­ceta. not good, nor according to the precept of the Holy Canons, did by his Charter make a distinction of the Courts, that such as were Convented by the Bishop should not Answer accordingNon secun­dum hundred sed secundum Canones & Episcopales Leges, &c. to the Hundred, but according to the Canons and Episcopal Laws. So that in this appears the Foundation of the Tryals in Ecclesiastical Courts, according to the Ecclesiastical Laws, which yet by our Lawyers are called the Kings Laws.

§. 11. The Kings Secular Courts determined what matters were to be try­ed in Ecclesi­astical Courts.

And it further appears, that in Controversies betwixt parties where it hath been disputable, whether the Tryal of them appertained to the Kings Ecclesiastical, or Secular Courts; The Kings Secular Courts have ever been Judges, to which Court the cause did belong, therefore Bracton Lib. 5. de exceptionib. cap. 15. sect. 3. fol. 412. a. saith, Judex Ecclesiasticus, cum prohibitionem a Rege susce­perit, supersedere debet in omni casu, saltem donec constiterit in Curia Regis ad quam pertineat Jurisdictio, quia si Judex Ecclesi­asticus aestimare possit an sua essec Jurisdictio, in omni casu indif­ferenter procederet, non obstunte Regiâ prohibitione. Which is agreeable to what we find King William the First did in a Council at Illibon in Normandy Anno 1080. when by the advice of both the States Ecclesiastic and Secular, he did settle many particulars to belong to the Cognizance of the Spiritual Judges, and concludes, that if any thing were further claimed [Page 157]by them, they should not enter upon itDonec in Curia Regis monstrent quod Episcopi inde habere debeant. till they had shew­ed in the Court of the King, that the Bishops thereupon ought to have it belong to them.

Whoever desires to be satisfied in the Jurisdiction of the Kings of England in Ecclesiastical matters, may sind an Abridg­ment of them in Sir Roger Twisden Vindicat. c. 5. N. 17. enforced with suffici­ent Testimonies out of our most Authentic Historians in Eighteen particulars.

§. 12. The applicati­on of these Historical Col­lections.

☞ Upon the whole matter we may conclude, that what was done by Archiepiscopal or Episcopal Visitation of the Univer­sity, was by the Kings Authority; so that tho' we find not that by Immediate Commission the Kings of England Visited before King Henry the Eighth's time, yet we have sufficient grounds to Judge, that whatever was done, was by the Kings power, and Authority. Therefore Sir Edward Cawdryes Case 5 Reports p. 8. b. How the Tem­poral and Ec­clesiastical Courts were subordinate to the King ac­cording to the Opinion of our Modern Law­yers. Cooke lays it down for a Rule, that as in Temporal Causes, the King by the Mouth of the Judges in his Courts of Justice doth Judge and determin the same by the Temporal Laws of England, so in Causes Ecclesiastical and Spiritual by his Ecclesiastical Judges according to the Ecclesiastical Laws of the Realm; and that so many of the Ecclesiastical Laws as were proved, ap­proved, and allowed here, by and with General Consent, are aptly and rightly called the Kings Ecclesiastical Laws of Eng­land; and whosoever denyeth this, denyeth the King to have full and plenary power to deliver Justice in all Cases to all his Subjects, without which he were not a compleat Monarch or head of the whole and entire Body of the Realm accord­ing to the words of the Statute,Stat. 24 H. 8. c. 12. The King the Fountain of Justice. ‘that the Kingly Head of this Body Politic is Instituted and furnished with plenary, whole and intire Power, Preheminence, Authority, Prero­gative and Jurisidiction, to render and yield Justice and final determination to all manner of Folke, Resiants or Subjects within the Realm in all causes, matters, debates and con­tentions happening to occur, insurge, or begin within the limits thereof, &c.’

§. 13. In what parti­culars our Kings claimed not Ecclesiastical Administration.

It must be likewise considered, that whatever power our Kings Exercised in Ecclesiastical Affairs, they never claimed any in those things the School men call Ordinis, as the Ad­ministration of Sacraments, Celebrating Divine Offices, &c. [Page 158]but in that which is called Jurisdictionis; and that being either Internal, where the Divine by persuasion, wholsom In­structions, Ghostly Counsel, and the like, convinceth the Conscience,This is Sir Roger Twisdens observation. whereby it is obedient: or External, where the Church in Foro exteriori compels the Christians obedience. As to the first and second, none of our Kings, either before or since the Reformation, took upon them at all to medle, either by assuming to themselves a power of Preaching, Teaching, Binding or loosing in foro Animae, Administring the Holy Sa­craments, Conferring Orders, &c. But they took upon them the Ordering of such things as were of outward Policy of the Church, as what Men were fit to Exercise them, and what sub­jection the Subjects should yield to Decrees and Constitutions made abroad, and what Doctrins were publicly to be Taught, which might conduce to the quiet Peace and Tranquility of the Subject, and their living in Piety and Vertue.

§. 14. How the Popes obtained great­er powers after the Canon Laws were owned here.

It is further to be noted, that the Popes power was enlar­ged after the Canon Law was received, more than it had been before; but if we believe Walsingham Walsingham ad Ann. 1297. it was not Read in our Universities publicly till the 25th. of Edward the First, by one Simon a Monk of Walden.

☞ It is likewise to be noted, that altho', as I have shewn be­fore, the first Race of our Kings did frequently oppose some Rights the Popes claimed by Canons, yet within the compass of an Hundred Years after the Conquest,The Popes Jur­isdiction in four particulars by the Canons. or little more, the Court of Rome obtained four great points of Jurisdiction: First of sending Legats into England. Secondly drawing Appeals to Rome. Thirdly, the Donation of Bishoprics and other Dig­nities in the Church. Fourthly the Exemption of the Clergy from Secular Power. Notwithstanding all which, several Kings reassumed their Rights and Jurisdiction as occasions offered, until the Reign of King Henry the Eighth, as the Statutes of Mortmain, Provisoes, &c. do manifest.

§. 15. The Kings Su­premacy assert­ed by King Henry the 8th.

But in King Henry the Eighth's time, a Total Rout was given to them all. In the Twenty fourth of his Reign all Ap­peals to Rome were taken away, and Established in the King, and all Sentences made or to be made with England declared to be Authentical, notwithstanding any Act from Rome. The grounds of which Act are set forth in theStat. 24. H. 8. c. 12. Parag. 1. Preamble. [Page 159] ‘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 toStat. 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 [Page 160]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 Ʋnited and Annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm. Parag. 18. The Kings power in Eccle­siastical matters. And in the 18th. Paragraph, The Queen, her Heirs and Successors, shall have full Power and Authority by Letters Patents under the Great Seal, to Assign, Name and Authorize, &c. such person or persons, &c. as the Queen her Heirs and Successors shall think meet, to exercise, use, occupy, and execute under them, all manner of Jurisdictions, Privileges, and Preheminences in any wise touching or concerning any Spiritu­al or Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction within their Dominions, to Visit, Reform, Redress, Order, Correct, and Amend all such Errors, Heresies, Schisms, Abuses, Offences, Contempts, and Enormities whatsoever, which by any manner of Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Power, Authority, or Jurisdiction can or may lawfully be Reformed, Ordered, Redressed, Corrected, Restrained or Amended, &c.

Which seems to me,25 H. 8. c. 21. Parag. 20. The King Su­preme Visitor. notwithstanding Mr. Pryns exceptions, clear by another Act of Parliament, the words of which are,—Provided that the said Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, or any other person or persons, shall have no power or Authority, by reason of this Act, to Visit or Vex any Mona­steries, Abbys, Priories, Colleges, Hospitals, Houses or other places Religious, which be or were Exempt before the making of this Act, &c. But that Redress, Visitation, and Confirmation shall be had by the Kings High­ness, his Heirs and Successors, by Commission under the Great Seal to be di­rected to such persons as shall be appointed requisite for the same.

In fine whoever considers the Accumulated power of our Kings most, own à fortiori, that whatever Visitatorial Power was excercised be­fore King H. 8ths. time, was by the Kings allowance, and all since is solely derivative from the King as Sovereign Monarch and Supreme Governor.

§. 1. The Pope and his Legate Suspend offen­ders.

HAving shown in a General way what Preroga­tives the Kings of England have exercised in Ecclesiastical Affairs before the Reformation, and how all the power the Pope claimed or exercised in point of Government is now by our Laws Invested in the Sovereign. I shall proceed to give an Account, how till the Reformation the University was Visited punished and governed by the Arch-Bishop of Can­terbury, some Popes, Legats, or the Bishop of Lincoln their Dioecesan: Yet all these were by the appoint­ment, Approbation, or consent of the respective Kings; the most evident Vestigia of whose Supreme power appeared, in the admitting, or making void exemptions and privileges even granted by the Apo­stolic See; so that it is not to be thought strange, that since the Reformation (the whole Ecelesiastical Government being declaredly derivative from the Crown, and the Authority of the Pope being by the Laws in force devolved upon our Princes) they have excercised a more Despotical Authority over the Universities then over other Incorporations.

☞ The First Instance I find of the Popes Suspending and the Kings Recalling the Lectures in the Univer­sity was Anno 1209. the 11th. of King John; The [Page 162]occasion of which in short was this.Wendover sub. Anno 1209. Ms. Upon the­mis-information of the Burgesses of Oxford to the King, then at Woodstock, that a Clerk had killed a Woman; two or three Innocent Clerks were seized and Executed,Wood Antiq. Oxon. lib. 1. fol. 59. upon which severity, and the detestation of the Burgesses Malice, the Masters and Scholars removed out of the Inhospitable Town; and Anno 1210. The Pope Interesting himself because they were Clerks, Commands the Scholars to Read no Lectures, and Anno 1213. sends over Nicholas Bishop of Tusculum his Legate, who Anno 1214.In Turri Schol. in pixide P. P. fasci. c. 12. N. 2. & 3. published his Bull at Ramsey the 7th. of the Ka­lends of July. in which besides the severe punish­ment inflicted on the Burgesses, it is plainly expres­sed, that the Bishop of Lincoln, the Arch-Deacon of the place, his Official, the Chancellor, or any other Deputy of the Bishop, should see to the performance of what was enjoyned; and thoseMagistri vero qui post Schola­rium recessum Irreverenter legerunt Oxo­niae, suspenden­tur per Trien­nium ab officio Legendi. Ibid. Masters who Irreverently, after the recess of the Scholars, had Read Lectures contrary to the Popes Orders, should be Suspended from the Office of Reading for three Years. But I find, that the King gave leave to all to return to the University, and upon this occasion, being willing to shew some special favor to it, and prevent the like mischiefs for the future, observing where in their privileges were defective, Grants that the Chancellor should have Cognizance of Causes where one party was a Scholar, or his Servant.

In this account it may be observed,Inferences from this History. that for con­tempt of the Popes Order the Legate Suspends the Offenders for three Years, that the King Grants the leave for their return, and gives them new pri­vileges.

§. 2. Cardinal Otho Visits by Lega­tiné Authority.

☞ Anno 1238. 13 H. 3.Mat. Paris ad Annum 1238. Cardinal Otho came to Visit the University of Oxford as Legate a Latere; But had an unfortunate Journy, for the Scholars coming in great numbers to pay their respects to him, the un­civil PorterChron. Aben­don Ms. would not permit them to enter till they forced their passage, and a Scholar going to the Legates Kitchin, a Ladle full of scalding broth was cast upon him, which the Scholars took so hein­ously, that one of them Slew the Legates Brother, and the Legate thereupon Fled with some danger to his person. Of all which the King being Informed, sent Peter Pat. 22 H. 3. M. 7. The Kings Commissioners Interdict Di­vine Service. de Rupibus Bishop of Winchester, Ralph Nevil Bishop of Chester then Chancellor of England, and others, who met the Day after May day, in the Church of St. Fridiswyde, Flovileg. sub hoc Anno. And Suspend Lectures and Exercises. and Suspended the University from Celebrating Divine Service, and from performing their Exercises and usual Lectures. And the Legate Excommunicated the University, upon which many left the University, but the KingPat. 22 H. 3. M. 15. Cla. 22 H. 3. M. 15. Commanded that none should depart without his leave, and several were Imprisoned and their GoodsId. fol. 90. a. seized into the Kings Hands but by the 15th. of May, uponCl. Pat. 22 H. 3. M. 7. The King re­calls the Stu­dents. Sureties given for appearing, most were set at Liberty, and their Goods restored, and those upon this occasion Imprisoned in the Tower of London were released, and the SheriffsCl. 22 H. 3. M. 13. of sever­al Counties had the Kings Writ to return the Names of those that had retired from Oxford, and of the Sure­ties of those that were to abide the Tryal, and otherGl. 22 H. 3. M. 13. Writs Issued out to the Chancellor and the Arch-Deacon of Oxford, to warn all others that were in that Riot to return to the University to expect the Ecclesiastical Absolution for their faults, and the Legate summoned theMat. Paris sub An. 1238. Arch-Bishop of [Page 164] York and all the Bishops to consult about this Mat­ter.

Anno 1239.14 H. 3. The LegateWood Antiq. fol. 91. a. The Legate gives leave to the Students to return. sent an account likewise to the Pope and Cardinals, and after dismissing the Council the Legate Writ to the Chan­cellor, that he Exhorting the Academians to repen­tance should give them all leave to return to the Uni­versity from whence they had been absent above a Year, and had been Interdicted of their Exercises, Lectures, &c. And the punishment Imposed was, that the ClerksIdem fol. 48. a. should go from St. Pauls to Du­resme House on Foot, and after that all the Academ­ians should go bare Foot without Caps or Mantles and should humbly ask the Legate Pardon:Appointeth a Pennance. which being done the Interdict was taken off, and the Scho­lars returned to Oxford to attend their wonted Lect­ures and Exercises; Thus were they punished, there being Murther of the Legates-Brother in the Case, the Bishop Robert Grosthead defended the Clerks, Insisting, that the Legats People gave the occa­sion.

However, even in this case when the Pope was so much concerned for the affront done to his Ministers, yet we clearly find, that the King by his Commission­ers Suspends the University from Celebrating Di­vine Service and performing their Lectures: Which are sufficient badges of his 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 [Page 165]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 shewCap. 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 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 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. wasA. & 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 sameFarus de privil. 4. A. & D. 23. b. Year Confirming their Im­munities Liberties and Customs; And a 4th. DatedF. 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 DatedLib. 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 itChron. 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, 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 [Page 167]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, thatAnnales 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, wasWood 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, [Page 168]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 EcclesiasticalHarus 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 theIn 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 findWood 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 wereWood fol. 125. b. encouraged to do, because the Year foregoing, viz. 1279.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 [Page 169]made by the Chancellor or his De­puty against the Scholars that were Delinquents, or that Appealed to any Dioecesan, Subject to the Archie­piscopal See.

HereuponWood. 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 findRegist. Peckham. Richard Knapwell a Dominican, Appealed to the Pope Anno 1285. Against the Arch-Bishops Sentence.

Anno 1287.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 [Page 170]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 [Page 171]and performing Exercises and Lectures were disposed by the King or the Pope.

The Case was this.

There having been a differenceWood 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.Id. fol. 151 [...]. 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-BishopReg. Rey­nold, fol. 32. Gualter Reynolds Writes to the University in their favor, and the Year following Anno 1314. They put the matter to Arbitration,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.

Wood fol. 160. b. Anno 1325. 19 E. 2. Gulhardus Cardinal of St. Lucy in Celice, then Arch-Deacon of Oxford claim­ed theHarpsfield Histor. Eccl. Sec. 14. c. 28. Cognizance of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction andReg. 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 [Page 173]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 KingRot. 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 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-BishopVide Mat. Parker Antiq. Brit. fol. 268. sent Commissioners to whom he gave power to Confirm the Chancellor, and he deputed othersRegist. 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, 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 Ʋrban the Fifth, that the University should be exempt from the Bishop of Lincolns Juris­diction, [Page 174]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 KingPat. 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 CommandId. 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, 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 [Page 175]Second suceeding, those Acted nothing; and fresh broyles and tumults arising, the Chancellor, Proctors, and three MonksClaus. 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,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 de­puted by him with power to determin the matters: But these were received so sharply at Oxford, that they could not exercise their Visitatorial Authority, till the King sent his Breve or WritCharto­phyl. Civit. Oxon. to the Chan­cellor and Major to assist the Visitors in executing their Office; by which at present things were quiet­ed. But it broke out again, till by a second Visita­tion, or Peculiar Mandate sent to the College, Mr. Henry Whylefield the Provost, Mr. William French, Robert Lydeford, and John Trevis Fellows were Ex­pelled.

These by private consultation among themselves took away the Charters, Books, the Jewels, Mony and other Goods of the College till the Chancellor and Proctors upon the KingsIussu Regio 13. R. 2. M. 40. Mandate caused them to be restored by Whitefield, the Expelled, to Thomas Carvel the new Provost. But still all was not quiet, those Expelled especially making distur­bances, therefore on the Seventh of February the King issued out hisPat. 3 R. 2. par. 2. M. 12. Letters Patents to Mr. Ber­ton the Chancellor, John Sherburn, Thomas Swindon and Robert Bixy under the Great Seal to examin and determin the matters.

By this it appears,What is to be Inferred from this. that either by the Local Visitor or the Kings absolute Authority, the Provost and several Fellows were Expelled, That the King Com­missionated some under the Broad Seal to hear and determin the matters which no doubt was by some one way and demonstrates the Kings absolute power in Expelling and by Commission determining mat­ters in the University, without other Visitations, and we may note when ever the Visitations were per­formed by the Ordinary Visitors, viz. The Arch-Bishop or Bishops, it was about some things relating to their Function, settled by the Canons and allow­ed by the Laws of the Land; but still the last resort was made to the King, besides his first giving leave as in many particulars is very clear.

§. 13. Arch-Bishop Courtneys Visitation.

Anno 1389. William Courtney Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Visited his Province, and the Scholars were troubledWalsingham Hist. Angliaead Annu. 1389. fol. 341. for that they had never seen nor heard such a Mandate of Visitation, that both Ex­empted and not Exempted should be Visited. There­fore the Black Monks urged theirThese were the Black Monks of Glou­cester College. Exemptions, and applyed themselves to the Abbots of Westminster [Page 177]and St. Albans, who advissed them not to yield to the Arch-Bishops Visitation,Wood Antiq. Oxon lib. 1. fol. 196.a. and Letters were sent from the Abbot of st. Albans, to the Arch-Bishop to desire him to desist, to which the Arch Bishop replyed, that saving the Right of his Church, he would willingly do what he could for his special friend the Abbot, but faid, he could not any ways desist, saving that Right from Visiting the Prior and Black Monks Studying in Oxford, even tho' theEtiamsi Rex Angliae pro praedictis Instaret. King should intreat for them, because they were a College, and had a Prior and Chapter, and lived in Common. The Monk sent from St. Albans said they were not a College,Non fuit ibi Collegium cum ibi moran­tes sigillum Commune non habent nec locus sit donatus Terr poralibus & Spiritualibus, &c. for that they had not a Common Seal, or were Endowed with Spiritualities or Temporalities, and wanted many other things which were required to Constitute a College. The Arch-Bishop Answered, therefore he would Visit, to enquire how it was with them. Then the Monk reply'd, if he came to Visit them he had no Jurisdiction to enquire of such things, By this appears what are of the Es­sence of a Col­lege, and that in this Age Monks of se­veral Orders had their Schools here, [...]nd yet were reckoned as Members of the Convent they were sent from, rather than of any Incorporate Society of the University. but only to Visit such as were not Ex­empt, for those that were Exempt were Visitable in their proper Monasteries by the Arch-Bishop and so not to be Visited a second time. To this Allegation the Arch-Bishop Answered, that they were not Vi­sited by him in their proper Monasteries, for the Abbots excused them, for that they were in the Schools, therefore he would Visit them there. And then a Monk and Lawyer, who came with the Arch-Bishop, willing to enlarge the Arch-Bishops Juris­diction, said, that the Arch-Bishop might Visit even the ExemptsExempti ibi ita sunt privilegiati, quod ubicunque fuerint non sunt sub Jurisdisti­one alicujus Episcopi, nisi Romani Ponti­ficis, vel Lega­ti a Latere missi. as long as they were in the Schools, for that they were under the Jurisdiction of the Chancellor: to this the Monk of St. Albans replyed, [Page 178]that the Exempt are so privileged, that wherever they were they might not be under the Jurisdiction of any Bishop unless of the Bishop of Rome, or his Legate a Latere sent hither. To which the Arch-Bishop said, if it were so, he neither could nor would molest them in any thing.

A while after Simon de Southerey presented him­self to the Arch-Bishop in the Church of St. Fridis­wyde, whith all the Monks Exempt and not Exempt, and the Arch-Bishop asked them if they submitted to his Visitation, and it was answered, that they came to obtainAd Cap­tandam ejus Benevolentiam advenerunt. his favor, and the Arch Bishop told them, that he excused them, and never intend­ed to burthen them, so there was an end of this matter.

By all which it appears, that the Dispute was a­bout the privilege of Exemption: But that the power of Metropolitical Visitation was allowed, and that power was by the then Laws, and is now, derivative from the King.

§. 1. The King re­dresseth certain grievences complained of by both Uni­versities.

HOw far the King Interested himself in Ordering the Affairs of the University appears in what King Richard the Second did Anno 1390. 14 Regni of which I shall give a short account.

The Fryers Preachers, or Dominicans were com­plained of by both the Universities, that several of them, Students there, declined the Examination of the University, in order to the taking their Degrees, and going beyond Sea obtained the Titles of Masters, not without Infamy to the Brothers or Fryers, and the great loss of the University. Thereupon the King writes to the Prior Provincial, and all the Priors in England.

☞ That since the orderOrdo prae­dictus Institu­tus sit & fir­matus, ad re­sistendum & destruendum Haereses & Errores contra legem divinam, & fidem Ca­tholicam indies emergentes, &c. Claus. 14. Ric. 2. M. 32. was Instituted to resist and destroy Heresies and Errors against the Divine Law, and the Catholic Faith, dayly springing up, &c. To effect which, mature knowledge, honesty of life, and the Doctrin of Divinity was necessarily required, of which qualifications, in former time, the Fryers of that Order used to be examined, and ap­proved as well among themselves as in both the Uni­versities. But now he understood that some of the said Fraternity, little instructed or approved in the Divine Law, but Apostates, notably vitious, &c. have gone beyond Sea, and there cunningly and frau­dulently, begged & obtained to themselves the Degrees of Masters, and other Exempting Graces: That when they return, they might be reputed, and cherished a­mong their Fraternity with the Honor of that facul­ty, to the dammage and hurt of the Catholic Faith, to the prejudice and scandal of the King and his Realm, and mostly to the disgrace of the said Order. Therefore the King not willing in any manner to Tollerate the premisses, so prejudicial and damage­able to the English Church, the King and his people, and in process of time redounding, in all likelyhood, to the subversion of the Order; [Page 180]enjoynsVobis omni­bus & singulis subforisfacturd omnium quae nobis foris facere potiritis injungimus & mandamus, Ide. Ibid. and Commands all and every the Provincial and Priors under the forfeiture of all things which they could forfeit, streightly nevertheless as much as he could prohibiting them, that they in no manner admit such to the Liberty, Honors, and favors which the Doctors in Divinity regularly made, according to the Examination aforesaid, ought to have: nor that they Treat any such with the Honors, Favors or Liberties, &c. but that they have no con­sideration to such Impetrations, Provisions, or Ex­emptions.

§. 2. What is to be observed from hence.

☞ What is worthy noting from hence is, that altho' this Order had many privileges and Exemptions from Visitations and subjection: Yet we find the King un­der the penalty of the forfeiture of all they could, enjoyns them to obey what he commands, and tho' it is not to be doubted that some of these Men might receive Degrees in some Universities who had from the Pope privileges, that whoever received Degrees there, should enjoy all the Liberties, Honors, &c. which those did of our own Universities; yet the King dis allows all so that by this one Instance it ap­pears, that the Kings of England allowed or dis al­lowed at their pleasure Immunities, Exemptions, privileges, &c. which were granted by the Popes Emperors or Forreign Kings; for from such those privileges to Graduates only could be granted.

From which it is manifest that the King challenged a power of being Supreme Judge of what Exemp­tions should be allowed in his Universities, and by consequence was always to be reputed the Supreme Visitor.

Hereby also will appear the true Reason of the Application to the King, in the contests I shall pre­sently [Page 181]give an account of, which happened be­twixt the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, and the Uni­versity about his Visitation, which by the Popes Bulls they were Exempted from.

§. 3.

☞ Anno 1395. 19 Ric. 2. The Lollards, that is, the favorers of Wickliffs Doctrin, greatly increased, sowing (as the Writers of that time and others Style it) TaresZizanium inter Triticum proseminantes. among the Wheat, choaking the Catholic Doctrin. Upon which many complaints are made to the King, and especially by the Bishops, by which being moved, he Writ to the ChancellorCl. 19 R. 2. M. 24. Commanding him, as the words are, utterly to Root out those wickedestUt nequis­simos, fidel Eversores. overturners of the Faith, and at the same time Writ to the Chancellor and Doctors by his Mandare, enjoyning them to ex­amin the Book of Wickliff called the Triolog [...]s, The Kings Mandate to extirpate what then was re­puted Heresic. and to send the heads of the Errors therein contained under the Seal of the University into the Chancery, and it is noted forther, that the Univelsity submitted it self to the King, promising to stand to his Arbitra­ment, for which purpose they sent an Instrument by their Chancellor Thomas Hindyman, Thomas Merk, Thomas Crawley, &c. to the King.

By which it appears manifestly,Inferences from hence. that the King by his absolute power Commanded matters to be order­ed in the University, and that it submitted to his determination notwithstanding other Metropolitical Visitations, which, as such, must be looked upon as done by the power of the King Ecclesiastical Laws as the most Learned of the Long Robe do main­tain.

In the Year 1396. The 20th of Richard the Second a great contest was beowixt the Doctors of Divinity, Masters of Arts, and the Civil and Canon [Page 182]Lawyers: The whole process of which may be seen in myWood Antiq. Oxon lib. 1. fol. 197. New contests betwixt Gradu­ates and Law­yers. Author, the summ of which was, that several Statutes were made to their prejudice, and that the Chancellor pretended Bulls of Exemption from the Archiepiscopal Visitation of the University, The conclusion of all which was, that as King Edward the Third had Anno 1376. 50 Regni appointed Five Bishops to enquire into the matter and order it, so thePat. 20 R. 2. part. 3. M. 26. King the next April by his Royal Autho­rity confirms their doom.

By which it still appears how the last resort was made to the King which will yet more fully be clear­ed by what I shall now relate as to the Visitation of Arch-Bishop Arundel under King Richard the Second and King Henry the Fourth;The reason why the Au­thor enlargeth upon the Visi­tations by Arch-Bishop Arundel. which because they have been so much insisted upon, as pregnant proofs, even in King Charles the Firsts time, that the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury by Right is the Visitor of the Universities, I think it necessary to take notice of, that I may shew the grounds upon which those Kings allowed the Arch Bishops Visitation, and how it no ways prejudices the Kings Visitatorial power.

§ 4. the Arch-Bi­shop Arundel Visiting by the Kings leave commands the University to obey.

☞ Anno 1397. 21 Ric. 2. The Arch-Bishop of Can­terbury determining to Visit for the suppressing of Heresies as then they were called, and composing affairs of the University, and understanding that the Chancellor and Proctors supported by the Popes Bull of Exemption, intended to obstruct it. He signifies this to the King. Here I hope is a craving the Kings leave and and aid; what doth the King in this case? He presently Writes to the Chancellor and Scholars, and forbidsLiteris prae­cepit ut in juris Regii detrimen­tum, Haeretico­rum vero & Lollardorum patrocinium, Archiepiscopali sese, aut Epis­copali Authori­tati nequaquam [...]ubtraherent. them, that to the dammage of his Kingly Right, or Patronage of Heretics and Lollards, they no ways withdraw themselves from Archiepis­copal [Page 183]or Episcopal Jurisdiction,Id. pat. 21 R. 2. part. 3. M. 32. or produce any Bull of the Pope to that purpose. But that they 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,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 [Page 184]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 Leg [...]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 clauseSalvis 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 [Page 185]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 CitationHarus 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 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 CommandedFragmenta 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 firstC. fol. 31. a. displeasedly at the Fact of the Heads, and in a [Page 186]second LetterC. 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 theFrag. 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 SentenceIbid. which King Richard the Second had given should stand.

§. 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 ParliamentRot. 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 [Page 187]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 mattersOrdinationi & 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 orIn 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 [Page 188]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 [Page 190] 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 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 [Page 191]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 contestsRot. 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 [Page 192]was submited to in point of Haeresie, which fur­ther appears in that I find this very Year 1413. Arch-Bishop Arundél 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 INec 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 likewiseIdem 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.

§. 1. Queen Maries Visitation.

ANno 1553. Wood fol. 274. & 275. Wood Antiq. Oxon lib. 1. fol. 274.275. Pat. 1. Maria part. 6. When Queen Mary came to the Crown, she took great Compassion on the University, as appears by her Letter, in which she sets forth the grievousness of the former Visitation, and she bestowed some Rectories upon it by her Charter. May 11.1^o. Regni.

Neither did she omit to Exercise her Authority in Visiting the University in restoring the Roman Ca­tholic Religion, as she did through the Kingdom. The first that Visited was Steven Gardiner Bishop of Winchester, See for the Visi­tation of Cardi­nal Pool Anno 1557. a. who was Local Visitor of New-College and Corpus Christi and St. Mary Magdalen College: He appointed for his Deputies Sir Richard Read Kt. and Dr. George Wright Arch-Deacon of Oxford: Large account in Fox Act sand Mon. Vol. 3. Edit. 1640. fal. 762. to 780. Upon the 26th. of October they Visited St. Mary Magdalen College, and Dr. Haddon the late Presi­dent, of his own accord did quit the Presidentship. Thomas Bentham the Dean, and several others were Expelled as had been done in New-College. And [Page 209]the Society of Magdalen College were so averse from the Roman Catholic Religion, that not only they got neither Altar or Holy Vestments, but none of the Fellows came to Mass, and the very Clerks and Choristers would not perform their Offices, so that the Visitors were forced to have all Holy Offices per­formed by their own Priests:Ibid. fol. 13. b. they punished the Juniors that refused,Punishments inflicted by the Visitors. either with striking them out of Commons, or Scourging them: and one Ald­worth Bachellor of Art for Contumelious Usage of Priests, and coming in unseasonably to the Mass of the Exequies of King Henry the Sixth, was Com­manded, that every Day he should be at Mass, and kneeling at the South Pillar in the middle of the Church, should perform his Prayers to the Example of others.

The same Commissioners found the President of Corpus Christi College Robert Morwent and the Senior Fellow Henry Walsh very observant,Id. fol. 276. a. who brought to light the Holy Vestments, Cushions, Silver Ves­sels, Candlestics, and other Ornaments which they had hid in King Edward the Sixth's time, and except­ing John Juel after Bishop, I find none left that Col­lege: but from the other two, besides the Fellows E­jected in Edward the Sixth's time, about Eighteen or Twenty this Year and the next were re­moved.

§. 2. Cardinal Pools Visitation.

Anno 1556. Id. fol. 278. b. 3 & 4 Ph. Mar. Cardinal Pool ap­pointed and entire Visitation of the University of Oxford, and the Visitors were James Brooks Bishop of Gloucester, Nicholas Ormanet of Padua, in good esteem with Julius the Third,Pix. M. M. n. 22. and Dator to him or Marcellus the Second, Henry Cole Doctor of Laws, Provost of Eaton, Robert Morwent Doctor in Divinity [Page 210]President of Corpus Christi College and Walter Wright Arch Deacon of Oxford. These proceeded upon Thirty Two Questions,Two Questions proposed by the Visitors, First, whether their Statutes were observed. two of which were the most Material. First, Whether the Foundations, Statutes, and Laudable Customs of the University, and of every College and Hall, were observed by all and singular that were concerned, and if it were answer­ed Negatively, they were required specially to ex­press, which were not observed and for what cause.

The Second was,Second, whe­ther after the Reformation any things were used contrary to the Canons, &c. whether in the time of the Schism any thing was appointed or brought into use, which was against the Ancient Canons or Ancient Foundations, Statutes, Privileges and Customs; and to this, if they Answered Affirmatively, they were to express particularly, what they were, and for what cause.

§. 3. The Cardinal appoints Sta­tutes.

The Visitors following the Example of those that Visited in King Edward the Sixths Reign purged out of all public Libraries all Books which maintained the Protestant Doctrin, and those in private Libraries they burnt, and either Punished or Expelled the Possessors.In E. p. 38. They certified the Car­dinal, especially of the Defects of the University Sta­tutes, and he being Chancellor, instead of Mason, that laid down the Office, sent a Book of Statutes to Mr. Raynolds the Vice-Chancellor, and Commanded him, that they might be in force, till there being joyned with him some in every Faculty, they might determin which were to be Antiquated, and which to be retained, which being so Revised had the Sanction of the Chancellor and Convocation, which being strict against the Reformed, drove many from the University. Our Author Notes, that the Lectures [Page 211]were less frequent in this Queens time, as well as in King Edward the Sixths, and fewer received Degrees, which may be Imputed to the Changes made in Re­ligion in their short Reigns: but he saith the great care of the Magistrates of the Universities in this Queens Reign, was to recover the profits of the Societies and to Repair their Buildings and the Schools.

In this Third and Fourth Year of King Philip and Queen Mary, Cui Papa commisit Visi­tationem & Re­formationem Studiorum Ge­neralium. Cardinal Pool Visited the University of Cambridge as he was Legate, to whom the Pope Committed the Visitation and Reformation of the Universities, called General Studies. This Visita­tion the Cardinal performed by Delegates, and I find one Robert Brassy, Master of Kings College, urged, that his House was wholly referved to the Discretion of the Bishop of Lincoln, not only by the Kings Letters Patents, Fox Acts and Monuments, Vol. 3. p. 763.766. but also by the Grant of Confirmation of the Bishop of Rome himself, under a Penalty, if he should suffer any Stranger to Intermedle; But the Commis­sioners Answered, that they were fully Authorized for the Order of the matter by the Cardinal, out of whose Jurisdiction no place nor person was Exempted. So that tho' he persisted the next Day in his Allegation, yet he and the Students submitted, and were all Sworn and Examined to the Interrogatories propounded to them, yet some of them Swore conditionally, so as their Faith given to the College were not Impeached thereby. Some­thing like the Salvo of some Members of St. Mary Magdalen College, that they would yield obedience, saving the Right of Dr. Hough, which was pru­dently denyed to be Admitted by the Lords Visitors.

I now pass to the Reign of Queen Elizabeth.

§. 1. Queen Eliza­beths Inhibiti­on

ANno 1559. Fol. 281. b. Queen Elizabeth intending to Visit the University of Oxford Writ to the Magi­strates of the same,not to Elect any heads of Houses, Fellows, Scholars, &c. forbidding them to proceed to the Election of any President, Fellow or Scholar, or of any Officer of the University, and forbid all Aliena­tions or Changes of Possessions, and all other things to be done by the University, except what was ne­cessary for the Cultivating their Lands, till the Visi­tation: and this she did because some were so for­ward to begin a Restoring things to the condition they were in, in King Edward the Sixth's time before her Order. By which the Queens Authority and Circumspection are clearly discovered.

§. 2. Queen Eliza­beth appoints Visitors.

After some few Months she appointed her Visitors, Wood lib. 1. fol. 282. viz. Richard Cox Bishop of Ely, John Williams Baron of Thame, but he Died in October, John Mason Kt. sometimes Fellow of All-Souls, and several Years after Chancellor, Thomas Benger Kt. William Kings­myll Esq John Warner Custos of All-Souls College, Walter Wright Doctor of Laws, Arch-Deacon of Oxford, John Watson Master of Arts, Chancellor of St. Pauls London, Robert Benger Esq &c. to whom she Commands they should Act with all Humanity, and abstain from all Roughness. These Visitors coming to Oxford cast out of the Chappels of the Colleges and Parish Churches all things that re­lated to Superstitious Worship, as it was Styled, that [Page 213]is, the use of the Roman Worship, recalled those that were banished, or put out in Queen Maries time for Religion, and Abolished most of the Statutes made by Cardinal Pool, and restored those of King Edward the Sixth.

To omit other things in the Visitation, Earl of Arundel Chancellor quits his Office. besides that the Earl of Arundel did quit the Chancellorship, these following Heads of Colleges or principal Members, were removed and some of them Imprisoned.

§. 3. The Heads of Colleges and others Expelled of Christ-Church.

As Dr. Richard Marshal Dean of Christ-Church, for denying to own the Authority of the Visitors, was not only Expelled, but sent Prisoner to Lon­don.

Also Dr. William Tresham Canon of the same, for denying the Oath of Supremacy was Expelled, as also Dr. Richard Smith Canon there,Of Merton College. Dr. Thomas Raynolds Warden of Merton College, was by the Queen, then at Hampton Court, deprived of his War­denship 4^o. September and three Days after, the Sen­tence was declared by three of the Commissioners, and after a short time he Died in Prison.

Thomas Coveney President of Magdalen College was Expelled,Of St. Mary Magdalen Col­lege. for that he was not entred into Orders, and Dr. William Cheadsey President of Corpus Christi College was Expelled from that, and his Canon­ship of Christ Church, and Robert Banks, who had been Ejected in Queen Maries Reign because he was Married, was substituted in his place.

Also Dr. William Wright, Of Baliol Col­lege. Master or President of Baliol College, was Expelled, and Dr. Babington sub­stituted in his place.

Mr. John Smith Provost of Oriel College was Ejected,Of Oriel Col­lege. tho' he had liberty to live in the House after, but in the next Year he lost the Lady Margarets [Page 214]Lectureship,Of Queens College. and Mr. Hugh Hodgson Provost of Queens College, two Years after, either relinquished the place,Of Trinity College. or was Expelled: Mr. Thomas Slythurst, President of Trinity College, was Expelled, and Mr. Yeldard placed in his room.

Mr. Alexander Belsyre Master of St. Johns College and Canon of Christ-Church was also Expelled,Fol. 283. a. St. Johns Col­lege. and Mr. William Ely, lately put in his place, a little while after was Expelled: so a few Years after Mr. William Marshal Principal of St. Albans Hall was forced to surrender, and so Mr. William Alan Principal of St. Mary Hall, as also George Ethridge, Regius Greek Professor, and James Dugdale, Master of University College, two Years after was Expelled by the Visitors and Thomas Key put in his place.

Besides these Heads of Colleges in New College,Fol. 283. b. two Doctors and three Bachellors of Civil Law, one Doctor of Physic, one Bachellor of Divinity, and fourteen Fellows were Expelled, some removing to Religious Houses beyond the Sea, and Mr. John Munden returning, being discovered to Secretary Wal­singham, was Executed at Tyburn.

In St. Johns College seven Fellows were Expelled, besides several others Imprisoned at Wisbich, and many others not named.

Those that have a mind to see the Names of Great numbers of the rest Expelled from other Col­leges,Reg. G. G. fol. .26. Reg. I. fol. 198. & 199. & Reg. Coll. Magd. fol. 29. and suffering Death for returning into England may consult the Register.

I shall now give a short account of what Dr. Parker advised from Cambridge concerning the Vi­sitation there.

§. 4. Paper Office Ecclesiastica 1550. to 1559.

I find Two Letters from Dr. Mathew Parker, after­wards Arch-Bishop, to Sir William Cecyl then Secre­tary and Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, Dated 1^o. March, and Endorsed on the back Dr. Parker 1^o. Martii 1559.

Among other Expressions he hath these words, ‘The Colleges needed a Visitation that Queen Mary immediately upon her quyet gave out Authority to the Chancellor (Bishop Gardiner:) he forthwith sent his Chaplain (Watson) with Instruction to every College, and as then I could gather, to report to him in what State every College stood, and further peradventure upon cause, to have the Mast­ers and others assured de coram sistendo & Interim bene gerendo till further Order.’

By this and some other Letters I find, to and from Sir William Cecyl, who was the great Minister of State in Queen Elizabeths time, I observe that what was done in Oxford by the Visitors was likewise pur­sued in Cambridge, and that the Masters, Governors and Fellows had a very hard time in the Reigns of King Edward the Sixth, Queen Mary, and Queen Elizabeth. Conformableness to the Religion of the Prince, being the Touch-stone and the prime Capa­citating Qualification that secured Honors and Places in the Universities.

The other Letter is Dated March the 30th. and Ticketed 30 Martii 1559. Dr. Parker to Mr. Se­cretary. Which I shall Transcribe at length that the Reader may take notice of his way of Writing, and the Dialect of that Age.

§. 4 I have Transcribed this according to the spelling of this noted Prelate, Antiquitates Britannicae, &c. who hath shewn his Learning in Antiquities, and his Zeal for the protestant Reli­gion [Page 218]in his Books. Yet I doubt not but this Age will think his way of expressing himself in English not very Polite. I shall not Comment upon his Letter, which tho' in somethings obscure, yet is plain enough to be understood, as to what was his General intent and design.

This Visitation of Cambridge, in the first Year of Queen Elizabeth was by Commission under the Great Seal to Sir William Cecyl then Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, and to others, as Mr. Pryn in his Oxford Plea refuted, pag. 34. hath given a short account of.

☞ In the Queens Letters before the said Visitation to Sir William Cecyl are these expressions. ‘Because the chief Order and Government of Our Universi­ty of Cambridge appertaineth to you, being the Chancellor of the same, &c. We thought meet to will you in Our Name to give signification, that We mean very shortly, with your Advice, to Visit the same by some discreet and Meet persons.’

So that here we find whatever power the Chan­cellor hath, it is in subordination to the Sovereign, and tho' they may take the advice of their Subjects in places of Government under them, yet the power of Visiting still proceeds, and is derived from them, as all along I hope I have proved.

§. 5. An account of the Visitation of Merton Col­lege in Oxford.

Anno 1562. Wood Antiq. Oxon. lib. 1. fol. 284. b. 4^o. Eliz. There happened a Sedition in Merton College. In January Dr. James Ger­vace the Custos or Warden having voluntarily quit his place, the Fellows gave in the Names of five to the Arch-Bishop their Visitor, whereof two or three had never been of their Society, whereas Anciently according to their Statutes they had used to name only three bred in the College, whereof one was [Page 219]to be put into the place of him that was Dead or Resigned.

The Arch-Bishop resented this, and rejected all those named by the Fellows, and before the end of March Nominated John Man sometime Fellow of New College to be the Warden, who came to Ox­ford the 30th. of March accompanyed with Dr. Babington the Vice-Chancellor, Dr. White War­den of New College, but the Fellows refus­ed to Admit him, so that on the 2d. of April he came accompanyed with the Vice-Chancellor, and Henry Norris of Witham, and Anthony Foster of Cum­nor, and with much difficulty the Gate was opened, Mr. Willi. Hawle the Senior Fellow and others oppo­sing, upon this the Arch-Bishop, upon the 26th. of May following Cited them all to appear in their Church, to be Visited by himself or his Vicar General and by the said Vicar General of the Arch-Bishop, Man was Confirmed and Hawle was Ejected out of his Fellowship.

By this it appears what power the Local Visitor had to Nominate and settle the Head of the College at his pleasure even contrary to the Ancient Statutes of the Society,The observati­on upon it. how much more may we conceive, that the King hath power by his Mandate to Nomi­nate and appoint the Head of any College as Sove­reign and Supreme Visitor.

The Commission for Visitation continued still, and in it great changes were made till all were reduced to a Conformity to the Queens Laws and pleasures, several Statutes were revoked, others amended or explained, all which great changes were by vertue of the Queens Commission.

§. 6. Secretary Cecyls Letter about Non-conform­ists in Cam­bridge threat­ning a Visitati­on.

Before I proceed to any other Visitations I shall give a short account of the great States-man Sir William Cecyls proceeding, Wood Antiq. Oxon. lib. 1.286. upon a disorder in St. Johns College in Cambridge, wherein we may note by what Steps he being Chancellor thought fit to proceed by the subordinate Governors with a suf­ficient Menace, that, if that would not be effectual, he would obtain the Queens Authority for a Visi­tation.

☞ December the 13th. 1565.Bundel Ecclesi­astica 1560. ad 1569. In the Paper Office. Secretary Cecyl Writes to Dr. Stoke Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge concern­ing some of the Younger Fellows, that in St. Johns College Chappelleft off the use of the Surplice, That the Vice-Chancellor Confer with the President, and if they can do it by their Ordinary Authority then to proceed; if not, then he Writes a Letter to the Bishop of Ely Visitor in Ordinary to rectifie it, then follows.