Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	archbishop_n	bishop_n	church_n	1,847	5	3.9623	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A56225	The Vniversity of Oxfords plea refuted, or, A full answer to a late printed paper intituled, The priviledges of the University of Oxford in point of visitation together with the universities answer to the summons of the visitors ... / by William Prynne, Esq. ...	Prynne, William, 1600-1669.; Allestree, Richard, 1619-1681.; Fell, John, 1625-1686.; Langbaine, Gerard, 1609-1658.; Waring, Robert, 1614-1658.	1647 (1647)	Wing P4121; ESTC R5306	43,159	69

Parliament in the 13. yeer of Queen Elizabeth rot. 36. the title whereof is onely mentioned in the printed Acts therefore the Parliament being the true Founders of it have best right to visit it by the common Law by us their Commissioners as this Objection proves Sixtly this plea That the Vniversity is of the King's foundation only as the Objector grants is but the Vniversities own device who anciently did and yet do shelter themselves under the title of it against their lawfull Visitors and are very ill advised to fly to this false shelter now since three Kings and one Parliament have severall times driven them from it as the premises evidence Seventhly admit the antecedent true that the King and his Predecessors were sole Founders of the Vniversity yet the sequell is unfound Ergo they only are the Visitors of it and none others seeing I have proved that others have of right visited and had jurisdiction in and over it as a Vniversity from time to time besides our Kings and that of right by our Kings and Parliaments resolutions notwithstanding this pretext of being sole Founders Eightly the King and his progenitors by their Charters are as much Founders of every Corporation every Company of Merchants and other Tradesmen in London and other Cities as of the Vniversities will it therefore follow Ergo none must visit or regulate them but the King and the houses of Parliament the Committees for Trades Complaints Grievances Clothiers Weavers c. may not regulate nor reform them much lesse the Lord Major and Court of Aldermen as they have usually done Ninthly the Book of 6 H. 7 14. is no resolution but a private opinion It only speaks of the Kings free Chappels without cure which he or his Chancellours shall visit not the Bishop but by Commission not of Vniversities or Colledges the thing in question nor yet of Monasteries Churches and Chappels with cure of souls which the Archbishop and Bishop of the Diocesse shall visit though built founded and endowed by the King himself as this very law-Law-book 6 H. 7 14. grants whence most ancient Abbies founded by our Kings were exempted from archiepiscopal and Episcopal visitation and jurisdiction by special Charters confirmed in * Parliament and Popes Buls the King's meer foundation and Charters alone being no legall exemption from their power by the common or Canon Law As for the Statute of 2 H. 5 c. 1. it speaks only of Hospitals of the King's foundation that the Ordinaries shall visit them by his Commission not of Colledges or Vniversities without the words and intention of the act Tenthly this and other Law-books onely say that the Bishop shall not visit Hospitals and Free-Chappels of the King's foundation but no Book avers the Houses of Parliament may not visit them nor their Delegates and to argue the Bishop of the Diocesse may not visit the King's Free-Chappels or Hospitals Ergo the Parliament may not do it is no better Logick then The Ordinary cannot visit nor reform the greatest Officers of State the Cours of Justice at Westminster the Kings own Court nor any civil abuses and publike grievances Ergo the Houses of Parliament cannot do it Yea all our Books agree that the Bishop by Commission under the great Seal may lawfully visit the Kings Freechappels Foundations and the stat of 2. H. ● c. 1. enacts as much But we have such a Commission to visit the University therefore we may lawfully do it These answers I suppose have sufficiently shaken the sandy foundation of the Universities Exemption the Kings Foundation of it whereon they most rely Yea but the Objector learnedly replys p. 3. Here you may please to consider that the Foundation of the Vniversity being the Kings personal act his interest lies not within the reach of that Beaten evasion of a publike and politique Capacity I answer I understand not wel what he means by the Kings personal act Unless the act of the King in his natural Capacity as a Man not in his Politick as a King If so then it follows 1. That the King and his Progenitors as Kings in their publike and politick Capacities were not founders of the University but only in their natural as private men which subverts his own assertion and foundation 2. That this priviledg of a Founder is not annexed to the Kings publike and politick but natural and personal Capacity and so not descendible nor hereditary since personal actions acts and priviledges by the rules of the Law * die with the person If he mean by the Kings personal act that the King in person laid the very first Foundation stone of the University with his own hands or writ and sealed the Patent or Charter that first founded it himself and not by any Substitutes or Officers This wil b● hard for him to prove and the sequel wil be That the King only in his own Royal person must visit the Vniversity now but net by any Commissioners or Delegates and so all his other Foundations contrary to all former presidents Statutes and Law-books that he may visit them by Commissioners which the Un●versities Answer acknowledgeth and himself to● The next Ground of Exemption urged is pre-scription and Bulls of Popes both which being abandantly refuted in the premised positions and no plea at all against both Houses of Parliament or any power derived from them not mentioned nor included in nor yet confinable by these Bulls though they might hold good against any ordinary or inferior Jurisdiction if true I shall here therefore pretermi● without further Answer The 3d ground of Exemption alleaged it * grants of Exemption by Popes allowed and confirmed by Charters from several Kings both by themselves and in Parliaments to prove which there are quoted in the Margin some Popes Buls out of H●re the old book of Oxford Statutes and the Senior Proctors Book with this addition 25. H. 8. c. 21. All power of Visitation is given only to such as shall have immediate Authority by the Kings Commission under the great Seal of England in places formerly exempted as COLLEDGES c. All Letters Patents heretofore made by the Kings Progenitors in behalf of the Vniversities are confirm'd by act of Parliament 13. Eliz. 19. Eliz. part 13. in Dorso The Priviledges of the Vniversity are confirm'd in the very words of Boniface 8. acknowledged they had them by prescription the immediate subjection of the Vniversity to the Authority and Iurisdiction of the Prince and all their other Exemptions ratified and those acknowledged to be sworn to in the Oath taken by every Graduate These are all the evidences of moment produced to make good this ground I answer 1. That all these Popes Bulls of Exemption now insist●●●on were so farr from being allowed and confirmed by Charters from several Kings both by themselves and in Parliaments that King Richard the 2. and King Henry the 4. by both their Charters and in Parliament upon